E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Men with Cabot Oil and Gas work on a natural gas valve at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Penn. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, stimulates gas production by injecting wells with high volumes of chemical-laced water in order to free up pockets of natural gas below.
A university study asserts that the problems caused by the gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," arise because drilling operations aren't doing it right. The process itself isn't to blame, according to the study, released today by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
The report is likely to add new fuel to a blazing controversy over fracking. Researchers reviewed the evidence contained in the reports of groundwater contamination from three prominent shale-rock formations where the process is employed: the Barnett Shale in North Texas, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and other areas of Appalachia; and the Haynesville Shale in western Louisiana and northeast Texas.
The groundwater contamination is graphically portrayed in the documentary "Gasland," which showed residents near shale-gas operations setting their drinking water on fire as it came out of the tap. Worries about such contamination have sparked political resistance to fracking, leading some states and countries to hold up new drilling operations.
At the same time, shale gas is seen as an increasingly important domestic energy source. About a quarter of U.S.-produced natural gas currently comes from shale, and that proportion is projected to rise to nearly half by 2035. Last month, President Barack Obama suggested that the natural gas industry could support 600,000 jobs in America by the end of the decade, in large part due to the rise of hydraulic fracturing. In its latest budget request, the White House proposed new studies by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that fracking is done safely.
Mike Groll / AP
People take part in a rally against hydraulic fracturing at the Legislative Office Building in Albany, N.Y., on Jan. 23. New York state legislators are considering a number of bills to limit fracking.
"It's a game-changer in terms of the energy balance," study leader Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute, told journalists today. He and other scientists discussed the report in Vancouver, Canada, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Where does fracking go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing involves drilling deep into shale beds, then injecting water, sand and chemicals under high pressure to shatter layers of rock — liberating trapped pockets of natural gas. The gas is captured for energy use, but the water and other byproducts have to be cleaned up. The procedure has been used since the 1950s, but it's become far more widely applied in recent years due to advances in horizontal-drilling technologies.
The researchers concluded that many of the reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of the wastewater, Groat said. Other causes of the contamination include underground casing failures or poor cement jobs. "These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing," Groat said in a news release.
In the reports reviewed by the researchers, "we found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself ... was a cause for concern," he told journalists at the AAAS meeting. He acknowledged, however, that shale gas development "can be bungled" due to problems with drilling and extraction techniques used closer to the surface.
Such problems are most likely behind the water-on-fire phenomena documented in "Gasland." But it's difficult to identify precisely what the problem was or what the long-term effect will be without before-and-after data, Groat said.
"We really feel hobbled in a lot of these [cases] by the lack of baseline information," he observed.
Spencer Platt / Getty Images
Ray Kemble delivers fresh water on Jan. 18 to family members whose water was contaminated due to a shale-gas drilling operation hydraulic fracturing in Dimock, Pa.
Today's release of the final report follows up on a preliminary version that was issued last fall. In addition to discussing the causes of contamination, the report evaluated the ability of states to enforce existing regulations, and analyzed the public perceptions surrounding fracking.
Among the other findings:
- Natural gas found in water wells within some shale gas areas, such as the Marcellus Shale, can be traced to natural sources. The report said the gas was probably present before the onset of shale gas operations.
- Some states have actively addressed the regulatory issues surrounding shale gas, but most regulations were written before the process became widespread. In those cases, regulations may need to updated to reflect new situations. However, "there isn't the need for new regulatory frameworks," Groat said.
- News coverage of the controversy has been "decidedly negative," and few media reports mention the scientific research related to the process.
- Surface spills of the fluids used in the fracking process were judged to pose a greater risk to groundwater sources than the fracking itself.
The Energy Institute said its report was conducted using general university funds, but received assistance from the Environmental Defense Fund in developing the scope of work and the methodology for the study. The EDF said it reviewed drafts of the report during the course of the project but did not contribute to its conclusions.
Not the final word
Scott Anderson, senior policy adviser for the Environmental Defense Fund's energy program, discussed the report in a blog posting published after the report's release. "If the problem isn't hydraulic fracturing, then what is?" the headline asks. Here's some of what Anderson said:
"As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate."
