New study shows no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination

The study, released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia, 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.

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, said Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the project.

“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.

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 said. “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 also assisted in developing the scope of work and methodology for the study.

Groat said researchers will supplement the study released Thursday with an examination of reports relating to atmospheric emissions and seismic activity attributed to hydraulic fracturing, which have emerged as significant issues of concern in recent months.

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.

 

Groat also provided an overview of two other Energy Institute initiatives related to the use of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas development.

The first project, which will commence in April, is a detailed case study focusing on claims of groundwater contamination in North Texas’ Barnett Shale. The research will entail an examination of various aspects of shale gas development, including site preparation, drilling, production, and handling and disposal of flow-back water. Researchers also will identify and document activities unrelated to shale gas development that have resulted in water contamination. It will also assess the quantity of fresh groundwater used in shale gas development and evaluate ways to reduce the amount.

A second project, currently under development, would include a field and laboratory investigation of whether hydrological connectivity exists between water in the units above and below the shale unit being fractured as a result of the fracturing process. As envisioned, the project calls for university researchers to conduct field sampling of hydraulic fracturing fluid, flow-back water, produced water, and water from aquifers and other geologic units within the Barnett Shale.

EurekAlert

About these ads

2 responses to “New study shows no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing

  1. 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

  2. Dr. Scobie, you raise some very good points, and on other other sites went so far as to raise questions about whether the study was inherently biased based on the funding provided from the energy sector. In the same vein, I’d like to ask whether you have any affiliations that you have not disclosed above. If you are affiliated with other groups, why did you not disclose this in this letter?

    Finally, I live in Houston and see that you posted here, and on several other sites – essentially the same letter. I’m curious as to your motivation for spam bombing the internet with this letter, and whether your activity in this regard has anything to do with your involvement with any other organization. Finally, I note that you list your PhD, the subtle implication being that you are rendering a qualified opinion regarding the “science” of this study. In the spirit of disclosure, I would think that it would be more intellectually rigorous to follow the “PhD” with the discipline in which you earned the doctorate. The fact that you earned a doctorate is laudable, but to display the credential when opining on academic research is in my opinion probably a little shady if you don’t note that your degree is not in the field being discussed. Obviously, If I put “MBA” after my name, the reader can better understand I am opining as an individual with a Masters degree in Business, or if I say MS, IT then the reader would know I’m offering my critique as an IT guy. Should I simply but M.S., then I am being vague and perhaps leaving the impression that I could be rendering judgement as an engineer, physicist or geologist. It’s not to say that I should have no opinion as a Political Scientist, a Master of Business, or a Master of Science in Information technology, but if I were an academic, I certainly would not want to leave anybody with the wrong impression.

    Regards,

    Mark French

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s