WorldWide Drilling Resource

EPA Does an About Face? Not Really Compiled by Bonnie Love, Editor, WorldWide Drilling Resource ® The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final report on the impacts from hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and it has many in an uproar. Done at the request of Congress, the five-year study, Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States, has sent mainstream media, and those opposed to the process into a frenzy. Definitions were changed and wording was omitted, but in the end, the results were the same. In initial reports, the EPA stated hydraulic fracturing activities, “have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources . . . ” The final report removed the wording and instead, points to the circumstances which could potentially lead to groundwater contamination, such as: a Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, or with limited / declining groundwater resources; a Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals, or produced water which results in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; a Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, al- lowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; a Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; a Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and a Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits resulting in con- tamination of groundwater resources. Why was the wording removed? Well, according to EPA Science Adviser Thomas Burke, it was removed because of “gaps in information” which prevented the agency from determining how much contamination or the rate of impact. The American Petroleum Institute (API) accused the EPA of distorting the science. API Upstream Director Erik Milito said, "The agency has walked away from nearly a thousand sources of information from published papers, technical reports, and peer reviewed scientific reports demonstrating that industry practices, industry trends, and regulatory programs protect water resources at every step of the hy- draulic fracturing process. Decisions like this amplify the public's frustrations with Washington. Fortunately, the science and data clearly demonstrate that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources . . ." Numerous studies have come to the same conclusion. No drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing has been found in the Marcellus, Utica, Barnett, Permian, Eagle Ford, Woodford, Fayetteville, Haynesville, Bakken, Denver- Julesburg, Piceance, Raton, or any other shale formation where oil and gas resources are being developed through the process. Just a few of those studies include: B Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences , Yale University, 2015: “We found no evidence for direct communication with shallow drinking water wells due to upward migration from shale horizons.” B California Council on Science and Technology, 2015: “We found no documented instance of hydraulic fracturing or acid stimulations directly causing groundwater contamination in California.” B Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2016: “Evidence does not indicate that hydraulic fracturing fluids have risen to shallow depths intersected by water-supply wells.” B Groundwater and Geophysical Research Letters, 2013: “It is not physically plausible for induced fractures to create a hydraulic connection between deep black shale and other tight formations to overlying potable aquifers, based on the limited amount of height growth at depth and the rotation of the last principal stress to the vertical direction at shallow depths.” B U.S. Department of Energy’s National Technology Laboratory, 2014: Researchers injected tracers into the hydraulic fracturing fluid in a well in Greene County, Pennsylvania, to track for signs of possible migration. After 12 months of monitoring, the researchers found “no evidence of gas migration from the Marcellus Shale.” Nearly 275,000 hydraulically fractured wells have been drilled between 2000-2015, across 25 different states. With more than 8.5 million people getting their water from a source located within a mile of a hydraulically fractured well, one would think con- tamination would be more prevalent. What about spills? Even after reviewing nearly 500 spill reports from the fracking fluid chemical mixing process, the EPA found no documented impacts to groundwater from those spills. Burke went on to say, “What we found is that although the overall incidents of im- pacts is low . . . there are vulnerabilities.” People have such a negative view of hydraulic fracturing, but most don’t take the time to do the actual research. The fact the EPA couldn’t find any major or widespread impacts while using the most comprehensive report on the subject, should be evidence enough that the process is safe. The industry and current regulations are working to protect our groundwater resources, while sup- porting millions of U.S. jobs and contributing 8% of the nation’s economy. Editor’s Note: In between our print issues, the WWDR Team prepares an electronic newsletter called E-News Flash . Based on readership, this was th e most popular E-News Flash article of the month. Get in on the action and subscribe today at : www.worldwidedrillingresource.com Photo by Joshua Doubek. Atlantis Vault • Simple installation • Trouble-free operation For more information call: (270) 786-3010 or visit us online: www.geothermalsupply.com 8 APRIL 2017 WorldWide Drilling Resource ®