Offshore wind farms gaining traction in NA and Europe

by Jeff Siegel, Energy & Capital

Those on the right are blasting it as a treehugging boondoggle. Those on the left are praising it as an opportunity to diversify the state's energy portfolio. And those looking to profit yet again from the transition of our global energy economy are sniffing out the money trails.

The latter is where we'll focus our energy today.


Waiting on the Free State

Earlier this year, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley reintroduced offshore wind legislation that would've ultimately led to the construction of more than 80 turbines off the coast of Ocean City.

A couple of weeks ago, it passed the House. But stiff opposition kept it from coming to a vote before the Senate Finance committee.

Those who opposed the bill were unhappy with the proposal that called for ratepayers to pony up an additional $1.50 a month to help pay for the wind farm. That fee would've been tacked on once the farm went online – which would've been around 2017.

However, most surveys have found that more than half of Maryland ratepayers actually support the plan – even with the $1.50 monthly fee. The most recent survey showed 62% of those polled back the legislation. And I suspect that despite some angry message board posts and a handful of fear-based political ads, support for offshore wind in Maryland will not go gently into that good night.

Although this will take time, I have little doubt that within the next few years, an offshore wind bill will finally get approved. And when that happens, I definitely look forward to finding out which turbine and transmission companies will land the big deals.

My money's on ABB (NYSE: ABB), Siemens (NYSE: SI) and Gamesa (PINK SHEETS: GCTAF), which last year launched the Offshore Wind Technology Center in Chesapeake, VA with Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC). Northrop's looking for a piece of the offshore wind business as it could offer a big boost for the company's ship building arm.

Of course, Maryland's eventual expansion into the offshore wind space will still only represent a very small portion of the overall offshore wind market.

But about 3,600 miles to the east, it's a completely different story.

European Windstorm

According to Pike Research, offshore wind growth is expected to soar over the next five years. In fact, the firm has suggested offshore wind power production will reach $104 billion in revenues by 2017. This is a 53% annual growth rate based on 2011 revenue numbers.

Much of this growth – about 75% – will come from Europe.


In the UK, offshore wind energy development is strong. A recent government report actually shows that offshore wind could account for as much as 50% of the total electricity in the United Kingdom by 2050.

Denmark currently has about 4,000 megawatts of wind power capacity installed (which covers about 20% of the nation's electricity needs), and a few weeks ago approved an additional 1,000 megawatts of offshore wind that's expected to be online by 2020.

Germany actually has plans to have 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind sending juice to its grid by 2020, and 25,000 megawatts by 2030. This is massive, and to put that in perspective, Maryland's looking to add – at most – 500 megawatts.

Now if you're a regular reader of these pages, you know that Germany's in the process of transitioning to a nuclear-free energy mix, of which 80% would come from renewable sources by 2050. This is truly an aggressive goal that, if met, could singlehandedly alter the face of renewable energy investment in the future.

Certainly Germany accomplished this once already by turning the once-niche-based solar industry into a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse.

I wouldn't bet against Germany falling short on its goals.

France also recently dipped its toes into these waters.

Last week, government officials in France finally decided which companies would be selected to build 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind. State-owned EDF, in partnership with Alstom (PINK SHEETS: AOMFF) won most of the deals with Iberdrola (PINK SHEETS: IBDRY) of Spain picking up a fourth deal.

Interestingly, this news came about a month after the Court of Auditors in France published a report that revealed the cost of producing nuclear energy is set to surge as old plants need updating and new safety standards will be put in place. The court suggested that nuclear will require significant investment in the short- and medium-term at a rate of at least double the current level of investment.

Canada's dysfunctional electricity system costs Canadians dearly

Provincial isolationism creates pollution and drives up costs

by Barrie McKenna, The Globe and Mail

The oil sands’ big carbon footprint is a source of much national angst.

It stirs East-West rivalries, riles environmentalists and sours relations with some trading partners.

A lot less attention is paid to Canada’s hopelessly inefficient and highly politicized electricity business. That’s unfortunate, and costly.

