Close this Advertisement

New Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing

  • Feb 17, 2012

Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.

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.

Comments

Tue, Apr 9, 2013 King US

Easily remove radiation from any water source. Our University of Alabama patented solar desalination product uses no electricity, has no filters to replace, can be taken anywhere and extracts pure water from any contaminated water source. It removes radiation, fluoride, salt, pesticides, bacteria, dirt and other contaminants from any water. It aids people to be prepared for disasters. Made tough in the U.S.A. Also, Eco friendly product reviews featuring clean water, energy savings, prepper sites and sustainable energy products. http://values.cc is freshwater.ecogreenenergies.com's new website which we used for our earlier comment about the University of Alabama solar desalination products.

Thu, Jun 7, 2012 King Neece US

Remove radiation from any water source Our University of Alabama patented solar desalination product uses no electricity, has no filters to replace, can be taken anywhere and extracts pure water from any contaminated water source. It removes radiation, fluoride, salt, pesticides, bacteria, dirt and other contaminants from any water. It aids people to be prepared for disasters. Made tough in the U.S.A. Please visit us: http://freshwater.ecogreenenergies.com These units can also be placed together in arrays of literally any number of panels, as needed, to accommodate a desert farm or any remote area that needs water.

Mon, Feb 27, 2012 D.A.Rogers Denver

For those of you concerned about flammable water, it is important to understand that methane can and is often generated by bacteria in well water. When the water well is first completed the water may be pristine but over time bacteria can make its way down into the aquifer. Fracturing occurs usually no shallower than 4,000 feet, much deeper than the deepest wells.

Fri, Feb 24, 2012 Bought and paid for NJ

This is a joke. Instead of sampling people's wells to determine they can light their tap water on fire, you pick apart other research. I guess we know who paid for this study. Next time go to sites of people's homes where they can no longer drink their water. And while you're there, have a drink on me.

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 Lori Filipek Michigan

I agree with Dr. Scobie's comments (Feb 18). Section 4 Environmental Impacts is a very rough draft, especially Part 6: Groundwater Contamination, which is only 4 pages long (pp. 43-46) and is a very cursory review of others' work . It contains obvious mistakes (e.g. p. 44 lists the drinking water standard for arsenic as 10 mg/L (i.e. 10 ppm), rather than the actual value, which is 10 ug/L or 10 ppb --i.e. 1000 times less.) I could not find any of the studies referred to in Part 6 listed in the Reference section 12. The discussion of acid mine drainage (AMD) on p. 64 appears to be written by someone who does not understand AMD geochemistry. The stated conclusions are not at all self-evident from the (lack of) information given, other than not enough is known. As an ex-USGS research geochemist, I was extremely disappointed in the report. Lori Filipek, Ph.D.

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 William Dallas

Tackling funding... a former student passed away and left his estate valued at $232 M to the school. It has nothing to do w/ the Univeristy. That was enough money that geosciences left the college of science and become their own entity. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2003/09/25/nr_jackson/
So I'm guessing it's independtly funded by the school as this article says. (I'll give Kathleen the benefit of the doubt that she didn't read that line above rather than suggest she doesn't read.)
I think everyone is missing the point of this report...it really says that drilling has always been bad due and is more noticeable now b/c of fracking. The lax regs (Texas Railroad Comission, not the TCEQ) and extremely minimal oversight are issues to fix. Sadly these are not problems unique to Texas but especially deplorable in this situation. The real problem with the RRC is not the lack of funding but the entreched attitudes, speaking from personal experience. Got any ideas to fix that oh wise environmentalists?

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 R

There are minimal regulations for natural gas drilling in PA and this posse an important concern. With a limited number of regulators to oversee the drilling/fracking operations, who says that drilling companies will "do the right thing?" To my understanding, PA does not tax drilling companies on the gas they extract. If they would pose a tax to companies, the state could establish a budget that would enable them to hire more regulators/people to provide oversight while the drilling operations are being performed, to confirm operations (drilling, installation of casings, grouted, etc) are carried out correctly. There have been numerous studies performed on NG drilling and contamination groundwater. The media points the finger at the drilling companies, however; there is a lack of prior groundwater sampling/data (of residential wells) confirming NG drilling was the reason wells are contaminated post drilling. Studies have shown that the majority of the wells contaminated (elevated background levels of methane) were not sampled or tested prior to the start of drilling, so there is no comparative data to check if drilling was the cause. Further studies, research and regulations need to be made to minimize the effects to groundwater issues and to determine what the main issues are.

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 B

A study in Hersey, PA just annouced that chocolate isn't fattening.

Wed, Feb 22, 2012

There is no excuse of not having baseline studies. You are not supposed to start any major industrial operations before you have the baseline and the studies are coordinated andpaid by the developer. This how it is done also in the developing countries.

Tue, Feb 21, 2012

Oh, I get it. If it's from Texas it's bad, if it's from anywhere else it's good. Got it. The science will stand on it's own or it won't: the "documentary" was a hit piece on the oil industry, put together by "environmentalists": they had just as much of an opposite agenda as anybody. To hammer UT as biased while leaving those individuals out of the blame circle is intellectually dishonest.. The jury is still out one way or another: it will probably always be out, and there will always be those on both sides grasping at anecdotal evidence to prove their case. One way or another, every study like this at least means that people are taking a shot at actually determining the facts of the matter: their conclusions may be slanted toward their bias or they may not be, but the legwork has been done, the data collected: interpretation is the only part that is subject to bias. I for one actually trust the UT science department, who is at least somewhat bound by scientific integrity, much more than some random filmmaker out to convince the public of the existence of an environmental boogeyman..

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 Paul Rasmussen Wisconsin

We live in a rural Wisconsin community and have our own water well and septic drainfield to purify the water we use. Basicly we recycle the water we use and periodicly have it tested. If there is one resource we value it is our water. Gas will come and gas will go we'll live on without it, but you come into our neighborhood and distroy our water table, that means war. As many of you already realize our next world wars won't be over oil, gas, religion, but water because it is what we all need forever. Guard it closely!

Sun, Feb 19, 2012 chris RSA

Whatever the depth of the fracking operations fracking fluids has to come up through the groundwater carrying layer and done something with ON THE SURFACE. The volumes involved are stupendous, millions of litres; even a 'small' leakage can contaminate soil and surface water; enter human error and catastrophe follows. Even 'harmless' chemicals (why the secrecy?) can contaminate and poison because of the gigantic volumes involved.

Sat, Feb 18, 2012 Stan Scobie

Folks, 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 of 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

Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Kathleen Logan Smith Missouri

So a TEXAS university in the middle of an oil and gas state with an oil and gas dominated political system and an oil and gas economy cannot find a problem with fracking and this is news? First, look at who funds that university then perhaps we can decide whether they have the capacity to be objective. Just send the data and the methodology and let an independent source see if results can be confirmed.

Fri, Feb 17, 2012 d

what about the people who live is PA who were in the documentary about water and how their water is now flammable and undrinkable leave it to texas to defend gas and do the study pfft bias study

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above