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:
From the UT at Austin website: "Feb. 14, 2012 AUSTIN, Texas — Shell Oil Company executives visited The University of Texas at Austin on Friday, Feb. 10, to present a check in the amount of $3,963,250, representing the company’s investment in the university for the year."
Although not earmarked for the fracking research, the university has a reason to skew, however subtly, its research findings. No?
Don't you know it's the earths fault for not making the gas easier to get./s
So fracking isn't causing it if its done correctly.
So... since it isn't being done correctly, it is causing it.
That's like saying, done correctly, sex doesn't cause babies. And then not wearing condoms, and saying it's incorrect to blame the sex itself for the resulting pregnancies.
Who cares? The world is ending in Dec anyway... LOL
Isn't the Energy Institute essentially a pro-industry group? Notice how these energy companies NEVER EVER find any problems with their oil drilling or coal mining--or now fracking, which involves breaking up big rock formations and injecting what I assume are large quantities of sand, water and CHEMICALS into the ground! It's all perfectly safe--except that it isn't. There have been numerous reports of minor earthquakes in areas where there has been fracking--and a number of reports about polluted water. So I'm skeptical of this study.
The companies are just trying to cut costs, and who cares about people anyway..lol It's all in good faith, to help drive down the prices and cost right. Oh, what's that you say, they just slowed gas production because the price went too low, and they aren't making enough profit, so they have to force supply to go low so that demand drives the price back up, so that people have to choose between heat or rent, food, and medicine. Well they need heat and rent and food, so just skip the medicine. Yeah.. try alternative energy ,, we need MORE nuclear plants and solar farms and to hell with natural gas and oil... Big corporation is only driven by the bottom line because we all demand it by way of our 401k's that invest in corporations and energy stocks. So make the demand of other energy more valuable and the current prices will drop...
This is idiocy. After studying plate tectonics for several years I will never believe this a safe process. Glad I won't be on this planet in another half century. And shale oil is an even filthier mess.
If we have to bore holes in the Earth 3 miles deep, blow tops off of mountains, drill beneath the waves at depths where repairs cannot be made and tear up vast areas to get shale I think we might to look at walking and parking our cars. Carter is still the only President yet with a worthwhile proposal on energy. The rest have been lackies to the industry. But no doubt I will take Obama over any GOP'er. When they hold power all backs are turned.
I know several quite wealthy individuals who have invested heavily in fracking and there certainly is money to be made. They came to me and I shooed them away. Could probably make a tidy sum but I got grandkids that will someday need this planet! Ethically there is no way I want to be involved.
Skimming through the article and the posts following it, there is one thing I didn't see mentioned about fracking: It actually caused a pretty big earthquake in Ohio and they think the reason is that they insert chemicals under great force into the well and they were doing this too close to a fault line, thus triggering the earthquake. Thus, I conclude it isn't just contamination of drinking water (though that is bad enough) but also the land itself being adversely affected and destabilized. There is fracking going on nearby to me also, could this be why our whole neighborhood is sinking randomly? We have continual subsidence going on in our yards, some walls of houses have lowered, etc. This can be costly to homeowners nearby when the land becomes unstable. It is my own guess that this could be another problem that is being caused by fracking.
Becky, the subsidence is caused by old underground coal mines collapsing ( I assume you live in eastern Ohio). The earthquakes near Youngstown were caused by a trio of water injection disposal wells near a known fault zone (an indirect result of fracking). A few years back, there was another earthquake to the north, a 5.3, IIRC; that was a "natural" earthquake in Ashtabula Count near Pymatuning Reservoir. Most people don't realize that northeastern Ohio and northwestern Pennsylvania are seismically active - not California or Japan active, but earth tremors can be expected on occasion.
It would've been a bit too obvious for Big Oil to have funded this study directly, wouldn't it? I wonder where exactly these "general university funds" originate. I'm sure it's a rare phenomenon when Texas oilmen donate to their own state university.
It sounds hopeful. I hope that the companies and the communities in which they work adopt better methods. Win-win. Better too late than never...more science and science-based policy-making, please, on fracking practices.
Injecting chemicals into the ground can't be good. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says. A UNIVERSITY STUDY, what university? and who paid for the study is what people should be asking. Five or ten years down the line when cancer clusters start popping up another university study will say it had nothing to do with fracking. We have been lied to so extensively by the energy people and our own government that no one should believe a word they say. They cut their own throats a long time ago.