Anderson said the report deserved widespread attention, but was "by no means the final word on these topics."
Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged.
He said further studies will be conducted into the atmospheric and seismic impact of hydraulic fracturing — two much-debated environmental issues that were not addressed in detail in the newly issued report. The Energy Institute also plans to conduct a detailed case study on groundwater contamination in Texas' Barnett Shale, as well as a field investigation into the effects of shale gas drilling on the water above and below fracturing sites in the Barnett Shale.
"Certainly more work needs to be done," Groat said.
Update for 11:15 p.m. ET Feb. 16: One of my correspondents on Twitter, Pamela Oldham, notes that ConocoPhillips committed itself in 2010 to contribute $1.5 million to the University of Texas at Austin for energy research. The petroleum company said at the time that the Energy Institute would administer the grants, with the money going to UT-Austin's Cockrell School of Engineering and the McCombs School of Business. I'll check on how that squares with the institute's claim that the study was funded from general university accounts.
Oldham also notes that ConocoPhillips was recently named in a civil lawsuit alleging fracking-related water contamination in Texas' Panola County.
Update for 10:20 a.m. ET Feb. 17: Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute and the leader of the study released this week, responded to my inquiry about the ConocoPhillips grant last night with this email:
"Three or four of the large energy companies give money to UT for student support (a recruitment investment) and for research that is spread among various departments. ConocoPhillips has done this, and part of the funding they provided was to the Energy Institute to support the Barnett Shale Case Study which will be a follow-on to the study we reported on today. None of the ConocoPhillips money went into this study [the one released this week]. For the [follow-up] case study, we will use Energy Institute money plus funds from energy companies and governments in the Barnett Shale development area. This is a matter of financial necessity, but we want to spread the funding among organizations with different interests in Barnett Shale development."
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Improper drilling and extraction are the cause, they say? They also say no new regulations are needed? Sounds like a legit study to me; sound conclusions and absolutely no bias nor any agenda behind it.
Most times I would say "follow the money" as to the validity and truthfulness of any story , and I normally come down on the left side of the aisle so to speak; but I must admit that is it beleiveable that its not the fracking, but the fracker's causing the problem. As in everything where the workers aren't doing their jobs correctly, whether its from lack of training, or lack of caring- either way it still boils down to BAD management!!
what a surprise a school in Texas finds in favor of oil industry.
What a surprise a school in Massachusetts finds favor with Obama's policies.
See how easy that is???
One more gift courtesy Dick Cheney, GW Bush, and the Republicans. Unbelievable.
Kudos to George Bush, Dick Cheney and all the Conservatives. Lets not forget the Tea Party who gave Obama a shellacking in the 2010 Election
Fracking probably means risking a BP type disaster in your own back yard. So long as money is the motive you will have people who will try to cut corners to make bigger profits. Somebody should frack in Cheney's back yard in Wyoming and have him drink the water to prove it is safe.
No field investigation was done -- This was a review of PREVIOUS reviews.
Not worth the electrons it took to make this story!
Remind me to keep my kids out of Texas universities!
I wouldn't trust any study from a state that would elect RP as its governor, especially one that has such a vested interest in the industry. Why can't we have a studied reasonable approach to this with oversight that will make sure that we minimize the dangers. Personally, I don't need any more oil as I skim all I need from the Gulf of America.
Convert to solar power. You can build it yourself and save alot of money.
End the fracturing. They are poisoning the water and ground.
I hope there is no one out there that really believes where there are huge amounts of money to be made that any study which might interfere or prohibit the cash flow will be unbiased. Don't kid yourself. Fracking will be used whereever it is profitable to do so. There will be repercussions on the environment, probably some quite serious. However, the end result will be the usual nonsense. Those responsible will be fined some token amount that amounts to nothing. The citizens affected by their actions will receive very little compensation and lots of sympathy. Suddenly, our government will decide fracking is not in our best interests. That government decision will coincide as the gas is depleted to the point that it is no longer profitable. Reality 101
It's a lot easier to come to this conclusion when a) you don't live in this area or b) you're making money off this. I live in Youngstown and felt several of the bizarre earthquakes last year, but the last one was just plain scary. There is no question that fraking caused these. I'm not surprised that a study can suggest they didn't, but I (and people in my area) still know they did. We KNOW it, and we won't take it!!!
