Energy Issues

After several weeks of intense research in print, broadcast and online media, I have discovered that hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology. In fact, it dates to the beginning of time. Invented by Beelzebub himself, it was initially intended to blow up, poison or otherwise do-in God-fearing folks worldwide. Its application to increase oil and gas production was discovered accidently, eons later, in the late 1940s. That, of course, only increased the hideous, deadly potential of fracturing by spreading its use. Now, it appears, the entire fabric of the planet is at risk. Or, so one may conclude, after studying the popular news media.

This view has been refuted by a recent study of hydraulic fracturing released by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin (http://energy.utexas.edu). According to the Energy Institute, “The goal of the research is to provide policymakers with a fact-based foundation upon which they can formulate rational regulatory policies that ensure responsible shale gas development.” The report examines a number of issues related to shale gas development, including groundwater contamination, toxicity of fracturing fluids, surface spills, atmospheric emissions, water use, drilling waste disposal, blowouts, and road traffic and noise. A bit more about these issues later.

Perhaps the most revealing information—for those of us in the industry—contained within the report deals not with HSE issues, but with public perception. The report analyzes media coverage of shale gas development in the Marcellus, Haynesville and Barnett shales. The analysis, while not really news to most of us, is eye-opening. The report finds “that the tone of media coverage has been overwhelmingly negative in all forms of media,” by a factor of two-to-one. Much more revealing are the sources used by the media. Researchers “found that less than 20% of newspaper articles on hydraulic fracturing mention scientific research related to the issue. Similarly, only 25% of broadcast news stories examined made reference to scientific studies, and only about 33% of online news coverage mentioned scientific research on the issue.” Pick the word you want to use here—absurd, astounding, unacceptable, unprofessional, biased, s$&&y b#^@*^ds. The one phrase you may not use, however, is “sound journalism.”

Now, off the soap box and on to the meat of the study. First, this is no whitewash of hydraulic fracturing or oil and gas operations. Where warts exist, they are identified. For instance, the study notes that surface spills of fracturing fluid appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than does fracturing, itself. There is no suggestion that the risk of groundwater contamination does not exist. In fact, the study notes “many” reports of groundwater contamination, most of them originating from failed casing and/or cement rather than fracturing.

The study includes “key findings” in three areas, groundwater contamination and other environmental impacts, regulation of shale gas development and enforcement of state regulations. With regard to environmental impacts, in addition to the two discussed above, researchers found:

• “No evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from fracturing at depth.
• Methane found in water wells, within some shale gas areas, can, most likely, be traced to natural sources, and was likely present before the onset of shale gas operations.
• Blowouts are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.”

Concerning regulation of shale gas development, the study finds that:

• “Primary regulatory authority for shale gas is at the state level, and many federal requirements have been relegated to the states.
• Most state oil and gas regulations were written well before shale gas development became widespread.
• Some states have revised regulations specifically for shale gas development, with particular focus on three areas of concern:

• Gaps remain in the regulation of well casing and cementing, water withdrawal and usage, and waste storage and disposal.
• Regulation should focus on the most urgent issues, such as spill prevention, which may pose greater risks that hydraulic fracturing, itself.”
• Finally, researchers, who reviewed state agencies’ enforcement capabilities, concluded:
• “Enforcement capacity is highly variable among the states, particularly when measured by the ratio of staff to the number of inspections conducted.
• Most violations recorded are of the type associated with conventional drilling, rather than being specific to hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production.
• Enforcement actions tend to emphasize surface incidents more than subsurface contaminant releases, perhaps because they are easier to observe.”

The Energy Institute strove to create a non-biased study, actively involving the Environmental Defense Fund  (EDF) in developing the scope of the work and the methodology for the study. EDF also reviewed the final work products.