iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Fracking: EPA Plans To Examine Every Aspect Of Hydraulic Fracturing

Fracking Epa

First Posted: 02/10/11 08:56 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

From ProPublica's Nicholas Kusnetz:

The EPA has proposed examining every aspect of hydraulic fracturing, from water withdrawals to waste disposal, according to a draft plan the agency released Tuesday. If the study goes forward as planned, it would be the most comprehensive investigation of whether the drilling technique risks polluting drinking water near oil and gas wells across the nation.

The agency wants to look at the potential impacts on drinking water of each stage involved in hydraulic fracturing, where drillers mix water with chemicals and sand and inject the fluid into wells to release oil or natural gas. In addition to examining the actual injection, the study would look at withdrawals, the mixing of the chemicals, and wastewater management and disposal. The agency, under a mandate from Congress, will only look at the impact of these practices on drinking water.

The agency's scientific advisory board [1] will review the draft plan on March 7-8 and will allow for public comments then. The EPA will consider any recommendations from the board and then begin the study promptly, it said in a news release [2]. A preliminary report should be ready by the end of next year, the release said, with a full report expected in 2014.

A statement from the oil and gas industry group Energy in Depth gave a lukewarm assessment of the draft.

"Our guys are and will continue to be supportive of a study approach that's based on the science, true to its original intent and scope," the statement read. "But at first blush, this document doesn't appear to definitively say whether it's an approach EPA will ultimately take."

The study, announced in March [3], comes amid rising public concern about the safety of fracking, as ProPublica has been reporting [4] for years. While it remains unclear whether the actual fracturing process has contaminated drinking water, there have been more than 1,000 reports [5] around the country of contamination related to drilling, as we reported in 2008. In September 2010, the EPA warned residents of a Wyoming town [6] not to drink their well water and to use fans while showering to avoid the risk of explosion. Investigators found methane and other chemicals associated with drilling in the water, but they had not determined the cause of the contamination.

Drillers have been fracking wells for decades, but with the rise of horizontal drilling into unconventional formations like shale, they are injecting far more water and chemicals underground than ever before. The EPA proposal notes that 603 rigs were drilling horizontal wells in June 2010, more than twice as many as were operating a year earlier. Horizontal wells can require millions of gallons of water per well, a much greater volume than in conventional wells.

One point of contention is the breadth of the study. Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, said he understands the need to address any stage of the fracking that might affect drinking water, but he's skeptical that water withdrawals meet the criteria.

"The only way you can argue that issues related to water demand are relevant to that question is if you believe the fracturing process requires such a high volume of water that its very execution threatens the general availability of the potable sources," he wrote in an e-mail.

The EPA proposal estimates that fracking uses 70 to 140 billion gallons of water annually, or about the same amount used by one or two cities of 2.5 million people. In the Barnett Shale, in Texas, the agency estimates fracking for gas drilling consumes nearly 2 percent of all the water used in the area.

The EPA proposes using two or three "prospective" case studies to follow the course of drilling and fracking wells from beginning to end. It would also look at three to five places where drilling has reportedly contaminated water, including two potential sites in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale, and one site each in Texas, Colorado and North Dakota.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

From ProPublica's Nicholas Kusnetz: The EPA has proposed examining every aspect of hydraulic fracturing, ...
From ProPublica's Nicholas Kusnetz: The EPA has proposed examining every aspect of hydraulic fracturing, ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 354
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
11:51 AM on 03/06/2011
This is absolutely the best possible news for the Oil & Gas industry. Personally, I just can't wait for this EPA study to be completed and the results released. It's about time we get some objective, scientific study of this manufactured controversy and put the wild hyperbole, conspiracy theories, and chemophobia to rest. This is a scientific and engineering problem and needs to be addressed as such. Public concerns must be answered by a third party, NOT by the oil & gas industry and NOT by the anti-fracking industry, in a way that all parties can agree upon. Any problems found must be solved, and the public, our freshwater supplies, our air - all must be protected in a way that instills confidence and stops the unwarranted fear formented by anti-fracking interests.

Go EPA!!!

Here is a link to an article about this, where you can download the EPA draft plan for the study:

http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/92-epa-releases-epa-releases-draft-plan-to-study-the-potential-impacts-of-hydraulic-fracturing-on-water-resources
11:53 PM on 03/07/2011
You're certainly enthusiastic and persistent in your affection for the fracking industry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
06:16 AM on 03/09/2011
Well, for one thing, if you look at it from my point of view, I'm 49 and my Dad is a petroleum engineer and my grandad, all his brothers, and all my uncles worked in the oilfield. Hydraulic fracturing was invented and in continuous use since before I was born. So I've been around it my whole life, and no one ever said "boo" about it, nor did I ever hear of or see a problem with it, until it was discovered that the Marcellus Shale had 250 times as much natural gas as we had believed for years, 500 trillion cubic feet instead of 1.8 trillion. Then all of a sudden, all heck breaks loose and this controversy gets manufactured seemingly out of nowhere. It's like, "Oh no! We have WAY more abundant, cheap energy in this country than we though! PANIC!!" Seriously, if you check out, for instance, the comments of Josh Fox ("Gasland") he states directly that his only goal is to shut down all drilling, because he believes that having cheap natural gas abundantly available delays the implementation of alternate energy sources, due to competition. Go through his comments in interviews and you'll see he states exactly that - I've been up too long and don't feel like looking up a reference for you, but it's out there. If pressed I'll provide one. I've written two articles on my personal website about this, you can find them here: http://cst.net
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
06:34 AM on 03/09/2011
I'd like to continue responding to your point ... I have other reasons for my devotion than just that I've always been around it and never heard of a problem with it.

