Fracking Doesn’t Contaminate Water Aquifers

NED Pipeline - Jim Willis reports

Jim Willis
Editor & Publisher, Marcellus Drilling News (MDN)

 

Researchers from Yale tested well water near natural gas sites for methane and fracking fluids and found there was no contamination to water aquifers.

A team of researchers led by Yale University have just published a new “peer reviewed” study that finds fracking does not contaminate water aquifers. Mainstream media’s response? Crickets. Nothing. Why is that?

Here’s something even better: One of the researchers who participated in the study is none other than Avner Vengosh from Duke University, who, using Park Foundation money, previously published studies stating the opposite. It seems Vengosh has changed his tune and now admits fracking doesn’t contaminate ground water after all. Looks like Vengosh won’t be getting a Christmas card from the Park Foundation this year.

water aquifers

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and titled “Elevated levels of diesel range organic compounds in groundwater near Marcellus gas operations are derived from surface activities” (abstract below), finds that when diesel and other types of chemicals *are* found in ground water in the Marcellus Shale region, it’s because of a spill on the surface and not necessarily a spill from a truck or operation involved with shale drilling. There are many industrial activities that have accidents and spill chemicals.

Here’s the abstract/summary from the study:

Significance

Organic compounds found in drinking water aquifers above the Marcellus Shale and other shale plays could reflect natural geologic transport processes or contamination from anthropogenic activities, including enhanced natural gas production. Using analyses of organic compounds coupled with inorganic geochemical fingerprinting, estimates of groundwater residence time, and geospatial analyses of shale gas wells and disclosed safety violations, we determined that the dominant source of organic compounds to shallow aquifers was consistent with surface spills of disclosed chemical additives. There was no evidence of association with deeper brines or long-range migration of these compounds to the shallow aquifers. Encouragingly, drinking water sources affected by disclosed surface spills could be targeted for treatment and monitoring to protect public health.

Abstract

Hundreds of organic chemicals are used during natural gas extraction via high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). However, it is unclear whether these chemicals, injected into deep shale horizons, reach shallow groundwater aquifers and affect local water quality, either from those deep HVHF injection sites or from the surface or shallow subsurface. Here, we report detectable levels of organic compounds in shallow groundwater samples from private residential wells overlying the Marcellus Shale in northeastern Pennsylvania. Analyses of purgeable and extractable organic compounds from 64 groundwater samples revealed trace levels of volatile organic compounds, well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant levels, and low levels of both gasoline range (0–8 ppb) and diesel range organic compounds (DRO; 0–157 ppb). A compound-specific analysis revealed the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which is a disclosed HVHF additive, that was notably absent in a representative geogenic water sample and field blanks. Pairing these analyses with (i) inorganic chemical fingerprinting of deep saline groundwater, (ii) characteristic noble gas isotopes, and (iii) spatial relationships between active shale gas extraction wells and wells with disclosed environmental health and safety violations, we differentiate between a chemical signature associated with naturally occurring saline groundwater and one associated with alternative anthropogenic routes from the surface (e.g., accidental spills or leaks). The data support a transport mechanism of DRO to groundwater via accidental release of fracturing fluid chemicals derived from the surface rather than subsurface flow of these fluids from the underlying shale formation.

We don’t have a copy of the full study (requires a subscription). However, the smart folks at Energy in Depth scored a copy and they file this review:

Some of the same researchers who previously claimed that groundwater in the Marcellus region was being contaminated by shale development released a new study this week finding no evidence that hydraulic fracturing fluids have migrated up into drinking water – consistent with what independent scientists and regulators have been saying about fracking for years. The new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, led by researchers at Yale, includes Robert Jackson (now with Stanford University) and Avner Vengosh, who were both behind the Duke studies that purported to find widespread contamination from shale development. But as their new study explains,

We found no evidence for direct communication with shallow drinking water wells due to upward migration form shale horizons.  This result is encouraging, because it implies there is some degree of temporal and spatial separation between injected fluids and the drinking water supply.” (p. 5; emphasis added)

This study’s finding that contamination is not coming from fracking, but could occur from surface spills, is also not new. In fact, the EPA’s five year study of fracking and groundwater released this summer found no evidence for widespread water contamination, and any issues that were identified were isolated and small compared to the total number of wells drilled.

