The EPA's Fracking Study, Explained

The EPA admits that fracking has been found to contaminate water, but its incomplete analysis and false characterization of its findings greatly downplays the severity of the problem. Industry's pressure on the agency has politicized what is a basic public health concern.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
NEW TOWN, ND - AUGUST 13: View of three oil wells and flaring of natural gas on The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation near New Town, ND on August 13, 2014. About 100 million dollars worth of natural gas burns off per month because a pipeline system isn't in place yet to capture and safely transport it . The Three Affiliated Tribes on Fort Berthold represent Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations. It's also at the epicenter of the fracking and oil boom that has brought oil royalties to a large number of native americans living there. More income has also translated to more crime on the resvation in the form of meth use and additction, drunk driving, assaults and domestic violence. A small tribal police force is finding it difficult to cover the nearly one-million acre reservation as well as retain officers. (Photo by Linda Davidson / The Washington Post via Getty Images)
NEW TOWN, ND - AUGUST 13: View of three oil wells and flaring of natural gas on The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation near New Town, ND on August 13, 2014. About 100 million dollars worth of natural gas burns off per month because a pipeline system isn't in place yet to capture and safely transport it . The Three Affiliated Tribes on Fort Berthold represent Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations. It's also at the epicenter of the fracking and oil boom that has brought oil royalties to a large number of native americans living there. More income has also translated to more crime on the resvation in the form of meth use and additction, drunk driving, assaults and domestic violence. A small tribal police force is finding it difficult to cover the nearly one-million acre reservation as well as retain officers. (Photo by Linda Davidson / The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Don't be fooled. Headlines in The New York Times and other news media about the EPA's long-awaited study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water are another tragic case of not looking beyond the timid agency's spin. Despite the lack of new substantive data and the limited scope of the study, the EPA did find instances of water contamination and outlined the areas where this could happen in the fracking process.

Rather than seriously undertaking its mission, the EPA's headline and conclusions in the study reflect the agency's on-going narrative about the safety of fracking. The agency asserted in the report on the study that there were no "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources." They based this outrageous conclusion on the limited industry controlled data and analysis that was included in the poorly designed research project.

The multi-million dollar study did not answer the fundamental questions about the pollution of water from hydraulic fracturing. The oil and gas industry pressured the agency in the design of the study, narrowing its scope and focusing it on theoretical modeling conducted by researchers that often conduct research favorable to the industry.

In a shocking display of the power of oil and gas interests, they successfully blocked the agency from gathering data from direct monitoring of fracking operations. Rather than demanding that companies like Exxon (the largest fracker in the U.S.) or Chesapeake allow them to monitor water wells near fracking operations, the EPA caved to industry pressure. For the study to be meaningful, the agency needed to conduct baseline water testing at prospective wells that would provide a snapshot of water quality before fracking and that would be retested after a year or more after oil or gas production began.

Geoffrey Thyne, a geochemist and a member of the EPA's 2011 Science Advisory Board, a group of independent scientists who reviewed the plan for the study, remarked on the failure of its design: "This was supposed to be the gold standard. But they went through a long bureaucratic process of trying to develop a study that is not going to produce a meaningful result."

Yet even with the study's poor design and the deceptive headlines, the 600-page document does include concrete examples that fracking does indeed contaminate groundwater resources, a fact already confirmed by numerous studies based on existing scientific data. The study confirmed cases of water contamination with five after-the-fact, or retrospective, case studies, each focused on a community where residents have complained about water problems for years. This embarrassingly limited review of the impacts from spills and releases, water withdrawals, and issues with waste disposal provide proof that fracking negatively impacts our water resources. They included:

  • Drinking water monitoring wells had "chemicals or brine" from a blowout that occurred during fracking operations in Killdeer, ND.
  • "Up to nine out of 36" wells considered in a Northeastern Pennsylvania case study "are impacted by stray gas (methane and ethane) associated with nearby hydraulic fracturing activities."
  • In Southwestern PA, wastewater pits and other storage sites caused chloride contamination. Regarding stray hydrocarbon gas found in domestic water wells, the EPA determines it was from shallower gas formations, not the targeted shale formation, but whether nearby drilling through the shallower formations led to such contamination remains unanswered.
  • At the same time as hydraulic fracturing operations in Wise County, TX, two water wells were impacted by increased presence of brines.

This incomplete and inadequate study is an embarrassment for the Obama Administration and the EPA. It falls far short of the level of scrutiny and government oversight needed to protect the health and safety of the many millions of Americans living in watersheds impacted by fracking -- nearly ten million within one mile of a fracked well, according to the study.

Unfortunately the study and related media coverage will provide the industry more cover for continuing its poisoning of our nation's drinking water via widespread drilling and fracking. Oil and gas industry foxes have once again been allowed to call the shots at the EPA's henhouse, and protect their vision for widespread fracking, with what the EPA now confirms to be over 25,000 new oil and gas wells each year.

Simply put, the EPA admits that fracking has been found to contaminate water, but its incomplete analysis and false characterization of its findings greatly downplays the severity of the problem. Industry's pressure on the agency has politicized what is a basic public health concern. Putting a resource as precious and universally important as drinking water at risk is simply unacceptable, and the EPA, which is charged with protecting Americans from environmental risk, should be working to do everything it can to safeguard these vital water resources. This study is fodder to continue our ongoing fight to ban fracking everywhere.

This blog originally appeared at www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

Close

What's Hot