Also throughout my life I've seen many times the good that comes from hydraulic fracturing - an element seemingly left out of the debate.

For instance, hydraulic fracturing and chemical treatment can take an old, marginal oil well, like one drilled in the 30's or 50's let's say, that may be just about dead, and by refreshing and cleaning the porosity, you can improve production and save that well, and keep it's energy resources online for our nation. It literally happens every day and has pretty much since 1948. You can easily argue that this is good for the environment, since it keeps an old, stable well online and prevents you from having to drill a new one. Most of the environmental problems are associated with the heavy industry of drilling, not from merely continuing to produce an old well that's been there a half-century with no problems.

Discovering and developing the natural resources of this nation is a very good, and necessary thing. I personally believe, with world population growing geometrically with no apparent hope of control, that we are going to need all the energy we can get our hands on. Wind, water, solar, and yes, natural gas. So, yes, I'm very enthusiastic about it, as I would be with any technology that helps mankind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
R2D2-51
Flower Power Forever
10:24 PM on 02/16/2011
My response to this is simple:

If you and your family get your drinking water from a well out back on your property would you drill a hole nearby and inject chemicals known to cause reproductive harm to humans and was known to be hazardous to your health to extract natural gas from sub-surface injection of these hazardous/toxic substances?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
11:45 AM on 03/06/2011
My answer is absolutely and enthusiastically YES !! And in fact I grew up drinking from just such a well. I'm 49 and my health has always been just about perfect.

I would happily do what you're saying, because I've a lifetime of experience with it, and because I actually know what I'm talking about. I don't think that "the ground" is one giant, uniform, fuzzily-conceived mass. I know that the subsurface is highly heterogeneous and compartmentalized, and that there is most definitely NOT a uniform communication among all the complex structures of the subsurface.

That's not even to mention that you seem to be unaware that, if there is a natural gas deposit there, then the subsurface already naturally contains these very same hazardous/toxic substances.

So you might ask yourself, why aren't these already in my water, since I know they're already in the subsurface?
10:58 PM on 02/15/2011
This story needs to be back up to the top of the page
07:02 PM on 02/15/2011
Well the EPA testing is a start, and to those that question the validity or need to even have such a test, consider this fact, currently we do not have the technology to clean the water and remove the chemicals from the water, so why would we not want to test and see if fracking is a source of potential contamination. What about for the safety of your children?..

Now as per whether the EPA will do something REAL, I am skeptical at best. Even if they do get something REAL in place the executive order Bush signed allowed the oil and gas industry to ignore the existing clean act and clean water acts, so I doubt the EPA can reverse that one without money, public support and some real awareness on this issue. It will take lobbying congress millions of dollars and years before any real legislation comes to life. Besides we have the clean air and clean water act now, just remove the exclusions.

No the feds move to slow and unless say a large city gets its' water contaminated until then will nothing happen swiftly. Just hope you and your loved ones that do not drink the bad water till then...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:02 PM on 03/06/2011
"the executive order Bush signed allowed the oil and gas industry to ignore the existing clean act and clean water acts"

This is a common myth promoted by the anti-fracking industry and I'm sorry you've been misled by them.

The parts of oil & gas exploration and production operations which were covered by federal regulations remain covered by them. The parts of these operations not now covered by federal regs were never covered by them.

So no change took place, contrary to what you've been told by anti-fracking interests. There are no exclusions to any regulation for any activity that was ever previously regulated.

Also, be aware that the EPA was ordered to do this current study of hydraulic fracturing by a democratic congress at the height of the Obama administration in Nov. 2009. The EPA is an arm of the Obama administration now. So it's very doubtful (to me, at least) that the Obama administration would purposely skew any study in favor of the oil & gas industry, long a favored target of the democratic party.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
cheap politicians for sale
06:13 PM on 02/14/2011
Its not Fracking, Its Felching.
09:27 PM on 02/13/2011
We all need clean air, clean water and safe food to eat.

Please don't poison the water.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:43 PM on 02/13/2011
So, the EPA will do a study - no pressure. What if, the EPA finds no definitive issues with hydraulic fracturing.