Ok..the study does make some sense. BUT! Would you want a phlebotomist to perform brain surgery. I mean, it is the same "field"......sorta.....
Same thing here. The process may well be just fine, but it sounds like the skilled workers actually doing the jobs are not up to snuff. Could be a training issue. Could be attitude. And it could be those "unwritten" corporate mandates (we do it but we don't talk about it). In any case, the result is the same.....
Contamination of the ultimate essential resource. Water.
So, whether it is fracking or fricking...doesn't matter. If the net result is contamination - then any benefit is shot all to hell. They need to pull out the drills, take it all back to the shop, and figure out exactly how they can perform the extraction without killing the patient.
I don't care one way or the other;
- if its fracking's fault or the frackers' faults - something is contributing to the fault fracking and until the fracking fault is pinned downed, the contributions of fracking and frackers to the fracking problem needs to be faultlessly pursued until the fracking fault causation is nailed down and the responsible fracks' fracking shut down or fracking faults fixed.
Good evening.
There is NOTHING in this "study" from The U of Texas that is blatantly false, BUT THE WORDING IS MEANT TO PORTRAY FRACKING IS NOT THE FAULT. This is an absolute lie. The shift to natural gas as the "savior" of our energy problem is possibly the most advantageous of all energy sources THE OIL INDUSTRY CAN DEVELOP, that is true. the PROBLEM with using fossil fuels IS IT HASTENS GLOBAL WARMING AND THAT IS FACT. If fracking was not used then migration of high pressure gas WOULD NOT AND COULD NOT migrate to other depleted zones and water formations. Shale is not a predictable fracture substance. ANY ROCK PERSON CAN ATTEST TO THAT. So when this little piss ant "study" performed by oil industry personnel with oil industry funding should be taken for what it is, A COMPLETE FABRICATION OF THE TRUTH USING DOUBLE TALK AND QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE. We all know republicrap oil company executives have no desire to listen to facts, they GAMBLE every day with their stockholders money, now they want to gamble with your water supply. The money is working for them, BUT THE TRUTH IS WORKING FOR US, TO BAD TRUTH IS NOT FASHIONABLE TODAY. Lies are in every advertising commercial to some extent and we have been led to believe these lies will not hurt us, BUT FRACKING SHALE DEPOSITS WILL CONTAMINATE WATER AQUIFERS, NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, WHATSOEVER. By the way, i put in 23 years as an oil producer, I got out BECAUSE I could not take lieing to my family and friends about how many illegal things I was forced to do to "keep my good paying job". So let them lie to you, THEY ARE NOT GOOD STEWARDS OF THIS COUNTRY'S RESOURCES.
What is al this concern about poisoning the water and the ground? We have been doing this for hundreds of years.
We just keep on getting better at it. When did you ever think you would have to buy bottled water? The leaded
gas conspiracy, (government backed), acid rain, pyro benzine from commercial aircragt exhaust 24/7, medical
waste in your oceans, etc. Fracking ? tsk, tsk. getting touchy all of a sudden.
If we don't want the environmental effects of energy production, the best way is to stop using so much. Less heating, less cooling, less driving, less travel, etc etc. It's pretty simple, you just have to be willing to give up things. People who think they can do whatever they want and some company somewhere else can bear the cost of making sure there's no impact are in denial.
or we can also legalize industrial hemp! hmmmm.........!
hmm i attempted to post, it did not go through, i will attempt it one more time..
i read the story, haahaahaa.. i am a driller. i have drilled oil and gas in the GOM, inland, east, and north, USA.
