Earth & Environment - Posted by Gary Rasp-Texas on Monday, February 20, 2012 13:01 - 5 Comments 
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(1 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5) Loading ...Report: No proof of fracking groundwater pollution
Above, an anti-frack rally on June 25, 20111, at the New York City office of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals into a shale bed, which causes the rock to shatter, releasing natural gas. The practice has been in use for decades but has come under scrutiny in recent years from environmentalists and others who fear it poses a threat to public health. (Credit: Owen Crowley / Flickr)
U. TEXAS-AUSTIN (US) — Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, scientists report.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
The findings are based on evidence reviewed in a study by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas at Austin. The study found that many problems ascribed to hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.
The study was released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia
Straight from the Source
University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing per se, says Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the project.
“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he says.
The research team examined evidence contained in reports of groundwater contamination attributed to hydraulic fracturing in three prominent shale plays—the Barnett Shale in North Texas; the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and portions of Appalachia; and the Haynesville Shale in western Louisiana and northeast Texas.
The report identifies regulations related to shale gas development and evaluates individual states’ capacity to enforce existing regulations. In addition, university researchers analyzed public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing, as derived from popular media, scientific literature and online surveys.
“Our goal was to provide policymakers a foundation for developing sensible regulations that ensure responsible shale gas development,” Groat says. “What we’ve tried to do is separate fact from fiction.”
Faculty members from across the University of Texas at Austin campus participated in the research, which the Energy Institute funded. The Environmental Defense Fund assisted in developing the scope of work and methodology for the study.
Groat says researchers will supplement the study with an examination of reports relating to atmospheric emissions and seismic activity attributed to hydraulic fracturing, which have emerged as significant issues of concern.
Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of water, sand, and chemicals into a shale bed, which causes the rock to shatter, releasing natural gas. The practice has been in use for decades but has come under scrutiny in recent years from environmentalists and others who fear it poses a threat to public health.
Other findings from the Energy Institute study include:
- Natural gas found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can be traced to natural sources and probably was present before the onset of shale gas operations.
- Although some states have been proactive in overseeing shale gas development, most regulations were written before the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing.
- Media coverage of hydraulic fracturing is decidedly negative, and few news reports mention scientific research related to the practice.
- Overall, surface spills of fracturing fluids pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from hydraulic fracturing itself.
- The lack of baseline studies in areas of shale gas development makes it difficult to evaluate the long-term, cumulative effects and risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.
More news from the University of Texas at Austin: www.utexas.edu/news/
Please wait
5 Comments
Kathi
From the May 11, 2011 issue of Futurity: Methane 17x higher in wells near fracking, posted by Tim Lucas of Duke University, regarding their studies in Pennsylvania and New York.
Stan Scobie
Folks:
I have a few observations:
1. In the first 55 pages there is not one formal reference, despite a lot of factual and conceptual assertions. The reader is told that the details will be found further on – with no useful guidance as to just where.
2. The 414 pg copy I downloaded yesterday from the U.T. site is a draft, yet the general media buzz and the presentation on the U.T. website is that it is a “report” implying carefully honed and finished and complete.
3. The detailed section that I read very carefully, “Section 4 Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Development” is labeled clearly “draft.”
In a part I was particularly interested in about substance migration related to drilling and fracking, only two of the seven references I marked for follow up were listed in the reference section.
In an interesting instance the Boyer et al (2011) study of substance migration, published in Center for Rural Pennsylvania and subsequently withdrawn by the authors for further review, is cited without qualification as a fully fledged piece of science.
There are very many other errors, citations incompletely described, obsolete and/or incomplete sets or related and appropriate references, etc.
Overall, I was extremely disappointed in the quality of the work as a useful piece of “science” despite the tantalizng title: “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection….”
It is just not ready for prime time.
Stanley R Scobie, Ph.D., Binghamton, NY
Roger Austin
I like Futurity. I like that the site will address controversial topics. Surfed the site to see what their process was regarding what they post and could not find it. Is it there and I missed it?
Robin
Texas is the home of the oil and gas industry. I am skeptical of such a report. Too much money depends on the success of investors winning the debate over those asking simple questions that are never answered.
New York City and over 8 million residents depend on a massive investment over many years to provide potable water from outside the city boundaries at remarkably low cost. However enforcement of existing regulations in NY State is weak and no money has been allocated to strengthen enforcement. Meanwhile companies such as Chesapeake Energy, not to mention Shell and ExxonMobil, are spending millions on tv ads to promote jobs and energy independence, sweet music indeed that totally ignores the dark side of fracking.
This is not the same as a football match. The outcome is about the health of citizens versus the greed of an industry that has shown little regard for their impact on local communities. Another sad and ugly commentary on our society. Yet we have the knowledge and the technology to drill in a responsible manner.
Leave a Comment
Follow Futurity
Media Partners
I read the report over the weekend – largely a bunch of industry friendly white papers.
What the authors failed to address is the fundamental problem with gas wells – leakage.
Regardless of how they are fracked, they leak – sooner or later, all of them.
The industry knows this and even sells services to try to fix what is an intractable problem
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65577477/How-Gas-Wells-Leak