Home /
Study: No link between fracking, contamination
By The Associated Press
This article was published February 17, 2012 at 6:50 a.m.
- Comments (33)
- aAFont Size
AUSTIN, Texas — A University of Texas study says there’s no direct link between groundwater contamination and the process to extract oil and gas known as fracking.
UT’s Energy Institute says contamination can occur due to spills above ground or mishandling of wastewater. But the institute argues that those problems are not caused directly by fracking.
Fracking involves pumping pressurized water, sand and chemicals underground to open fissures and improve the flow of oil and gas to the surface. It’s used to improve productivity in gas reserves all over the U.S., including the Barnett Shale in North Texas.
An Energy Institute spokesman says no industry funds paid for the project. Fracking opponents say the study needs to be reviewed.
Comments on: Study: No link between fracking, contamination
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
MenLR2 says... February 17, 2012 at 7:05 a.m.
Been wondering what happen to "Stud" since the 70's...guess he is in Texas now telling people stuff about oil and water?
Come on DemGaz...a 3rd grade school newspaper would at least read the headline before it is sent to readers.
( permalink | suggest removal )
TimberTopper says... February 17, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.
Have to be careful how you handle information coming from a state where probably UT receices a bit of $ from that industry, there might be a tendency to lean their opinion one way or the other. Kinda like all those weapons of mass destruction that were supposed to be in Iraq.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 17, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
I'll bet if this same Energy Institute spokesman says no industry funds paid for the project and fracking WAS the cause of contamination you idgets would take that as gospel.
( permalink | suggest removal )
RBBrittain says... February 17, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
I'm not an opponent of fracking, but all UT (and A&M) campuses are supported by a "Permanent Endowment Fund" supported by income from state lands allocated to it by the Texas Constitution--primarily, yes, oil & gas royalties. (That's why the main UT and A&M campuses have bigger endowment funds than any other public university; UT-Austin even momentarily passed Harvard among all universities in the 1980's.) That at least impairs the credibility of ANY pro-fracking study from a UT or A&M campus.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NONSHEEPLE says... February 17, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
Did ANYONE one here pay attention in 8th grade science? LOOK at the massive differences in DEPTH. Our drinking water has a MUCH better chance of contamination from spills on the earth surface than from chemical "fracking" that happens quite a bit deeper into our crust.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 17, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.
A couple of things I have is with "Fracking opponents say the study needs to be reviewed." Even supporters should want to review it. The integrity of the study should be verified before it is supported or not unless the truth really doesn't matter to you.
Water contamination is the biggest danger, but what about the triggering of fault movements? I know of four states that, and probably many more, each discussed moratorium because the possible link with fracking to the Earth moving underneath them. Doesn't sound like an isolated case to me if earth quakes increase wherever fracking is done. Where is the study for that?
Its proven the process is successful but everybody really needs to know what the damage threat is. Does no direct threat mean only the threat of the mixture used? Does the pressure force other things into the ground water, like oil, gas, dirt, whatever? Is the groundwater completely undisturbed? Or are they saying there are some kind of acceptable effects to it that aren't considered damaging by them?
( permalink | suggest removal )
ArkansasFracking says... February 17, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
come to our website www .stoparkansasfracking. org
( permalink | suggest removal )
NickieD says... February 17, 2012 at 11:51 a.m.
Watch "Gasland" a documentary about the results of fracking. Clearly someone is lying... gee, would the Power Industry lie to Americans? Would they pay to have studies that prove they are doing a good job? Gee, nothing like that has ever happened before.
One wonders, if the producers of "Gasland" have nothing to gain and are only showing the factual results of fracking... then who could be lying? The guys who will make huge profits from fracking or the guys who have nothing to gain?
It's a rhetorical question.
( permalink | suggest removal )
GiveUsLiberty says... February 17, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
It always helps to study the process, its history and a bit of geology before spouting opinions:
1. As SmarterThanMost said, ground water comes from MUCH closer to the surface than the areas of the shale being injected for fracking. Any ground water contamination would/will come from the mishandling of the fracking fluid on the surface.