What if EPA decides that before drilling each well that will use hydraulic fracturing, the drillers must guarantee there will be no change in composition of ground water within 10 miles around the well for a at least 10,000 years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:16 PM on 03/06/2011
So if there is a change in groundwater composition 9,850 years from now, the drillers will have to pay some kind of fine because their guarantee was broken?
02:15 PM on 02/13/2011
FRACKING MURDERS.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
03:06 AM on 02/13/2011
This is probably what is really behind the Tea Party. We know that Koch Industries are sponsors of the Tea Party. They are involved in oil and gas. The Tea Party's first order of business is budget cuts that would basically wipe out the EPA. It may sound far-fetched, but since industry knew the EPA was going down this road, they had plenty of incentive to sponsor a political movement to stop the EPA. Natural gas is considered (by them) to be where the next massive fortunes will be made, if safety doesn't get in their way.
photo
SeenItBefore
Ya want to super size that?
09:55 PM on 02/12/2011
Don't know much about fracking and the eventual bad news from doing this, but I DO know that my grandparents lived into their 90's and 100's. My parents and my uncles and aunts lived into their 70's and 80's and my cousins, ten of us, two are dead before their 60's and five of the ten originals have dealt with cancer,totally unknown in the family before now.

Some one needs to 'splain it to me.
12:00 AM on 02/13/2011
are they fracking on your family's property?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:18 PM on 03/06/2011
We've been doing hydraulic fracturing on our own property and drinking from our water well on the same property ever since I've been alive and none of us have any health problems, other than my Dad's diabetes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Retrofuturistic
see things as they really are
07:36 PM on 02/12/2011
Maybe the frackers will get all the gas out, but what good will it do if they have killed all of their customers in the process?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Retrofuturistic
see things as they really are
07:30 PM on 02/12/2011
Uhhh, I don't trust the EPA....

It's like listening to a Republican: You know they're been bought by a rich special interest, so you can't take seriously anything they say.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:06 PM on 03/06/2011
The EPA is part of the Obama administration. This study was ordered by a democratic controlled congress at the very height of the Obama presidency, in Nov. 2009.

So, you're actually saying you don't trust democrats to try their best to find fault with the oil & gas industry. I find that claim questionable at best.

Let us all, on all sides, sincerely hope the the EPA does their level best in this study and comes out with data and recommendations that all parties can agree upon so that we can move forward with developing our nation's natural resources in the safest way for the good of our people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
04:51 PM on 02/12/2011
Gee, yet another article to inspire all of the "the environment is our enemy" pseudocons and all of the "oxygen is a carcinogen" conspiracists.

let me know when some rational people decide to comment.
12:01 AM on 02/13/2011
watch "Gasland" and then make an educated post
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mik McAllister
12:12 AM on 02/13/2011
I've seen Gasland and I agree fracking is a serious problem. I was referring to the comments that are flooding this thread right now.

I do not feel like educating the uneducable, or calming down the hysterical. I'd rather discuss this rationally, but there isn't room on this thread for that.

There is almost no discussion of the actual proposals. Just mudslinging back and forth, unsupportable accusations and allegations, and other juvenile behavior.

Thank you for judging me. I hope it made you feel better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:07 PM on 03/06/2011
So you think education comes from watching a movie?
04:15 PM on 02/12/2011
"While it remains unclear whether the actual fracturing process has contaminated drinking water, there have been more than 1,000 reports [5] around the country of contamination related to drilling, as we reported in 2008."

So why is the EPA not carrying out the study on Drilling?. Presumably there IS a 'smoking gun' there.
And why does not the EPA admit that Fraccing is carried on in ISOLATION from drink water supplies except in rare accidental incidents of breakage of surface equipment? They are not aware of a technology that is over 30 years old?
12:03 AM on 02/13/2011
watch gasland
07:15 AM on 02/13/2011
A wonderful fictionentary. Do not Google it? You will come away feeling had.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Frank
My last name is FRANK so thats what I am..
10:23 AM on 02/13/2011
watch gasland..its just a coincidence (NOT) that the people who have water wells next to these fracking operations can light their water on fire and its just a coincidence that its natural gas thats in the water
02:39 PM on 02/13/2011
Actually, all the incidents revealed in the that 'amazing' movie have been tested. Few of them were any near a Hydraulically fractured well and all tested Biogenic gas, not the thermogenic gas obtained from the deep formations that are fracked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Salmon
Geologist and Computer Scientist
12:11 PM on 03/06/2011
Natural gas (methane) in well water has been a problem in hydrocarbon rich areas ever since water wells have been drilled in such areas. Note this Penn State paper from 2006 (with references going back to 1982) about methane in PA well water:

http://www.cst.net/web-links/48-hydraulic-fracturing/31-methane-gas-and-its-removal-from-wells-in-pennsylvania

Note also that it states:

"The prevalence of methane in water wells in
Pennsylvania is unknown. A survey of 171
groundwater wells in West Virginia found detectable
amounts of methane gas in 77 percent, but
dangerous concentrations only occurred in about 8
percent of the wells."

So we know that in nearby WV, 8 percent of wells tested were found to have flammable concentrations of methane. And this was BEFORE hydraulic fracturing of the Marcellus Shale.