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:
Prof,
You cannot argue with these people. They are going off of their feelings. If any one of these people really believed what they are saying, they would ride a bike and get rid of their car, switch the main breaker off in their house and use candle light and burn fire to cook and keep themselves warm, hunt their own food and gather their own water and vegetables. But no, they still utilize every oil and gas products for every day life, yet complain about harvesting those products. HYPOCRITES! Until you ditch all the convienences that these products offer you on a daily basis, quit spouting how terrible everything is that has to do with oil and gas. Your constant whining is getting terribly old. Put your money where your mouth is. As soon as i see you quitting everything oil and gas products provide for you, I might agree their is some substance to your argument. But until then, keep your piehole shut and quit being a HYPOCRITE!
This Groat guy, in the next to last paragraph " We didn't actually go out and measure anything". That says it all.
Let me get this straight... fracking doesn't kill people - people kill people? Isn't that kind of like saying it's not the gun's fault? If most of the drillers aren't working to clean up their mess, it doesn't really matter who made it, cuz we'll all be dead or dying. We'll be rolling in natural gas, but we won't care!
Remember all the studies by Big Tobacco, finding that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer? I'm sure this will be a huge relief to all those people getting sick and whose ground water is now toxic. So, if it is SAFE, then reinstate compliance with the EPA Clean Air and Clean Water regulations and make the drillers liable IF it can be proved that they have contaminated our air and water. Why just pretend it's all OK and keep giving those making BILLIONS a free ride to pollute our air and water with absolute impunity and free from oversight.
Makes perfect sense to me, I mean it's not like Corporations don't have feelings; they are people you know.
Hey Lurch, Those people really don't have a choice. People with concerns have every right to voice them, that is how constructive changes are made. People who want better cancer treatments than we have now would be stupid not to take advantage of what is available, but they can still hope for better things down the road. Take your head out of the sand.
It should be no surprise to anyone that the human factor is the cause of the problems. The theory and processes are sound but we are fallible. I'm in no way defending the companies doing the work but even with the best intentions and most knowledgeble operators, mistakes will happen. Not worth the risk imo.
Politicians don't care. A few cancer riddled dead individuals won't make a difference to them. Large leather attache cases full of $100 bills is all they see. Despite public outcry to fracking, they will continue to ignore the public. The politicians in New York State are salivating at the prospect. Just think of the contributions to the political war chests.....As far as they are concerned, as long as we aren't the 1%, we can just rot and die.
Janstine! Co2 has only recently been decribed as a "bad gas"!Animal flatulation accounts for over 80 % of all co2 gases released on the earth.Man accounts for less than 4%.given that,would it not be more prudent to kill off more large mammals like cattles,deer,bears,buffalo, than restrict our access to fuels that we currently need to survive!you live in a vacuum!
Actually, the natural CO2 sources are more from decay of organic materials (including plants) rather than animal respiration. And even though the 4% figure is correct, that excess is what throws the natural carbon cycle out of balance and has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase from 280 to 390 ppm.
The headline for this article is misleading as is the study. None of the conditions would be occurring if fracking was not happening. Ergo, fracking is causing the problems. And it also states that problems arise "because drilling operations aren't doing it right." That could be, but there is no proof to support that contention.
Also, the article clearly states:
"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." And followed that up at the and of the article with:
"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"
So even the authors of the study are saying that no NEW research was done. Instead, previous research was analyzed and there is a definite lack of "baseline information". In science "baseline information" is defined as "information gathered at the beginning of a study from which variations in the study can be measured".
So basically Mr. Groat is saying that they have no baseline studies for comparison and the data is based on one study, which they analyzed. Definitely incomplete.
A sojourner here!Remember all the studies in the 70's claiming the world was cooling!What happened there sweetheart!
The Lazaro! I think you need to start reading more! Recent studies indicate cancers are more likely to be the result of genetics than envirment!Go smoke some rope and complain somemore!
The water tastes so much better now that I know the chemicals are from drilling the well and the boffo employees rather than fracking itself.
Proverbs: "It is of no value to charm the snake after it has struck".
It does not matter if we PROVE the pollution if the industry is exempt from the EPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Act and has no liability for damage they cause.
