EPA on fracking: No 'widespread' impact on water
EPA’s assessment concludes that there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases, and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
EPA did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
The entire EPA Press Release
WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing a draft assessment today on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing activities on drinking water resources in the United States. The assessment, done at the request of Congress, shows that while hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources, there are potential vulnerabilities in the water lifecycle that could impact drinking water. The assessment follows the water used for hydraulic fracturing from water acquisition, chemical mixing at the well pad site, well injection of fracking fluids, the collection of hydraulic fracturing wastewater (including flowback and produced water), and wastewater treatment and disposal [http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturing-water-cycle].
“EPA’s draft assessment will give state regulators, tribes and local communities and industry around the country a critical resource to identify how best to protect public health and their drinking water resources,” said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA’s Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “It is the most complete compilation of scientific data to date, including over 950 sources of information, published papers, numerous technical reports, information from stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports.”
EPA’s review of data sources available to the agency found specific instances where well integrity and waste water management related to hydraulic fracturing activities impacted drinking water resources, but they were small compared to the large number of hydraulically fractured wells across the country. The report provides valuable information about potential vulnerabilities, some of which are not unique to hydraulic fracturing, to drinking water resources, but was not designed to be a list of documented impacts.
These vulnerabilities to drinking water resources include:
water withdrawals in areas with low water availability;
hydraulic fracturing conducted directly into formations containing drinking water resources;
inadequately cased or cemented wells resulting in below ground migration of gases and liquids;
inadequately treated wastewater discharged into drinking water resources;
and spills of hydraulic fluids and hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including flowback and produced water.
Also released today were nine peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports (www.epa.gov/hfstudy). These reports were a part of EPA’s overall hydraulic fracturing drinking water study and contributed to the findings outlined in the draft assessment. Over 20 peer-reviewed articles or reports were published as part of this study [http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/published-scientific-papers].
States play a primary role in regulating most natural gas and oil development. EPA’s authority is limited by statutory or regulatory exemptions under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Where EPA’s exemptions exist, states may have authority to regulate unconventional oil and gas extraction activities under their own state laws.
EPA’s draft assessment benefited from extensive stakeholder engagement conducted across the country with states, tribes, industry, non-governmental organizations, the scientific community and the public to ensure that the draft assessment reflects current practices in hydraulic fracturing and utilizes all data and information available to the agency.
The study will be finalized after review by the Science Advisory Board and public review and comment. The Federal Register Notice with information on the SAB review and how to comment on the draft assessment will be published on Friday June 5, 2015.
Read more:
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil...
Review of Well Operator Files for Hydraulically Fractured Oil and G...
Views: 1033
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doulos Christou on
-
It is funny. It's also funny how some people in some regions can light their water on fire because of the gas content.
Funny indeed...
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on -
Lighting faucets is no proof of contamination of water wells from O&G related activities. What goes unsaid in the anecdotal instances of implied contamination is the simple test to determine where the ng originated. NG is made of many component elements and associated impurities. Each source has a differing make up and concentrations unique to that reservoir. In the vast majority of contamination incidents the ng comes from natural, shallow zones that are close in true vertical depth to the fresh water aquifer. Not the reservoir 5000 to 12000' deeper from which a well may be producing.
-
Permalink Reply by Doulos Christou on
-
I can understand why you might feel that my original comment might have touched a nerve with you. You seem very intent on completely shutting down any discussion that fracking or ng may actually affect water sources. I didn't comment to get into a urinating contest with you. For that very reason, I leave this discussion and this so-called "discussion" board to those of you with agendas and less than objective viewpoints.
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Just ask a water well driller and they will tell you that many times before they reach the water table they hit pockets of natural gas.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
No nerve. Simply a desire to point out the science backed facts. This board has as its genesis the Haynesviile Shale which encompasses a region where O&G exploration and production has been ongoing for a century. Many land owning families have had wells drilled on their property for five generations. If there were serious ongoing problems we would know it. Many of us are familiar with naturally occurring shallow ng that can get into a fresh water aquifer. There was an incidence in north Caddo Parish within the year. Wells have been drilled in the vicinity during that time so the gas in the water well was tested to see if it matched the gas being produced from 10,000' deeper. They didn't match. There are numerous instances of water wells with trace amounts of ng across much of this region where there is no well within 10 or 20 or 40 miles. My clients are land and mineral owners. I've never worked for the "industry". And if you had been around a while you would have read numerous instances where I have criticized the industry. Anecdotal mentions of lighting faucets doesn't impress us because we know how that can occur.
-
Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on
-
Then there was the yahoo who hooked his water well up to a gas pipe and then showed an EPA guy that it burned. Well, duh. He lost big time and has been or is in the process of being sued for damages. EPA backed down when it reviewed the data from the Texas Railroad Commission (the agency that controls petroleum drilling operations in Texas).
-
Permalink Reply by dbob on
-
Some guy named La Salle reported natural gas seeps in New York in 1669. Probably not related to HF. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/nyserda2.pdf
Big thing is, and we have discussed this some here, poor cement jobs, casing leaks, and surface spills appear to be the biggest threat. HF is just the name for the Booger everyone is worried about in their backyard. And most folks worry out of ignorance.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