2. The earthquakes associated with extracting natural gas from the Fayetteville Shale, and other such formations in the U.S. have been directly linked to the "injection wells" utilized to dispose of the fracking fluid. These wells are significantly deeper than either ground water or the shale being fracked.
From all available data and research, fracking itself appears to be safe in terms of ground water contamination. Again, mishandling of the fracking fluid at the surface is the greatest threat to our ground water and should be closely monitored by the EPA. The practice of using deep injection wells for disposal of the fracking fluid should be eliminated.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 17, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
StopArkansasFracking, Why aren't you just as worried about carbon sequestration as you are about fracking?
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 17, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
"Gasland" the film's signature moment Mike Markham, a landowner, ignites his tap water. The film leaves the viewer with the false impression that the flaming tap water is a result of natural gas drilling. However, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which tested Markham's water in 2008, there were "no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well." Instead the investigation found that the methane was "biogenic" in nature, meaning it was naturally occurring and that his water well was drilled into a natural gas pocket.
This is one of several examples where the film veers from the facts. A second depiction of a flaming faucet in the home of Renee McClure also misleads viewers about the connection between natural gas development and methane in water wells. McClure's well was sampled by the state of Colorado and it, too, showed only naturally occurring methane.
The film's claims are so egregious that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was compelled to set the record straight. The COGCC information sheet corrects the film's misleading depictions and addresses false allegations of methane migration in Weld County.
Later in the film, natural gas is again falsely accused when the film flashes the words "35 mile fish kill Dunkard Creek Washington County PA.'' The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigated this incident and tied the fish kills to coal mine run-off. Here is the official report.
In an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, John Hanger, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said the film is "fundamentally dishonest" and "a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect."
Contrary to the film's misleading claims, natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water disposal. In rare cases where incidents occur, companies work with the appropriate regulatory authority to promptly identify and correct the issue, and implement measures to ensure it does not recur.
The natural gas community is committed to the safe and responsible development of this abundant resource, and we firmly believe that no community should have to choose between its economic and environmental interests. The process of hydraulic fracturing has been routinely and safely used in communities throughout the nation for decades-bringing economic prosperity to local communities and significant environmental benefits. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Ground Water Protection Council to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission the process has been examined and found to be safe.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie says... February 17, 2012 at 1:29 p.m.
T6 asks "Why aren't you just as worried about carbon sequestration as you are about fracking?"
This is the granddaddy of bad arguments.
Can't somebody be worried about more than one thing? Can't a person criticize something without criticizing all the rest of the world's evils at the same time?
So, T6, why aren't you worried about nuclear proliferation? Teen age pregnancies?
Why aren't you worried about the fact that the Bank of America has assets that = 1/7 of U.S. GDP?
It's unstable and if it failed, would sink our economy.
Besides, carbon sequestration isn't something to WORRY about except for the fact that it isn't very feasible yet.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 17, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
Sorry Giveusoliberty, statement one has will and would, not good enough without definitive proof. Pressure finds the weakest resistance, is that down into the crust or up towards the surface? Or are you trying to say that the pressurized solution goes nowhere or probably nowhere near ground water?
Statement two you seem to be saying that fracking isn't the cause directly of quakes but an after product but it is proven to be from the current process.
Your summary you say " fracking itself appears to be safe in terms of ground water contamination." Some people would like more than appearance when you mess with the water table. You seem to know what you are talking about so you would also know there is no clean up possible and quarantine improbable.
Nice copy and paste Trouble, now get some learnin.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 17, 2012 at 3:41 p.m.
Yes, I'm sure the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is very impartial, T6.
( permalink | suggest removal )
jackalope says... February 17, 2012 at 5:15 p.m.
On 28 May 1923, the Santa Rita No. 1 oil well, in Reagan County discovered the first oil on PUF (Permanent University Fund) land; in the following decades, the PUF's revenue made UT Austin among the best-endowed in the nation.
-
The PUF provides extra funds, above monies from tax revenues, to the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M System which collectively have approximately 50% of state public University students. The PUF does not provide any funding to other public Universities in the State of Texas.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 17, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
Jackalope, I think the The Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission have more credibility than Josh Fox.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... February 17, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
T6 please quit trying to give facts and dispute anything else says. That has to be wrong! I'm sure Michael Moore could chime in and prove you wrong after the Golden Corral buffet is closed.