'fracking' heheh. can you say 'injection well?'.. i know exactly what is done. beyond fracking , let me explain it like this, .. it is just as easy to pump something down a hole in the ground, as it is to pump something up. out of the legal injection wells existing, how many do you think are not 'legal'? of course everyone always obeys the speed limit on the interstate... hehehe. and regardless of how many filters you might have on your water supply, and what 'chemicals' you might find, or are testing for.... let me know if you find a filter that gets rid of radiation.... something not usually even tested for..
really?
hint - money always wins
From what I have read it is not possible to make the water polluted by fracking safe to drink again, not by any method.
The corporations will always err on the side of profit.
Drill Baby Drill
Its not the fracking. Its the toxic poisons used in the process. LOL
Poor cement jobs lead to contamination of ground water, fracking would be safe as long as the casing is cemented properly to the well bore. This is were testing needs to be done before they frack to see if there is a pressure loss due to weak cement jobs. If it don't past this test then they cant frack the well, pretty simple. If you remember BP's well in the gulf blew out do to a poor cementing job, done by Haliburton, who by the way cements most of the wells drilled in this country. The states that are having this drilling done need a inspector on site all during the drilling and production process to watch and record said tests. The gas companys can afford to bear the cost of this, another words, they can pay the states to fund these positions.
They can afford to bear the cost but they will not. Even if you tell them you are willing to pay the extra cost. Even of you make it the law. Dollar Dollar bill you-all. And from what I have read there is no safe casing technique. It's just a fallacy, a complete fiction to make you fell better.
If we have learned anything from recent history, we have learned that those wanting to make money (and why do it if not for the money) will NEVER use constraint and higher costing processes to get what they want.
**Anyone remember the B.P. oil spill ?**
But then, I guess I’m asking way too much from those wanting to take from the earth (in terms of oil and gas), vs. the health of humans, and other creatures on it.
What I do not understand, is that they seem to not care for their own in these scenarios: don’t they see that they are ultimately harming their own children, or do they just care that much about the almighty dollar?
Question answered.
Like everything else I see, thorough reading lets the light shine through. The only "research" they did was going through data already published to reach their conclusion. They did nothing but review already existing papers. The results of their "research" is nothing, because they did none. I often rely on others research for my blog but I'm not a researcher. If you're writing scientific papers, please do some research.
I live in north central North Dakota, just a few miles from where there is a lot of fracking being done. The fracking here is thousands of feet below the water table. We moved to a farm 31 years ago and had a water well drilled. Our water here has ALWAYS burned, my husband quit showing people when he almost started the house on fire and what would we have used to put the fire out?? So I don't know that fracking can be blamed for this in all cases, because how many people tried to see if their water would burn before the fracking issue(besides my husband who apparently is a fire bug)?
Sadly the universities can not be counted on to provide unbiased evaluation. And it's not like they picked a university in a state which built around one industry. And even if they did, they would never pick a university in a one industry state where the industry was fossil fuel. It's not like the industry that funds the study, and the university research grants, is in fact paying the salaries of the researchers. Thank god that would never happen in America.
So NPR had a really revealing piece on how all this excitement about the US having a centuries worth of fossil fuel began and on how the universities are actually not in a position to provide unbiased research and that they make no attempt to do so. And, by the way, it turns out there is a big dispute about whether or not all the claimed fossil fuel actually exist. But if your (university) department depends on a particular industry for funding, well it turns out you are really motivated to tell that industry what it wants to hear. Earthquakes? Ohio?? Oh yea baby, just pump some high pressure lubricant down there. But that would never cause an earthquake, that just doesn't make sense!
First they toast the earth with global warming now they want to poison the drinking water. All in the name of higher stock prices. You people deserve what you get.
Yes, primeOBJ...there's fire and ice for sale in Alaska too.
http://landfillgasjobs.com/amazing-video-of-exploding-under-ice-methane-gas-in-siberia/
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/the-15-trillion-treasure-at-the-end-of-the-world.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B36EoEuKjVg
Well, my wild and crazy nephew is a fracker and does he have stories to tell. I love him, but the thought of turning him loose with it is horrifying. He claims to be one of the cautious ones and he is an alcoholic and drug user.