The hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to develop natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study released Feb. 16 by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin .
The study reported that many problems blamed on 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, Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director, said in a statement.
“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.
“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.”
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Sounds good, I just hope this isn’t the University of Marlboro telling us that smoking isn’t bad for our health. Long $GLNG.
Well, I think it is safe to assume the research can be evaluated by other scientists in terms of its reliability.
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
Could these errors be because it is still a draft?
Unfortunately, many research pieces are posted in the media using standard PR tactics before they have been reviewed, evaluated, and actually published.
Hmmm. Mr. Scobie, I’ll have to take your analysis and add to it my own skepticism, based on your activism in the area of “Sustainable Energy.” Couple this with your “community organizing” and your involvement with the AFL/CIO, I’d say you have more than a vested interest in discrediting this research.
Also, your donating to Al Franken’s campaign in 2009 gives me further reason to be skeptical about your above comment.
Dr. Scobie is retired from the faculty of the Psychology Department at Binghamton University in 2003 after a 33-year academic career.
Dr. Scobie, whose research experience centered on non-human learning and memory as principal investigator on several National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) grants, retired from the faculty of the Psychology Dept. at the University of Binghamton in 2003 after a 33-year academic career.
During his time at the University, Dr. Scobie served as Associate Department Chair, Department Chair, acting Associate Graduate Dean, acting Director of Sponsored Funds, and Director of the Bio-Medical Research Support Grant at B.U., writing the first “Human Subject Research Guidelines” there to create the first Institutional Review Board at the University.
Active for decades in his community, Scobie chaired B.U.’s Crisis Budget Review Committee, was Vice-Chair of the Faculty Senate and Academic Vice-President of United University Professions. He was also First Vice-President of the Broome-Tioga AFL-CIO Federation and Board Chair of Citizen Action (Southern Tier, NY).
A tireless writer, educator, community organizer and consultant on gas-drilling issues, Scobie has testified before the New York State Assembly and Senate Environmental Conservation Committees, the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation’s Shale Gas Drilling Scoping Hearings, the New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection and at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearings on hydraulic fracturing. He has advised NYS Assemblywomen Donna Lupardo and Barbara Lifton on gas-drilling concerns, as well as NY Senate candidate Don Barber, who is presently chair of the Tompkins County Council of Governments.
Scobie played a crucial role in founding or creating several grassroots organizations, including New Yorkers for Sustainable Energy Solutions Statewide and the New York Gas Coordination Group.
http://psehealthyenergy.org/users/view/14197
The 800-plus page technical document is simply too big for many stakeholders, including municipal officials, to process and respond to in a short period, said Stan Scobie, a Binghamton resident and industry watcher.
“It’s becoming extraordinarily clear that people – grass roots groups, landowners, lawyers, municipal officials, just about everybody – needs time to come to grips with this issue,” he said.
And that’s all we know about good old Stan. You might think from the description that he’s just a local bumpkin from Binghamton who keeps a sharp eye on this issue. An “everyman” if you will, only interested in the common good for all citizens. What Mr. Wilbur doesn’t tell you (even though he knows it), is that Stanley Scobie, Ph.D., is a retired professor of psychology at Binghamton University and a hard core leftist Democrat. Prof. Scobie contributed $8,950 to Democrats in 2008, including money for Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Kirsten Gillibrand (New York Senator), Michael Arcuri (New York Congressman), and Al Franken–the comedian/writer of pornography who became a U.S. Senator from Minnesota (via voter fraud). All of them far, far left. (Check out Prof. Scobie’s 2008 contributions here.)
In fact, Prof. Scobie wrote an anti-drilling article in the spring issue of the Sierra Atlantic, the Sierra Club’s regional magazine. In other words, he’s as anti-drilling as they come. But not a peep about that from Mr. Wilbur, the so-called “impartial reporter” who writes about the Marcellus drilling issue for the P&SB. Perhaps a little honesty by the media about their own personal biases and prejudices would be nice for change?
http://rssbinghamton.com/local-media-bias-on-the-marcellus-shale-drilling-issue/
Fracking hasn’t contaminated groundwater – except for where it has:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/how-the-epa-linked-fracking-to-contaminated-well-water.ars
The UT Austin study looked at the 3 major shale areas, which don’t include the area in Wyoming where the EPA found groundwater contamination from fracking.
The ars technica piece includes a lot of useful background along with very informative coverage of the EPA’s findings.
The problem with the current regulation (or, more accurately, exemption from regulation) of fracking is that it is based on the assumption that there are multiple impermeable (to water) rock layers between the fracking and the groundwater higher above. That assumption wasn’t valid at the Wyoming site.
Compounding the problem is the incomplete knowledge about what the drillers are pumping into the ground. Some have voluntarily disclosed incomplete (claiming the need to protect proprietary info) lists of compounds to environmental regulators, or have had to disclose use of compounds for labor safety reasons. There are many known carcinogens on the list. Companies that promised to the EPA to stop using diesel fuel have continued to inject it, so voluntary agreements aren’t reliable.
The UT Austin Energy Institute decided that contamination caused by “casing failures”, “poor cement jobs”, “above-ground spills”, or “mishandling of wastewater” aren’t really contamination due to fracking.
IMO, people who find something nasty from a fracking site in their water supply aren’t going to care about the Energy Institute’s fine distinctions between fracking-related contamination and contamination “related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations”.
Ottnot, correct me if I’m wrong, but are not casing failures, poor cement jobs, and above ground spills all possible with traditional drilling for crude?
Yes, they are all possible.
Wood, the difference is what migrates/leaks/spills at a fracking site versus what migrates/leaks/spills at a traditional gas or oil drilling site.
Fracking fluids contain a number of compounds that are unique to fracking or are used in far larger quantity for fracking than for traditional oil and gas drilling. Many of the compounds are polluting and/or hazardous. In addition, many fluids contain proprietary ingredients of unknown potential impact on groundwater.
Fracking has been granted substantial exemptions from environmental regulation primarily due to the assumption that the fracking fluid will remain isolated from groundwater by impervious layers of rock.
If that assumption is not valid, either because of “traditional” problems or because the geology is not impermeable, you can end up with fracking fluid in groundwater.
I contend that those who find their water supplies contaminated with fracking fluid will quite reasonably believe that fracking has contaminated their water. I further contend that trying to explain to them that their water is contaminated due to cementing flaws rather than fracking will enrage far more people than it comforts.
I agree that it does not matter to the person who has contaminated water whether it is from a casing failure or cementing flaws.
I’m surprised that there is transfer of fracking fluid through impermeable layers of rock (if there indeed, is transfer). IMO, it seems more likely that the transfer happens because the fracking procedure has been flawed, or the rock was not impermeable to begin with.
Or the fracking process made the rock permeable in a way that was not intended. I guess that would go back to a flawed fracking procedure though.
I know that when my company helps an operator design a cuttings reinjection well they use some real high-powered modeling programs to determine the best well location. These models got their start with underground nuclear blast tests. But still, it’s only a model and you can never be 100% sure what the final result will be.
One thing that concerns me is when we picked CRI well locations it was a long drawn out process to make sure everything was done properly. There were not all that many suitable locations in a field to handle such a well. But with the thousands of wells being fracked it seems like they are doing it anywhere and everywhere. I have to wonder how much detail they are going into from all sides and not just from an ultimate production rate standpoint.