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 18, 2012 at 3:27 a.m.
This Texas study suggests "that those problems are not caused directly by fracking"...
*
What about "indirectly" causing it..??? Like bullying indirectly causes some kids to commit suicide... I don't think it matters much to the parents that bullying was not a DIRECT cause... But, oh well...
*
How about we just allow fracking in TEXAS..??? Let them them really get experimental and see what indirect effects fracking causes in THEIR state..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
lazybar says... February 18, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
looks like the 2 sides of the argument of fracking are those who get checks from fayetteville shale and those who are jealous of those who are getting checks.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 18, 2012 at 5:13 p.m.
aimee says, What about "indirectly" causing it..??? Like bullying indirectly causes some kids to commit suicide... I don't think it matters much to the parents that bullying was not a DIRECT cause... But, oh well... Boy your reaching on that one, HUH?
You lefties always come up with the yes but, argument?
( permalink | suggest removal )
LevitiCuss says... February 18, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.
No link at all between groundwater and fracking...except for a big-ass pipe. LOL! Yeah, when everything goes right, nothing breaks, and nobody ever makes a mistake (ever), then fracking is perfectly safe. In fact, rainbows and the sound of laughing children comes spouting back out of that hole...
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 19, 2012 at 12:34 a.m.
No, indirect causes are just as crucial as direct causes if they lead to the same outcome...
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 19, 2012 at 8:52 a.m.
The same EPA you trot out when the outcome is in the environmentalist favor is the same EPA that finds no link in fracking and groundwater contamination. Live with it!!!!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 19, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday for the first time that fracking — a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells — may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution."
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 19, 2012 at 11:30 a.m.
"The EPA's found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. Health officials last year advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found low levels hydrocarbons in their wells."
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 19, 2012 at 12:23 p.m.
The EPA also emphasized that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics.
The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking-water aquifer and close to wells, the EPA said. Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that would normally be used.
( permalink | suggest removal )
igotfracked says... February 19, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
"The report, released here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceNOW), doesn't give this form of natural gas extraction a clean bill of health. Rather, it suggests that problems aren't directly caused by fracking, a process in which water, sand, and chemicals are pumped into wells to break up deep layers of shale and release natural gas. Instead, the report concludes, contamination tends to happen closer to the surface when gas and drilling fluid escapes from poorly lined wells or storage ponds." From Science Now, Vancouver, Canada
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... February 19, 2012 at 1:43 p.m.
Sorry, but you said "the same EPA that finds no link in fracking and groundwater contamination. " Now you say something else. The EPA has found contaminated ground water so that makes your statement not true.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Morgancub says... February 19, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.
I would think that the depth of the lateral section being frack'd would have everything to do with ground water contamination...Especially in a faulted area.. I would think that the fracking of some wells, in some areas could very easily cause damage and other wells not..
( permalink | suggest removal )
igotfracked says... February 19, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
From the EPA website dated Dec 8, 2011, " Chemicals detected in the most recent samples are consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds. The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production."****************
Good site StopARFracking. Anyone who considers leasing to the natural gas companies should see it.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NickieD says... February 19, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.
There have been 8 earthquakes in Ohio directly attributed to fracking.
TV ads lie... duh... anyone surprised?
Clean coal and clean Nat gas are a figment of an ad writers customer.
To defend what is being done by using the Gas Drillers information, is like believeing all Jews are bad because Hitler said so.
Would you believe that a company with so much profit at stake would admit they are screwing things up?
I believe that jackalope wins the argument, T6.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... February 19, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if the EPA agrees with the UT study!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
aimee says... February 20, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
T6:
*
Most DWI accidents happen close to home... I guess we can go ahead and allow drinking while driving, eh..???
*
"Lobotomies for Republicans: It's not just a good idea; it's the Law!"
*
Except some Republicans, like T6, already hold an official Republican Lobotomy Certificate (available online)..!!!
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.