American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2015 - 40

EPA Fracturing Study

Agency Finds Scant Impact To Water
By Del Torkelson

WASHINGTON-Industry groups are
claiming vindication from a study on the
potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing
on drinking water quality, even if development foes are hardly retreating.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency released the draft edition of the
study Congress ordered in 2010 in early
June. It finds scant evidence that high-volume well stimulation has polluted underground aquifers, but it also contends several above- and belowground activities that
take place before and after fracturing
have the potential to impact water quality. Even so, the agency acknowledges that
some of those mechanisms are not unique
to hydraulic fracturing, nor do they exhibit any pattern of water degradation.
"We did not find evidence that these
mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources
of the United States," the EPA report says.
Those mechanisms, it notes, include:
* Water withdrawals in times of, or areas with, low water availability;
* Fracturing fluid or produced water
spills;
* Gases and liquids that migrate belowground; and
* Inadequate wastewater treatment.
The bottom line, industry advocates
suggest, is that the report reinforces their
position that efforts to portray fracturing
as a notable source of water pollution are
little more than fearmongering. "This report contradicts the most prevalent claim
from anti-fracturing activists, which have
made 'water contamination' the very
foundation of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing," assesses Energy In
Depth researcher Katie Brown.
Although a number of oil and gas opponents are questioning the study's merit even as they trumpet isolated passages,
some third-party observers maintain the report's conclusions will muffle cries for
Washington to take the reins on fracturing oversight. Independent consulting
firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC is
quoted in published reports saying its review of EPA's report leads it to believe
"the study does not appear likely to spur
additional federal water regulation beyond
initiatives that are already in process."
Pass The Test
EPA describes the 998-page assessment
as a state-of-the-science synthesis and
compilation of data gleaned from re-

40 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

viewing 950 sources of information, including material from science and engineering journals, federal and state government reports, nongovernmental organization reports, industry publications, and the
agency's own research. Although EPA
says the analysis has a national scope, it
uses site-specific data to identify drinking
water vulnerabilities within the hydraulic
fracturing water cycle.
Industry advocates suggest fracturing
seems to have passed the study's test with
flying colors. "This EPA report confirms
what we have always known to be true:
that hydraulic fracturing does not imperil or lead 'to widespread, systemic impacts
on drinking water resources,'" maintains
Colorado Oil & Gas Association President
and Chief Executive Officer Dan Haley.
"While the EPA may point out that
some processes warrant increased attention, the industry has been and will continue to work closely with regulators and
stakeholders to ensure that natural gas and
oil production protects the environment
and the safety of nearby communities,"
adds Independent Petroleum Association
of America President Barry Russell.
"After more than five years and millions of dollars, the evidence gathered by
EPA confirms what the agency already has
acknowledged and what the oil and gas industry has known," continues API Upstream Group Director Erik Milito. "Hydraulic fracturing is being done safely under the strong environmental stewardship
of state regulators and best industry practices."
"The national environmental lobby
and celebrity activists will have to invent
new reasons to oppose what undoubtedly been a force for good here at home and
around the world," holds Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle.

Semantic Uncertainty
A number of industry groups voiced
concerns in November 2011 that EPA was
casting too wide a net when the agency announced the fracturing study's scope.
That uncertainty has not entirely abated.
"A continuing question will be EPA's actual definition of 'hydraulic fracturing,'"
Russell suggests. "In the draft report, the
agency appears to take a very broad definition and scope of fracturing, and categorizes some processes that are not part of
the actual fracturing activity, such as
casing and cementing."
He says that since most of the drinking
water vulnerabilities the EPA report iden-

tifies are not strictly a matter of well
stimulation, industry groups rightfully
can claim it vindicates them. Even so, some
observers suggest, the fact that EPA points
to risks of numerous associated activities
also offers the industry's foes some fodder,
which they have not neglected.
"The process of (fracturing) itself is one
risk factor, but it's not the biggest one,"
states Environmental Defense Fund Vice
President Mark Brownstein. "Ongoing
physical integrity of the wells and handling
the millions of gallons of wastewater
coming back to the surface after (fracturing) over the lifetime of each well are even
bigger challenges."
Many characterizations of the draft
study throughout the nonindustry media
depict the findings as a mixed bag, such
as stated in the headline to a column by
Forbes' Tom Zeller: "EPA's Fracking
Analysis: Something For Everyone."
Instead of providing the public with a
final word about fracturing safety, he
suggests, the study provides ammunition
for both the pro- or anti-fracturing camps.
"In a nutshell, the agency concluded that
the full complement of activities that accompany the modern extraction of oil and
gas . . . can pose a risk to drinking water.
However, the instances in which such contamination could be conclusively demonstrated are small, the EPA said-exceedingly so, if you consider the thousands of fractured wells that now dot the American
landscape," Zeller wrote.

The Big Picture
With headlines such as the New York
Times' "Fracking Has Not Had Big Effect
On Water Supply, EPA Says While Noting Risks," nonindustry media sources
have acknowledged the proportional considerations, but also tend to play up
EPA's conclusion that drinking water
can be degraded by fracturing, though they
employ the term loosely. Nevertheless,
EPA estimates:
* Companies fractured 25,000-30,000
new U.S. wells a year between 2011 and
2014.
* Between 2000 and 2013, 9.4 million
people lived within one mile of a fractured
well.
* In that same period, 6,800 sources
of drinking water for public water systems
were within one mile of at least one fractured well.
Although EPA claims a few instances
of water contamination that may be attributable to actual fracturing, it admits such
American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2015