The fragmented market wastes billions of dollars every year and produces millions of tonnes of extra greenhouse-gas emissions, according to Pierre-Olivier Pineau, associate professor at the University of Montreal’s HEC business school and author of a new study, Integrating Electricity Sectors in Canada: Good for the Environment and for the Economy.

“We could save money and reduce our carbon emissions,” Prof. Pineau said in an interview. “But politically, it’s difficult.”

No kidding. Provincial monopolies, powerful entrenched bureaucracies and regional jealousies have created a balkanized energy system that serves the few at the expense of the national interest.

Consider Quebec and Ontario. Three-quarters of Quebeckers heat their homes with electricity, generated from a vast network of hydroelectric dams.

Meanwhile, Ontario is ramping up production of electricity made from natural gas and subsidizing purchases of wind and solar power as it scrambles to shut down dirty coal-fired capacity.

Here’s the catch: Hydroelectricity is a wonderful and clean source of energy, but not a very efficient heat source. Natural gas, on the other hand, is a great source of heat, but an inefficient way to make electricity.

In essence, Quebec is force-feeding wasteful hydro consumption with low electricity rates, and Ontario is paying too much and polluting more because it can’t buy enough cheap and clean hydro, Prof. Pineau argues.

In a more rational economic world, Quebec would use inexpensive and abundant natural gas to heat homes. And Ontario would buy more hydro power from neighbouring Quebec or Manitoba to power its factories.

“[Hydroelectricity] … should be shared, as with other energy sources and other consumer goods, according to economic criteria,” Prof. Pineau says in his study, published by Federal Idea, a Montreal-based think tank. “In other words, discrimination based on their province of residence must stop, to allow production companies to sell to the highest bidder.”

Hydro-Québec isn’t alone. The other hydro-rich provinces – British Columbia and Manitoba – operate in a similar fashion, selling cheaply to local consumers, rather than offering that power to other provinces.

The misallocation of gas and hydro resources isn’t the only costly anomaly in Canada’s electricity landscape. Quebec and Ontario overspend to produce wind power, creating an underused backup to other sources of supply. If Canadian utilities were serious about wind power, they would instead join forces to build vast wind farms where it makes the most economic and climatic sense – the Saskatchewan prairies.

Then there’s Newfoundland. Still stinging from the perceived bad deal it made decades ago to sell all the power from Labrador’s Churchill Falls project to Hydro-Québec, the province now wants to tap the Lower Churchill River’s hydro potential. The best way to get the power out, of course, is through Quebec.

But Hydro-Québec is apparently demanding too steep a transmission price. So Newfoundland is planning to reroute the power via a costly and circuitous subsea cable back to the island, across to Nova Scotia, and eventually to markets in New England. Only a federal subsidy makes the $6.2-billion megaproject feasible.

Newfoundlanders could wind up paying dearly for power they don’t really need.

Last year, heavily indebted New Brunswick came close to selling Crown-owned New Brunswick Power Corp. to Hydro-Québec. But the deal fell apart, at least partly because of bruised provincial pride. While deeply unpopular with ordinary New Brunswickers, the takeover was economically and environmentally sound. Quebec would get a new market for its cheap hydro, allowing New Brunswick to curb its use of oil and coal for generating electricity.

Instead of cheaper rates, New Brunswickers will pay more and pollute more.

And so it goes. Provincial electrical utilities operate in a strange netherworld. They compete in a free market of deregulated oil-and-gas markets, and cross-border electricity markets. But at home, they’re slaves to provincial mandates and political pressures.

There’s plenty of opportunity for the provinces to co-operate. Too often they don’t, and Canadians are paying a steep financial and environmental price as a result.

It’s no way to make sensible national energy policy. Maybe environmentalists should get a little more exercised about inefficiencies in electricity markets, and lay off the oil sands.

Ontario green energy producers facing reviews, price cuts for new projects

By John Spears, Toronto Star

Solar power producers are bracing for price cuts of up to 25 per cent as Ontario reviews its renewable energy policies, according to industry insiders.

Energy Minister Chris Bentley says the review will formally be released next week.

“We’re all expecting to take a haircut,” said one solar developer – although the new prices will apply only to developments going forward, not contracts already signed.

At the same time, Premier Dalton McGuinty has already signaled to rural municipalities that he’ll give them some say in where controversial wind farms place their turbines.

