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 Gary Joseph Anselmo on
-
With what the EPA tried to sneak past folks in the Camp Minden area, I would hardly think touting the EPA and their report as some clearance for wholesale fracking. The EPA has a checkered history with being objective on fracking, and burning lethal and contaminating explosives. If local activists had not questioned the initial EPA approval, the original burn plan would have happened at Camp Minden. Some feel the same can be said for the way the EPA handles objective study of the O&G industry.
http://mic.com/articles/58155/the-epa-tried-to-cover-up-this-fracki...
Two EPA whistle-blowers recently approached the American Tradition Institute (ATI) and revealed that politics were at play in the decision to censor the EPA’s actual findings about Dimock. According to the whistle-blowers, former EPA head Lisa Jackson was at the heart of the cover-up. EnergyWire's Mike Soraghan has reported that the EPA studies were dropped “out of fear the inquiries would hurt President Obama’s reelection chances.”
The two EPA whistle-blowers' initial findings pointed to water contamination in Dimock, but they claim that their superiors told them to stop the investigation. One of the whistle-blowers said he came forward due to witnessing, “patently unethical and possibly illegal acts conducted by EPA management.”
“I have for over a year now worked within the system to try and make right the injustice and apparent unethical acts I witnessed. I have not been alone in this effort,” the unnamed whistle-blower told Soraghan. “I took an oath when I became a federal employee that I assume very solemnly.”
Former EPA head Jackson, who was at the center of the management team that released the false desk statement, now works as Apple’s top environmental adviser. Back at the EPA, Jackson was recently replaced by just-confirmed head Gina McCarthy.
-
Permalink Reply by JHH on
-
The Camp Minden/EPA situation is amazing. You are right on target with your observations. And i hate to say it... but an EPA review of most military bases would be horrifying.
-
Permalink Reply by JHH on
-
Well, that's a little encouraging. Here's the headline (as expected) from the Huffington Post.
EPA Finds Some Cases Of Water Contamination Related To Fracking, But Says It's Not Widespread
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on -
The EPA is in collusion with the oil and gas industry? I doubt it. The knee jerk reaction to attack the messenger generally signals the lack of any persuasive rebuttal. And it's always a good idea to change the subject to - Camp Minden? As the science piles up the fractivists become increasingly shrill. They begin to remind me of climate change deniers. Both ignore the science as their ranks decline daily.
-
Permalink Reply by dbob on
-
Haven't had the chance to read the study. But it fits what we told the EPA initially. I personally wish it had been better funded, because I think good quality field work would have both satisfied the public and supported industry contention.
Regarding Dimock - I think its fairly widely accepted that there is/was oil and gas related contamination of drinking water there, which was primarily related to drilling practices. Drilling practices were modified in the region, in part due to Dimock. Much of the problem there has cleared up given time. If anyone is under the impression that it is from hydraulic fracturing, message me and I'll try to give you some facts.
Regarding Camp Minden, the current problem is being made worse by the public pressure to do something other than the open burn method. Open burn has a high probability of successfully managing the problem, but the longer they delay, the more unstable the situation can become.
Even if open burn is not the ultimate solution for the bulk of the material, I wish the powers that be would allow them to start, at a small scale, with getting grid of the most unstable components.
-
-
"Knee jerk reaction?" No knee jerk reaction, try studied observation of EPA actions and responses to whistle blowers and political pressure. Please pull your head out of the sand and realize the EPA was prepared to allow a disastrous disposal of explosives under your upturned nose, Mr. Peel. The activists involved in stopping the insanity were told by local officials (off record) that the EPA and its staff in the region were lax due to the power of the O&G industry in your great state and surrounding area. It is not a question of changing the subject, it addresses the subject for those not shilling and dealing. You of the arrogant rejoinder, care to comment on the experience of the EPA cover ups in the Marcellus? No, you would care to bring up climate change deniers. Talk about three card monte. Guess that is part of being an "Independent Landman."
If one is not your sock puppet, then I guess they are shrill. Nice try.
-
Permalink Reply by dbob on
-
Gary
You need to look at the EPA data from Dimock, http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-pennsylvania I hardly think this is an EPA cover up. Bad things occasionally happen, although at a frequency much lower than the media or anti-drilling folks would believe. Skip and others here readily admit there were legitimately issues. We have a forum here where we can constructively engage on these issues if you like, but your attitude an assumptions about those of us who work in the business make discussion challenging.
-
Permalink Reply by RGV AG on
-
Mr. Anselmo:
Half veiled and condescending personal attacks do little other than demonstrate poor form and reinforce self attained hysteria. Your manner of response does nothing but further prove Skip's points via the shrill tone and content of your response. This forum attempts to be, and usually is, fairly polite.
Skip accurately made mention, accurately I might add, of the highly dubious scenario of the EPA being subverted by the Oil and Gas industry. The reality just is not so. Your condescension could be easily understood should you offer up some solid proof. We will wait for that proof in case we are wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by tc on
-
Now I think Skip's comment is correct under the current President, but almost all high level officials at the various government agencies work at the pleasure of the President. The EPA could very easily be subverted by the O&G industry. Only a fool would think that if Rick Perry become the next President, and named Boone Pickens as the next EPA administrator that we would ever see a "published" negative report on the O&G industry. Actually under the above scenario there might not even be an EPA agency.
-
Permalink Reply by RGV AG on
-
TC:
Good points and well said but highly unlikely. The thing about the EPA is that it is filled with career beuracrats that were there before Obama and will be there after the next president. The minions at the bottom in any Federal agency have an easy path to manipulate policy and direction. Equally they can delay or speed up directions based on personal preferences and agenda.
The above is the problem with a large Federal government. I would argue that an agency like the EPA is not so much an enforcement or regulatory agency as it is a referee at a boxing match. Who knows what personal and or agency direction it may take on any specific case. Equally, it never appears to make either side completely happy.
-
-
I am sure that the career bureaucrats and political appointed leaders butt heads numerous times. I would also bet that the original report/study on fracking was completed months ago and that numerous parties within the EPA and the administration have been reviewing/editing/spinning the released draft.
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
-
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
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
