Feb. 16, 2012
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — 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 Thursday 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. Read the complete report on the Energy Institute website.
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.
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.
For more information, contact: Gary Rasp, Communications Director, Energy Institute, 512-585-2084 (mobile), 512-471-5669 (office).
UT just received almost 4 million from Shell. I am troubled by the conclusion of this study that no groundwater contamination was found related to hydraulic fracturing, and the fact that the institution that conducts and presents this study receives major dollars from an energy company. Any connection here? where can I find the complete text of this study?
EV
2. Kim Feil said on Feb. 17, 2012
Why isn't this report entitled "Second project under development..."
3. rcoaster said on Feb. 17, 2012
Don't always believe what you read. This isn't a university study, it's funded by the "Energy Institute" with a board of directors that's a who's who of Bush appointees, oil/energy fat cats, and PR folks who've handled corporate image problems. Follow the money, discover the bias.
4. Stan Scobie said on Feb. 18, 2012
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
5. Dax McDavid said on Feb. 21, 2012
Good work UT. This type of research makes me proud to be an alumni of the Jackson School of Geosciences.
6. Jim Estes said on Feb. 21, 2012
No doubt there is some contamination of freshwater zones by super fracks, but just how much fresh water is lost forever during a superfrac. I know there is flow back , produced and more. How about a percent of just how much freshwater is gone forever ? This just might be a larger number.
7. Trethew said on Feb. 22, 2012
What a disappointment this must be for U of T--showing how deeply ensconced they are in the pocket of "big oil" money. Sad what the state of American universities has come to. . .and as someone pointed out above, the study was incomplete, and lacking in proper referencing etc. Might as well just put the gas companies names on the front page of the study with the title "propaganda" underneath.
8. Mark French said on Feb. 22, 2012
Dr. Scobie, you raise some very good points, and on other other sites went so far as to raise questions about whether the study was inherently biased based on the funding provided from the energy sector. In the same vein, I’d like to ask whether you have any affiliations that you have not disclosed above. If you are affiliated with other groups, why did you not disclose this in this letter?
Finally, I live in Houston and see that you posted here, and on several other sites – essentially the same letter. I’m curious as to your motivation for spam bombing the internet with this letter, and whether your activity in this regard has anything to do with your involvement with any other organization. Finally, I note that you list your PhD, the subtle implication being that you are rendering a qualified opinion. If you believe that your credentials are relevant enough to display, I find it a bit disingenous that you not disclose that your PhD is in psychology.
Regards.
Regards,
Mark French, c/s/r
BA Political Science
UT El Paso
9. international student said on Feb. 23, 2012
Liberals/progressives = 1) Fast to spout rhetoric without looking at facts and the whole story. 2) Parroting whatever their masters/fellow collectivists espouse. 3) No independent thinking of their own. 4) Hypocrites to the core when it comes to their own earned money. 5) For them tea party is racist and violent but occupy movement is all good and inspiring. 6) Pro-choice only when it concerns them, but pro-mandate for everything else.
I can go on and on and on about the hypocrisies of these collectivists.
10. Clyde said on Feb. 23, 2012
Oops, who thought that oil/gas fracturing would be taken undisputed as directly related (in a big way) to groundwater contamination? Or was it just a clever idea presented to the public with potential of leading to public majority support for more regulation and government funded gravy-train projects. As a simple observation, good science is not a common thing these days (it is expensive) and in all cases requires a qualified critical review before publishing. Good job UT, follow-up! Put those oil dollars to good use.
11. Professional Environmental Hydrogeologist said on Feb. 23, 2012
Until you personally compile, analyze and test the raw data, you have little standing to criticize. Personal and political attacks are vacuous and only subvert science.
12. Jason said on March 1, 2012
Why is it always big bad oil in the eyes of anyone not involved? Take some time and actually research how resevoirs are formed undergroung and what is actually happening when fracturing is occuring and then see if you still have the same thoughts. Resevoirs are formed by layers of impermeable rock that would not let water, oil or gas migrate through so why would someone think the chemicals used to frac would?
13. Rogue1 said on March 9, 2012
A study comes out from one of the best universities in the country, and you disagree with it. So your instinct is to say claim that it's paid off by big bad corporations? There's a senate hearing on fracking up on CSPAN. It's just a tad longer than Gasland and just about 20 times more factual.
14. PhD in Geosciences said on March 12, 2012
The title of this report is the most disappointing part and leads the reader to a conclusion not supported by the text. The text clearly states that the jury is still out, that while fracking itself MAY not be responsible for contamination, or at least no greater contamination than drilling associated with traditional oil and gas extraction, the associated activities likely are sources of contamination. The misrepresentation associated with the title of this report at best is naivete and at its most cynical, pandering to the oil industry...that is for you to decide.
15. Texas A&M Alumni said on April 4, 2012
Sorry but this study if as hyprocrite as it can be. How can hydraulic fracturing have nothing to do with water contamination? Have you done your research correctly? Hydraulic fracturing involves the use of water and sand plus questionable chemicals to crack open the shale formations. Once this has been done they store the used highly contaminated water on pits, which unfortunately only 30% to 50% of the water gets saved to be reused. What happens to the 50% to 70%? Contamination!!! The use of the chemicals and water and is all correlated with hydraulic fracturing, I do not see how you where able to conclude on your study that it is not involved in contamination. In case you are wondering where I got my numbers from:
http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/facts-on-fracking-pros-cons-of-hydraulic-fracturing-for-natural-gas-infographic.html
16. Rosenauer57 said on April 6, 2012
Okay, obviously everyone has growing concerns about hydraulic fracturing affecting groundwater supplies; but these concerns are unnecessary. Hydraulic fracturing drilling occurs at a depth 7,500 ft below sea level. However, the deepest water well that we pump for is only 1,000 ft below sea level. So it is impossible for toxin from the hydraulic fracturing process to 'seep' into water supplies. However, with such cases as New York, the water supply was contaminated by the disposal process. But that doesn't mean we should abolish the practice altogether. We didn't abolish offshore dilling after the BP incident; we put tighter regulations on drilling. Which is what we need to do with hydraulic fracturing.
17. ManyWolves said on April 20, 2012
it is about the money. period.how many have been on the rigs. six years Bakken.
» New Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing
1. Elfin Vogel said on Feb. 16, 2012