The Liberals were devastated in rural ridings where wind was an issue – in part because the Green Energy Act tied the hands of local councils in dealing with wind developers.

“Legally, they have to come to the table. But they don’t need to listen,” said Mayor Bill Hill of Melancthon Township, which is dealing with several wind developments. “That isn’t fair.”

The impact of renewable power on Ontario’s power system is often exaggerated: Renewable sources other than water provided only 3.4 per cent of Ontario’s power last year; that’s expected to grow to 13 per cent by 2030.

But the prices paid for renewable power have become a political lightning rod for the Liberals.

The government had promised to review prices under its feed-in tariff (FIT) program for renewable energy when it was introduced in 2009.

Solar prices – which vary considerably depending on the size of the array, and whether they’re mounted on rooftops or at ground level – will take the biggest hit.

For example:

• Large solar arrays planted on the ground currently get paid 44.3 cents a kilowatt hour. Industry observers expect to see that drop as low as 33 cents, though it could be a few cents higher.

• Small rooftop arrays on commercial buildings now get 71.3 cents a kilowatt hour. Look for the low 60s, or even high 50s.

• Householders with very small solar arrays now get 80.2 cents a kwh. Expect to see that drop to the mid-60s.

Bentley refused in an interview to comment on pricing. But he said whatever new prices announced next week will apply to contracts going forward, not to those already signed, which typically have a 20-year term.

It’s no secret that solar costs have been dropping. A U.S. market survey found that the price of solar panels has dropped 40 per cent in the past year. Racks supporting the panels have also become cheaper and easier to assemble, lowering labour costs.

Renewable energy lobby groups themselves have accepted that lower prices are on the way.

The Canadian Solar Industries Association submitted a brief to the review calling for prices ranging as low as 35 cents a kilowatt hour for large, ground-mounted development.

Bentley said in an interview that the prices aren’t just about energy developers and consumers.

The Green Energy Act was also conceived to stimulate a new industry in Ontario, he said.

“It is an energy and jobs policy,” he said. That was a deliberate decision from the beginning. Sometimes that’s missed.”

To qualify for the premium prices, developers must source up to 60 per cent of their inputs from Ontario suppliers.

“We have an industry today where we didn’t have one two years ago – an industry not only of manufacturing but of planning, designing, locating these project,” Bentley says.

And the intent is to build an industry supplying renewable power developments not just in Ontario, but in export markets, Bentley said.

The debate over wind is less about price and more about rules. Wind farms currently get 13.1 cents a kilowatt hour for their power.

But local councils have no say in zoning or the location of wind farms.

Mayor Bill Hill in Melancthon – whose township has two large wind farms and is now contemplating a proposal for another – would like to have a role.

“I don’t think we want total control,” says Hill. “We want to be heard.”

“We’ve sat in living rooms of people’s houses, and they’ve said: When I’m sitting in my easy chair and I look out my front window, I’ll see that turbine, if you put it where you say you’re going to. But if you moved it over 50 feet, I can’t see that and it doesn’t bother me.”

Not all opposition would be that easily satisfied. But current rules provide no leverage pushing developers to make accommodations , Hall said.

The devil may well be in the bureaucratic details.

Wind developers first get a contract from the Ontario Power Authority, then move through an environmental permitting process.

Groups opposed to wind power worry that even if rules are changed, they won’t affect projects already in the approval pipeline.

New 69 megawatt windfarm under construction in Hawaii

Wind farm in Hawaii breaks ground

february 26, 2012, evwind.es

First Wind began construction on the 69 MW Kawailoa Wind energy project in Hawaii, expected to be one of the biggest wind power projects in Hawaii with 30 Siemens wind turbines.

The wind farm will use 30, 2.3 MW Siemens wind turbines. The Hawaiian Electric Co. signed a power purchase agreement for the output from the plant in December 2011.

First Wind owns and operates two other wind power projects in Hawaii, including the 30 MW Kahuku Wind energy project on Oahu that went online in March 2011, and is currently building two wind power projects on Maui.

