Hydrocarbon Processing Copying and distributing are prohibited without permission of the publisher
Email a friend
  • To include more than one recipient, please seperate each email address with a semi-colon ';'



Shale gas study concludes no link with fracking, water contamination

02.16.2012  |  HP News

Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a new study.

Keywords:

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

The study, unveiled 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 said they 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, according to 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 University of Texas at AustinThe report identified regulations related to shale gas development and evaluated 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, they said.

"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.

The complete report can be read on the Energy Institute website by clicking here.

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 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.



Have your say
  • All comments are subject to editorial review.
    All fields are compulsory.

wade
02.27.2012

Barret Lyne:

Pollution is inherent in the fracking process, this is without question. The only question that remains is the question regarding the sequestration of pollution below the surface; specifically, does pumping this toxic waste below the surface truely and PERMANENTLY isolate it from the environment. The answer to that question is unknown by industry and environmentalists... as you state yourself "I believe .....". The industry refuses to provide a gaurantee regarding this, because they know there is a very good possibily that contamination is likely if not already wide spread. If they are going to frack without knowing the effects, then they will have to take full responsibility immediately, which they refuse to do. If contamination does occur, the costs to clean up would be astronomical and non-feasible... we will have to live with it, but the people who did it should be thrown in jail.

Look at the fracking going on in Canada. The siesmologists there say that fracking is directly responsible for certain earthquakes and the reactivation of an old fault line. They say they have traced the fracking fluid and that it is diseminating thru ground faults daily and that it will continue to spread for decades to come, with future effects truely unknown but predictated to cause more earth quakes and POSSIBLY contamiinating groundwater.

I find it highly likely this industry is trying to kill two birds with one stone by exploting a trade secrete loop whole. On the one hand, they take toxic and corosive industrial waste and package it as a company secrete formula for frackiing, so they are being paid to both dispose of toxic waste as well as produce gas. This is just my belief, which is based on the understand that a product conposed of 500 chemicals is not needed for fracking; 500 chemicals is not an engineered product, its a concoction.

Barret Lyne
02.22.2012

I believe the pollution was NOT caused by fracking but was started long before and concurrently by improperly completed and sealed private water wells. It has been proven by multiple states and mountains of data that water well drillers do not complete private water wells with adequate annular seals between aquifers. They may install a surface seal correctly, but downhole they do not seal the tops and bottoms of unconsolidated areas and aquifers they drill through to reach the target fresh water sand. Consequently, multiple aquifers of variable TDS and gass constituent concentrations are allowed to gradually commingle over long periods of time and eventually contaminate the fresh water aquifers. It is not the fracking jobs 9,000 feet below the surface causing the pollution problem. It is the total lack of annular seals between aquifers in fresh water wells. The oil companies are only being played as the scape goat for a lack of enforcing the Water Well Drillers Regulatory Requirements for Locations and Standards of Completion for Water Wells. Millions of fresh water wells are drilled nearer to the surface from 100 feet to 4,000 feet in the zones of water aquifers. The rammifications of Water Well Drillers' improperly completing down hole annular seals between aquifers are in direct contact with fresh water. Where as, the horrizontal frac over five thousand feet below the deepest fresh water aquifer is NOT.

Malcolm Brown
02.21.2012

Mr. Deal's point that it is irrelevant "at what actual point of the process, the pollution occurs" will not be missed by the general public. They will then also conclude, due to the misleading headline, that the oil and gas industry is not to be trusted.

gunslingor
02.21.2012

What a pathetic peice of propaganda. I've never seen science so blatantly manipulate. Every single meaningful ascertion in the "report" has zero evidence to back it up. This thing is like the wishful dreams of the fracking industry, writting down a fantasy they had based on nothing more than raw thought. The careful wording to give incorrect impressions is apparent, for example "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."
-and how are you tracing it to natural sources? Its usually methane, so yes it "can" be traced to natural sources, but it "can" also be traced to fracking. Its like saying cigarret manufacturers aren't responsible for causing cancer because pollution can cause cancer.
-The word "probably" above has no basis in fact or reality since no basis for the statement was provided, so it might as well read " ...and I would like to believe, was present before the onset of shale gas operations."

Its very easy for open minded minimally biased scientists to spot manipulated science, I work around it and with it daily.

Stan Scobie
02.19.2012

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

Jonathan Deal
02.17.2012

Gentlemen, having perused your report briefly at this time, it appears to be lacking scientific consensus or peer review. It may be disingenuous to discount 'communication' events which are well recorded and which do occur during the frack. Moreover hydrogeologists with whom we have consulted have not been in a position to dismiss this phenomena - as you appear to do.

The oil and gas industry seems to make much of at what actual point of the process, the pollution occurs. I suggest that for a landowner with polluted land or water, this is a small and irrelevant technicality - the pollution still occurred.

Regards

Jonathan Deal, Chairman, Treasure Karoo Action Group, Cape Town, South Africa.

Jonathan Deal
02.17.2012

Gentlemen, having perused your report briefly at this time, it appears to be lacking scientific consensus or peer review. It may be disingenuous to discount 'communication' events which are well recorded and which do occur during the frack. Moreover hydrogeologists with whom we have consulted have not been in a position to dismiss this phenomena - as you appear to do.

The oil and gas industry seems to make much of at what actual point of the process, the pollution occurs. I suggest that for a landowner with polluted land or water, this is a small and irrelevant technicality - the pollution still occurred.

Regards

Jonathan Deal, Chairman, Treasure Karoo Action Group, Cape Town, South Africa.

Dick Berggren
02.17.2012

(Continued) at Yellowstone Park?

Thanks,
Dick Berggren PE, Ohio

Dick Berggren
02.17.2012

I wonder if we could get the Energy Institute at U T to do a study of the cause (and responsible party) of the hydraulic gushers and SO2 emittions

Related articles

FEATURED EVENT

Boxscore Database

A searchable database of project activity in the global hydrocarbon processing industry

Poll

Should the US government impose limits on LNG exports in order to maintain low domestic gas prices?


38%

5%

57%




View previous results

Popular Searches

Please read our Term and Conditions and Privacy Policy before using the site. All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
© 2011 Hydrocarbon Processing. © 2011 Gulf Publishing Company.