Saying that it's not the fracking that is causing the problem, it's the way they are fracking is kinda like saying "It is not giving the baby razor blades that is the problem it is the way he is using them."
Give a corrupt, greedy, deceptive board room the opportunity to screw things up and make more money and guess what will happen?
Things like turning off the lights in Vegas will do more to help than screwing up precious ground water.
This was not a "scientific study" but "...a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations." One must then question what previously published data was reviewed and the sources for said data. I certainly hope that, as Groat noted, this is not the final word. This source of energy does need to be utilized but in an environmentally safe manner. However, those folks that have had their property values destroyed by contamination of their water supply may well feel differently.
I don't know why they bothered to do the tests, we all knew the results would say it wasn't frackings fault???
How anyone can claim the past 12 years of observations disprove global warming. Obviously, anyone believeing that statement has not bothered to view the pictures posted on Space.com, which clearly shows the global ices caps shrinking, and the tempatures of the lands around and under them increasing.
Certainly, in the past, we have had weather cycles, but none as variable and as extreme as we are now seeing. Ocean currents are changing, animals are migrating to warmer/colder areas as tempatures in their home ranges change. Water levels are increasing and the jet streams are moving about, all having effects on our environment. It is so easy to simply stick ones head in the sand, and deny everything, but photos and the scientific measurments taken over the past decade do not lie.
You're correct, and the latest NASA research shows that the Earth retained about 0.6 watts per square meter more heat than it released to space during the 2005-2010 period, despite a solar minimum. (The story is in the archives on the NASA website.)
There are none so blind, that have eyes, but refuse to see. They deceive themselves and others and believe they are superior to all the rest of us.
Not fracking's fault? Frack that. And frack anyone on this "panel" who allowed the kickbacks and bribes they got to make them LIE this way. Frack 'em.
They say that the surface fluids are a big problem ....
What are they .... ?? .... They never say what they are .... Are they hydraulic type fluids ....??
If so , start doing some kind of containment ....
I can't see , how there can be any doubt , that this process interferes with various water tables being drilled through and fracked ....
Once those found gas pockets are emptied of their gas and refilled with fresh water , the homeowners will only then feel and get relief ....
Portable home filtration systems should be on the rise now .... "New and Improved" .... I wish it was me selling them ....
Alan Boyle .... nice job again .... as usual ....
BigBenAlaska, in the areas in which shale gas development is occurring, the frac zones are well below any fresh water zone, by at least a few thousand feet. It takes that long for the drill to reach a horizontal attitude. There are places, however where coalbed methane (CBM) production is taking place from seams which provide fresh water; this can and does interrupt the water supply (CBM wells are also fracked, but not to the extent that horizontal shale gas wells are).
I would not trust any environmental study coming from Texas, a red state.
I take absolutely no responsibility for any of these problems.
Only complete idiots would think that finding more gas is worth contaminating the drinking water for millions of people. They can live without gas, but not without water. It's pretty freaking simple, simpletons!
This study & the 'findings' remind me of other suspicious scientific observations from 'scientists' working for political gain - smoking cigarettes does not pose a health hazard, and there is no such thing as global warming...
Folks, step back, take a deep breath, and apply reason.
There is reason for concern about fracking, most likely the larger concern is with the fracking contractor. An informed qualified individual, independent of the contractor and the owner should oversee the entire fracking operation from start to finish.
Environmental professionals should evaluate the results and set standards for enforcement.
We need the natural gas and liquids, we must produce them safely with high regard for our environment.
With an inteligent concientious determination we can accomplish our objective!
And of course, Republicans would tell you that less regulation is the solution to this and every other problem in the world.
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
review of previous studies that concluded in his forming his own opinion...really?
Let the spin continue...
How can PMSNBC write every article so far astream from the beliefs of most Americans!I would be nice to have no pollution . What most environmentalist can't seem to remember is that,oil based fuels helped to stop the enormous pollution that was prevelent at the turn of the last century and attributed to horse dropping in cities. What are we suppose to do!Rock fracuring is a great,TODAY, source of energy.Available,not imported and should last until we are able to bring more clean energies on line.Quit complaining and denouncing ever oil based source of enery that comes around!I would rather have a little pollution from oil that have the streets littered with animal feces!Grow up1