-First Wind, an independent U.S.-based wind energy company, today celebrated the start of construction of its 69-megawatt (MW) Kawailoa Wind project on Kamehameha Schools’ Kawailoa Plantation lands on Oahu’s North Shore. Once complete, Kawailoa Wind will be the largest wind energy facility in Hawaii. The site’s thirty 2.3 MW Siemens wind turbines will have the capacity to generate enough clean, renewable wind energy to power the equivalent of approximately 14,500 homes on the island, or as much as five percent of Oahu’s annual electrical demand.

“This groundbreaking for Kawailoa Wind is an historic occasion for Hawaii because, as the largest wind project ever in the state, it will harness enough clean, sustainable energy to provide power for thousands of families on Oahu”

During a groundbreaking ceremony on the project site, First Wind officials were joined by U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka, Hawaii’s Lieutenant Governor Brian Schatz, State Senator Mike Gabbard and Honolulu Mayor Peter Carlisle, along with several other state and local leaders, who shared comments on the project’s significance.

“This groundbreaking for Kawailoa Wind is an historic occasion for Hawaii because, as the largest wind project ever in the state, it will harness enough clean, sustainable energy to provide power for thousands of families on Oahu,” said Senator Akaka. “Renewable electricity production makes our islands more energy self-sufficient, environmentally sustainable, and secure, which is critically important now and for future generations.”

Lt. Gov. Schatz added, “This is the largest wind farm in Hawai'i’s history, and it shows the progress we are making toward our clean energy goals. This is a great day for Hawai'i. We've moved from talking about renewable energy to actually doing it.”

“Clean energy projects are a priority for the City and County of Honolulu because they are a priority for our future,” said Mayor Carlisle. “When completed, the Kawailoa Wind project will be able to produce clean, renewable energy to power more than 14,500 Oahu homes. Projects like this will benefit and position our city for the future.”

In December 2011, the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission approved a power purchase agreement between First Wind and the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO), which serves more than 400,000 Hawaii customers. Hawaii state law mandates 70 percent clean energy for electricity and surface transportation by 2030, with 40 percent coming from local renewable sources. Kawailoa Wind will significantly advance the state’s progress toward these goals.

“This project will be an important part of Hawaii’s diverse portfolio of renewable energy resources. As the largest wind farm in Hawaii, Kawailoa represents a significant step toward reducing the impact of imported oil on our customers,” said Dick Rosenblum, Hawaiian Electric Company president and CEO.

Working in concert with the Kamehameha Schools (KS) as part of their North Shore Plan, Kawailoa Wind reflects a genuine collaboration with the community. First Wind has been in discussions about the project with North Shore residents and community organizations for the past two years, while KS began community consultation in 2006, starting with area kûpuna (Hawaiian elders) to guide the process. First Wind also worked with federal, state, and county agencies to obtain the necessary permits.

“The Kawailoa Wind project is an integral part of our North Shore Plan and represents the continued commitment of Kamehameha Schools, through the support of the North Shore community, to positioning Kawailoa Plantation as an important provider of sustainable food and energy for the State of Hawaii,” said Giorgio Caldarone, Regional Asset Manager and Renewable Energy Sector Lead, Kamehameha Schools. “This project will not only help the State meet its renewable energy goals, but it will also help preserve and support continued agricultural production for future generations. Kamehameha Schools is committed to sustainability and to investing in projects today that will create positive outcomes for future generations. Mahalo to the North Shore community and to everyone else who helped to make this vision a reality.”

First Wind’s CEO, Paul Gaynor, also spoke at the event.

“We are pleased to begin construction on our fourth project in Hawaii, and the largest wind energy facility in the state. When it comes to renewable energy, Hawaii has proven to be a national leader, innovator and an excellent partner,” said Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind. “Powering up to 14,500 Oahu homes with one project allows us to continue our leadership in the state’s ambitious clean energy plans. Our continued success is also a testament to all of our partners and supporters, including the North Shore residents, our PPA partners at HECO and our contractors such as RMT.”

As with other projects on Maui and Oahu, First Wind developed a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Kawailoa Wind, working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Division of Forestry and Wildlife of the Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources. The HCP is a wildlife conservation effort that includes research funding and actions to protect and minimize incidental harm to federally listed species in the vicinity of the wind energy project.