President Obama, you are as guilty as Bush and Cheney if you do not stop this travesty. Once the water supply to New York is contaminated, it will be too late. Now the responsibility is yours. Yes we need cheap energy, but we need clean and safe drinking water more.
I've noticed the more contentious I am ,the more I put down PMSNBC,the more the ask me for validation before putting on my comments.Yesterday,two or three!The day before,none,before that none.Today,everytime.They cannot seem to stop dating ads but thats ok.Just as long as you don't criticize them! Need a date or to make $8000 a month at home,stay tuned!
A university study asserts that the problems caused by the gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," arise because ''drilling operations aren't doing it right.'' NOOOOOOOOOO @!$%#!!! They all know where their drinking water is coming from they dont care about contaminating the ground water where they are doing this extraction process. All they care about are corporate profits/share holder profits!!!
just legalize industrial hemp and get it over with...renewable source of energy right there...
In the perfect world the sun always shines during the day and it only rains at night. In the perfect world everyone sings "Joy to the World" and there is no sickness, man lives in harmony with nature, cars stop instantly when a deer crosses a road, etc etc.... Is it a coincidence that ground water contamination happens near fracking on an irregularly high percentage? If you believe the Fracking process is perfect and it never pollutes then you need your head examined.
Did you have a Fracking summit with Obama
I decided to go with the 1970's study that states the earth is cooling.Longer study,more proof and I don't have to buy a car that I need to charge for 12 hours just in order to go to market 5 miles away!Trust me,the earth is cooling !No doubt about it!
But Obama and the Liberals have told us that it is bad and we all know that the President of the United States would not Lie would he?
"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."
"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."
For all of the environmental wackos, you do more damage to the fresh water tables dumping household garbage in the sewer than fracturing oil and gas wells do. The above quotes tell the story.
I worked in the Petroleum Industry and have fracked more than 1000 wells in my life time. Screw ups by the Service Companies that do the fracturing are very rare. You nearly have to screw it up on purpose. The actual fracturing takes place at depths of 6000 feet or more, fresh water tables are found less than 100 feet. Where the pollution comes from is because some truck driver dumps his contaminated water into the drainage ditch on the way back to the yard and it seeps into the fresh water through a stream. The oil companies can only fire the violators when they catch them.
Basically this has been hyped up by the EPA under Obamas orders so as to hamper the domestic production of gas and oil. He would prefer we buy it from our enemies in the Middle East. I guarantee you that Obama and his friends in Egypt are a much bigger threat to America than fracturing wells.
What a lot of misinformation.
First, fracing (there's no "k" in the word, despite journalists' best efforts to create one) has been ongoing for more than 50 years. In the San Juan Basin of NM and CO, there have easily been 30,000 frac jobs performed (as they're typically referred to in the industry) since the 1950's; probably closer to 40,000. It is not new technology, and shale development hasn't had more or less of an impact in the number of fracs performed than any other productive formation. P/I Dwights is the source of the data, by the way.
I've lived in the San Juan Basin of NW New Mexico for 30 years. Home to 35,000 of the 40,000 frac jobs conducted in the San Juan Basin. We don't have higher rates of cancer, leukemia, etc, than areas that don't have oil and gas production.
Just like "An Inconvenient Truth", "Gasland" contains quite a few factual errors, but continues to be put forth as some kind of standard for the anti-fracing forces that really don't understand the science to begin with. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's website (COGCC) makes some rather unbiased comments regarding "Gasland". And no, the COGCC is not a shill for the oil industry. In fact, they wasted millions trying to recover the methane being emitted from a natural coalbed outcrop that extends through La Plata County, Colorado, because misinformed green types thought it was terrible that mother nature would do such a thing to them. After greens tried to blame the natural gas industry, the COGCC conclusively proved the gas was naturally occurring. It's a natural outcrop of coal. It produces gas on its own. Into the atmosphere. And has been for millions of years. And will continue to do so for millions more. Just like the natural oil seeps in coastal California.
