Join
Search

No Proven Case of Water Contamination?

Bookmark and Share

We have all heard the oft-repeated statement from proponents of unconventional oil and gas development that “hydraulic fracturing does not cause water contamination.” It has come up in relation to controversies over EPA studies in Pavillion, Wyoming, and, most recently, Dimock, Pennsylvania. It has even come up at congressional hearings, where senators were distracted from the more important issue of contamination by the difficulty of pinning down expert witnesses on a simple definition of their terms — whether so-called “fracking” refers to a specific step in the process of extracting oil and gas or more broadly to all of the operations and activities involved.

As much as I love words, it is a sorry sign of the state of the public dialogue over questions about the safety of our water and the future of our energy supply— science-based questions of rising national importance — that we are reduced to quibbling over language.  So, let me deliberately set aside semantics and restate what ought to be a simple and straightforward question: “Does fracking, whether as a specific step in the overall process of oil and gas extraction or as a set of related activities and operations, cause water contamination?”

More than a few complaints

I am not going to answer this question here, but I will go so far as to reaffirm that it is a legitimate question to ask—one we should be asking. We know that there have been more than a few complaints about accidents and spills. And we know that peer-reviewed scientific studies published in 2013 from teams at Duke University and the University of Texas at Arlington have found evidence of elevated levels of methane and arsenic, among other chemicals, in groundwater near fracking sites.

These studies highlight the need for more research and better regulatory oversight. But—adding to the list of things we do know about hydraulic fracturing—we also know that the EPA has a dubious record of investigating complaints.

Following a 2004 EPA study that concluded, “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane wells poses little or no threat to USDWs [underground sources of drinking water],” an EPA scientist and whistleblower called the study “scientifically unsound,” noting that “five of the seven members of the [peer-review] panel appear to have conflicts of interest and may benefit from the EPA’s decision.”  In 2011, the EPA released a study on possible drinking water contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming, and concluded that the data indicated “likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.” When the study was met with strong criticism from industry, the EPA said it would carry out further testing, but in 2013, the agency decided to withdraw, leaving the case to the state.

Now, just last month, the EPA announced the results of a study it had been conducting in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The agency’s press release on July 25 optimistically announced that the study had “determined that there are not levels of contaminants present that would require additional action by the Agency.” This should have been reassuring, right?

EPA: Leaked documents and mixed messages

Unfortunately, a leaked EPA PowerPoint presentation indicated very different conclusions from those stated in the press release. What exactly did this document disclose? Decide for yourself. The concluding slide reads as follows:

  • Methane is released during the drilling and perhaps during the fracking process and other gas well work.
  • Methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking and other gas well work.
  • The methane migrating into the aquifer is both from the shallower (younger age) formations and older Marcellus Shale (and perhaps even older formations).
  • Methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality.
  • In some cases the aquifers recover (under a year) but, in others cases the damage is long term (greater than 3 years).

epa dimock screenshot

The need for transparency

To move the public discussion forward, the need for information is paramount, as is the vital role of federal agencies in providing it. But given this latest censoring on the part of the EPA, we have very little assurance that agencies are living up to their role. Why is it that so many efforts to gain more information — particularly those efforts initiated by government agencies tasked with protecting the public interest — run up against repeated obstacles?

What we need today is transparency — both from the oil and gas industry and from our federal agencies tasked with regulating it. Without transparency, the public cannot hold key players accountable. Without accountability, we cannot trust decision makers. And without trust, we are resigned to fear. When we make decisions out of fear instead of knowledge, our democracy suffers, as do the communities that comprise it and the individuals who must live with the consequences.

Posted in: Energy, Fossil Fuels, Science and Democracy Tags: , , , ,

About the author: Deborah Bailin is a democracy analyst for UCS’s Center for Science and Democracy and researches political and societal barriers to formulating science-based policies. She came to UCS in 2012 as an ACLS Public Fellow and holds a PhD in English from the University of Maryland, where she studied the cultural influence of Charles Darwin on American literature. Subscribe to Deborah's posts

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

  • Richard

    Thanks for a very illuminating, albeit troubling, post. I had not seen the report in the LA TIMES about this failure by the EPA to live up to its mandate.

    Your post lacks two things, however. First, what does UCS plan to do about this lack of honesty in the EPA? Second, what does UCS suggest that its members like myself do about it?

    It’s great to inform us about these issues. But action is also needed to keep the spotlight on the EPA. Otherwise, the EPA, as well as other agencies like the NRC, will continue to fail to live up to their mandates to protect the American citizen.

    • http://www.ucsusa.org/about/staff/staff/deborah-bailin.html Deborah Bailin

      Hi RIchard,

      Glad you found the post informative, though, yes indeed, it is a troubling subject and a troubling trend.

      To answer your questions about action, the first step towards action is always raising awareness. And that’s what we’re doing right now, and what I hope you will do with your personal and professional networks through social media. Share this post, and share the LA Times article. Get people talking.

      You might also check out UCS’s Science in an Age of Scrutiny http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/science-scrutiny.pdf. It doesn’t explicitly answer the question of how to hold EPA accountable but it does provide some good suggestions for taking actions as a concerned scientist or just a concerned citizen who wants to protect science from attacks and abuses — which is essentially what this is.

      And of course, as a concerned citizen, you can also reach out to your elected officials — write to them to raise their awareness of the issue.

      I hope this is at least somewhat helpful. This is an issue that isn’t going away anytime soon so anything you can do to draw people’s attention to it will help build momentum towards action.

      • Richard

        Deborah,

        Thanks for the reply.

        Your post surely did raise my awareness! It also led me to some action.

        After writing on The Equation about it on 8/12, I sent emails to Senators Boxer and Feinstein of California to alert them to this situation. Boxer, in particular, is the chair person of a Senate committee which has some oversight responsibilities for the EPA. I encouraged her to call for a hearing to investigate what has taken place with the EPA’s abuse of scientific integrity.

        I then sent copies of the LA Times article, your post, and my emails for Boxer/Feinstein to friends and family whom I thought would be concerned once they knew more about this.

        I hope other UCS members will do likewise with the Senators and Congressional Reps where they live.

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, obscene, rude or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. When commenting, you must use your real name. Valid email addresses are required. (UCS respects your privacy; we will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)