First Wind owns and operates two other wind energy projects in Hawaii, and is currently building another project on Maui. Kahuku Wind, also located on Oahu’s North Shore, is a 30 MW wind project that has the capacity to generate enough energy to the power the equivalent of 7,700 Oahu homes. The Kahuku project went online in March of 2011. Beginning commercial operations in 2006, the 30 MW Kaheawa Wind project is above Ma‘alaea. First Wind is currently building a second Maui project, Kaheawa Wind Power II that will consist of 14 wind turbines, capable of generating 21 MW of energy. Once Kaheawa Wind II is complete, the two Kaheawa projects will have a capacity of 51 MW.

Beyond the affordable clean energy they produce, First Wind’s projects in Hawaii have been significant economic drivers. RMT Inc., which also handled construction for First Wind’s Kahuku Wind project on Oahu and is currently building Kaheawa Wind II on Maui, will lead construction efforts for Kawailoa Wind. Collectively, ongoing work at Kaheawa Wind II and the work done at Kahuku Wind have driven nearly 200,000 on-site labor hours during construction, and more than 50 Hawaii businesses have been included in the development and construction supply chains for the two projects.


www.firstwind.com


Ten Commandments of Native Peoples

Trump is such an A-hole; vacuous hyperbole over offshore wind farm

Donald Trump blasts plans for Scottish wind farm

By BEN McCONVILLE, Associated Press – 10FEB12

EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) — The feel-good era between New York property tycoon Donald Trump and Scotland's political leaders seems to have come to a dramatic end.

Trump has launched a blistering attack on Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond over plans to build a "horrendous" wind farm off the coast of his luxury Scottish golf resort. In an open letter, Trump accuses Salmond of being "hell bent on destroying Scotland's coast line and therefore Scotland itself."

The bitter words are a far cry from the love-in the two men enjoyed four years ago when Salmond backed Trump's 750 million pound (US$1.2 billion) golf development 12 miles (16km) north of Aberdeen despite protests from environmentalists and locals about damage to rare sand dunes.

Back then, Trump invited Salmond to join him and actor Sean Connery to be the first to tee off on what the businessman described as "the world's greatest golf course." Trump also heaped praise on Salmond's government after it overruled local lawmakers who rejected the planned golf resort.

The Scottish leader backed the golf course by claiming it would create hundreds of tourism jobs around the Aberdeenshire area.

Locals and environmentalists campaigned in vain to save the sand dunes which were home to numerous species of wading birds and wildlife, but the dunes were bulldozed to make way for the fairways in 2009 and 2010. The course is due to open in July.

Salmond's support for the wind farm is consistent with the Scottish government's plan to position itself as a leader in the provision and technology of renewable energy. The wind farm's turbines will be visible from the beach and the golf course.

Salmond has refused to comment on Trump's letter, but Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, which represents the wind farm industry, reacted with anger to the intervention.

"Who is Donald Trump to tell Scotland what is good for our economy or environment?" Stuart said in a statement. "He completely over-blows the impact of the proposed wind farm and to be honest there are so many mistakes in this 'trumped up' nonsense that it's difficult to know where to begin."

Trump tells Salmond in the ill-tempered letter: "With the reckless installation of these monsters, you will single-handedly have done more damage to Scotland than any event in Scottish history!"

He adds: "I will never be 'on board,' as you have stated I would be, with this insanity."

The tycoon warns Salmond that he will be using his wealth to fight his government's renewables policy.

"I have just authorized my staff to allocate a substantial amount of money to launch an international campaign to fight your plan to surround Scotland's coast with many thousands of wind turbines — it will be like looking through the bars of a prison and Scottish citizens will be like prisoners!"

He ridicules the Scottish National Party's renewable energy policies, claiming the economic benefit is going to China and other countries, not Scotland.

"Jobs will not be created in Scotland because these ugly monstrosities known as turbines are manufactured in other countries such as China. These countries, who so benefit from your billions of pounds of payments, are laughing at you!" Trump said.

Trump concludes the attack by referring to his mother, who was raised in Scotland.

He adds: "I'm doing this to save Scotland and honor my mother..."