Like fluoride, Alar, DDT, childhood vaccines, mercury thermometers (don't dare break those new CFL light bulbs), and global warming...oh, sorry...climate change, fracing is just the latest in an ever-growing litany of liberal neuroses. I wonder how many of the same folks outraged over fracing plug their Priuses into their garage wall outlet, to save the earth, not realizing that their domestic electricity more than likely is produced by a coal-fired powerplant. Astounding.
amen!
I’m not really sure what your point is about “liberal” “neuroses” (what exactly about DDT is fabulous when it’s not needed to combat malaria? [On the other hand, I personally haven’t been convinced fluoride is a real issue/controversy other than it is a fact that in 2011 there was a federal decision to lower its concentration in drinking water.] Should people just never worry about anything you don’t want them to?).
Regarding the COGCC, it did conclude that “Aimee Ellsworth’s well (also Weld county) contained a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic methane that was in part attributable to oil and gas development, and Mrs. Ellsworth and an operator reached a settlement in that case.” (COGCC)
Regarding the manufacturing process, an article from the Caspar Star Tribune found: “A technical document submitted by DEQ to the EPA in 2009 noted: ‘The analysis conclusively shows that elevated ozone at the Boulder monitor is primarily due to local emissions from oil and gas development activities: drilling, production, storage, transport, and treating.’”
The wastewater from the fracking/extraction process is a huge problem. I worked on the CBM fields in Wyoming and that wastewater is nasty stuff. HOWEVER, there are ways to treat the wastewater and return it to drinking water standards right at the well site without pipelines or tanker trucks transporting the crap (risking further spills). By using carbon filtration, ozonation flocculation and reverse osmosis in a portable (towable trailer unit) this water - and most wastewatera - can be filtered and treated to achieve drinking water standards. I know it, cause I built it (when I worked for a company out of Texas) and I presented the prototype and projections to Arkel International in Baton Rouge, LA. They were in the process of buying into the idea when I parted ways with the company I was working for (one slick talking guy and his money juggling secretary are a "company") because they owed me $18,000 in back pay but I know the technology is out there. Someone just needs to run with it.
I, and my family, have worked in the oil and gas industry for almost 100 years. The moment I saw the headline I knew the "study" would originate from one of two places; Texas, or Oklahoma. As an industry expert I can tell you that fracking destroys water resources (above and below the ground), is highly carcinogenic, and destroys thousands of families every year.
If the fracking occurs at 6,000 feet and the water is at 100 feet then how is fracking causing the problem?? I could understand that some companies dump waste water on site that pollute but if you clean the water on site how can there be a problem???
oi,
For one thing, the storage of wastewater can cause earthquakes. Beyond that, the Denver Post states, “In Colorado, some tracking wastewater [20%] is discharged without treatment, under state permit, directly into rivers.” Another 20% of fracking wastewater in Colorado is put into surface ponds where chemicals can evaporate into the air.
Radiation picked up by water used to frack in some areas is also still present in "lower levels" than before treatment (yet ready for consumption, even though largely unmeasured), an issue that was not foreseen (see the article "Radiation in tracking fluid a new concern").
Any place it says "tracking" in my post it should obviously be "fracking."
Whipping post! You almost had me sucked in!The beginning of your staement sounded like a 60's love in! Then you lost it!Fracking does not cause pollution.It would be there anyway.How do you think they found this resourse?FROm gas escaping from ground wells! No fantastic science revolation.Simply people getting a drink of water and ended up emulated! The fact that they can trap the gas and oil well below the surface will liley stop some of these anomolies!I lived in an area where natural gas and oil were produced and use to smell the natural gas all the time!Did the oil companies make it happen?No! Mother nature did!You people never leave your driveway except to go to some pristine forect to climb a rock!
mas098, You are all of of 15 years old... you need a whole lot more experience in your life before you can begin to talk about it. Please come back in 15 years and try again... clearly your dad is in the fracking industry. With flawed logic like yours, no wonder the country is going to hell.
So let me get this straight... rednecks from a Texas University... a state and University bought and paid for with Oil, Coal and other poluting industries wants us to believe "Fracking" does not cause harm when anyone who lives near a site has flamable water all of a sudden???
The people with liquid napalm in their sink tend to disagree with you fellas... so does logic.