Windpower news from TreeHugger.com

367 MW Offshore Wind Farm Opens in UK


Let's start with the good news today (the for-now-largest offshore wind power project is online) and move on to the more troubling (another study casts serious doubt on the benefits of natural gas as a bridge fuel as more renewable energy gets built). Here we go.

367 MW Offshore Wind Farm Is Britain's & (For Now) World's Largest

The Walney offshore wind farm, 14km off the coast of Walney Island in northwest England, has opened. At 367 MW for the moment it is the largest offshore wind power project in the world (there are larger projects in various stages of development), supplying enough electricity to power 320,000 households. More on the financial details of the project and criticism of the costs of offshore wind power in general at Reuters.


100 MW Solar PV Project Planned for Germany

Most of the time when you see a solar power project of this size it's not solar photovoltaics. PV Magazine reports that Parabel AG has announced that it has begun preliminary work on a 100 MW solar PV project in the Brandenburg region of Germany. Expected to be completed in 2013, the project will occupy parts of a former military training facility, and will be made up of "several spatially separate solar construction sites within an approximately 430 hectare planning area." In other words several smaller projects are being linked together under one heading.

Best to Build New Wind Farms Farther From Neighbors

Renewable Energy World has an interesting piece on wind power historian Robert Righter, who urges new wind power development to be built farther away from human development. REW sums up Righter's views:

As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter may surprise some with his strong call for more sensitivity to quality of life concerns of rural residents. He spends three chapters [of his new book] addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast. Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today's turbines are mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations.
After The Natural Gas Rush, What?

A very good counterpoint from The Oil Drum to all the natural gas ra-ra-ra messaging coming out of the Obama administration, not to mention the natural gas industry and high profile business publications betting on natural gas for now, the future and forever. A bit of it:

For several years, we have been asked to believe that less is more, that more oil and gas can be produced from shale than was produced from better reservoirs over the past century. We have been told more recently that the U.S. has enough natural gas to last for 100 years. We have been presented with an improbable business model that has no barriers to entry except access to capital, that provides a source of cheap and abundant gas, and that somehow also allows for great profit. Despite three decades of experience with tight sandstone and coal-bed methane production that yielded low-margin returns and less supply than originally advertised, we are expected to believe that poorer-quality shale reservoirs will somehow provide superior returns and make the U.S. energy independent. Shale gas advocates point to the large volumes of produced gas and the participation of major oil companies in the plays as indications of success. But advocates rarely address details about profitability and they never mention failed wells. Shale gas plays are an important and permanent part of our energy future. We need the gas because there are fewer remaining plays in the U.S. that have the potential to meet demand. A careful review of the facts, however, casts doubt on the extent to which shale plays can meet supply expectations except at much higher prices.


High Methane Emission Over Gas Field May Offset Natural Gas' Climate Benefits

Another study casts serious doubt on benefits of natural in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Think Progress is highlight the fact that an air sampling done by NOAA over Colorado shows that methane leakage from natural gas field near Denver are double industry industry claims (4% measure versus 2% claim).

Joe Romm then connects the dots with a 2011 study on the efficacy of using natural gas to lower greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production. The study was done by National Center for Atmospheric Research and concludes:

Unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change.

Fracking reduces investment in renewable energy - MIT report

Toxic, biocidal, carcinogenic chemicals injected into Earth's crust

The study finds that shale use suppresses the development of renewables. Under one scenario, for example, the researchers impose a renewable-fuel mandate. They find that, with shale, renewable use never goes beyond the 25 percent minimum standard they set — but when shale is removed from the market, renewables gain more ground.

In light of the recent MIT report stating that fracking slows development of renewable energy technologies, I have decided to post a list of the most common chemicals injected into the ground during hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process, and a second list including the most carcinogenic of these chemicals.

Chemical additives used in fracturing fluids typically make up less than 2% by weight of the total fluid. Over the life of a typical well, this may amount to 100,000 gallons of chemical additives. They are biocides, surfactants, adjusting viscosity, and emulsifiers.

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) 8


Table 2 - Longer List of the most dangerous chemicals (incl MANY carcinogens) used in fracking process:

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
Toluene
Ehylbenzen­­e
Benzene
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