Notably, the researchers also ruled out the possibility of well casing failure as a cause of the contamination.  From the study,

“Methane abundance from paired samples or previous sampling campaigns showed no correlation with GRO or DRO (SI Appendix, Fig. S4), and the noble gas analysis provided no evidence for fugitive gas contamination in the elevated GRO and DRO samples [e.g., low air-saturated water abundances ([36Ar], [N2]), or 4He/CH4 (10)]. Furthermore, samples with elevated GRO (>5 ppb) had relatively low methane and Br? (<1 ppm for both). Thus, leaky well casings are an unlikely source of GRO compounds.” (p. 3; emphasis added)

Further, the concentrations of chemicals that the researchers found were “well below” drinking water standards for concern to public health.  As the study explains,

“Analyses of purgeable and extractable organic compounds from 64 groundwater samples revealed trace levels of volatile organic compounds, well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum contaminant levels, and low levels of both gasoline rans (0-8 ppb) and diesel rang organic compounds (CRO; 0-157 pp).” (p. 1)

One of the researchers on the study, Desiree Plata of Yale University, sat down with NPR for an interview in which she explained that the contamination was found “only in a handful of wells.” As she put it, “really even using the word contamination is a stretch because when these detections were made they were still at very low concentrations.”

Even so, it’s worth noting that the study also acknowledges that,

“Organic compounds found in drinking water aquifers above the Marcellus Shale and other shale plays could reflect natural geologic transport processes or contamination from anthropogenic activities, including enhanced natural gas production.” (p. 1)

In other words, the researchers point to the possibility that the contamination could be naturally occurring or could have resulted from any industry, not necessarily natural gas development.  That’s especially important in Pennsylvania because numerous studies using baseline data have found water contamination in wells long before any development.  The most recent one comes from a report by researchers at Syracuse University, which looked at 21,000 baseline samples and found,

“no broad changes in variability of chemical quality in this large dataset to suggest any unusual salinization caused by possible release of produced waters from oil and gas operations, even after thousands of gas wells have been drilled among tens of thousands of domestic wells within the two areas studied.”

Other studies looking specifically at methane have also found contamination before development ever occurred.  Two studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found thermogenic methane in water wells in Pennsylvania that predate drilling activity.  Another USGS study found high levels of methane in water wells in New York, even though there’s a moratorium on fracking.

It’s also worth considering the fact that the researchers focus in on the presence of Bis(2-ethylhexyl), which, as they rightly state, is an

“ubiquitous chemical that is used in many industrial practices and materials, and it is difficult to attribute its  presence solely to hydraulic fracturing activities.”  (p. 5)

The researchers explain that they were able to rule out the Bis(2-ethylhexyl) coming from their own analytical procedure but the fact remains that the chemical is contained in a number products.  As the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry explains,

“Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthlate (DEHP) is a manufactured chemical that is commonly added to plastics to make them flexible. DEHP is a colorless liquid with almost no odor. DEHP is present in plastic products such as wall coverings, tablecloths, floor tiles, furniture upholstery, shower curtains, garden hoses, swimming pool liners, rainwear, baby pants, dolls, some toys, shoes, automobile upholstery and tops, packaging film and sheets, sheathing for wire and cable, medical tubing, and blood storage bags.”

This latest study provides a pretty big blow to the anti-fracking groups that have used the Duke researchers’ previous research to push their unfounded water contamination claims.  For instance, Josh Fox claims writes on his Gasland site,

“Industy [sic] arguments that methane occurs naturally in the environment in the Dimock area and therefore should be expected in the water suplly [sic] are dangerously misleading. A Duke University study found that drilling into the methane layer allows the natural but toxic gas to migrate into the water supply… Additionally, Duke University recently conducted a peer-reviewed study that links water contamination with nearby drilling and fracking, concluding that water wells near drilling and fracking operations were seventeen times more likely to contain elevated levels of methane.” (emphasis added)

Now even the Duke researchers are coming to conclusions very much in line with EPA’s findings that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a credible threat to drinking water.  It’s unfortunate that their previous studies did so much to frighten the public about theoretical risks.

water aquifers

To her credit (and quite surprisingly), the normally anti-drilling and left-leaning PBS reporter Susan Phillips, from StateImpact Pennsylvania, wrote a pretty balanced story. Miracles never cease!

Phillips’ StateImpact story was the only one we could find from mainstream media concerning the study as of early this morning. Where’s CNN? CBS? NBC? ABC? Fox? Washington Post? New York Times? Boston Herald? Nowhere to be found. Not a single story.

For more great articles on the subject of natural gas development every single day, subscribe to Marcellus Drilling News using this convenient link.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

7 thoughts on “Fracking Doesn’t Contaminate Water Aquifers

  1. Fracking fluids are only one of the many nuisances related to issues caused by high volume hydrofracing for NG .Just another of the many stories written for promotion .

  2. Bill, you are spot on again! Imagine having to cash all them pesky roalty checks? Sounds like a real pain in the butt ta me.
    Facts are facts, too bad they wont help ya smear NG Bill !
    None of this matters for those of us in NY but maybe it can help you folks in Pa ?
    Imagine all the spills that might have been discoverd in NY if not for the Cuomo ban protection blanket?
    A lot of trust funds sure would of taken a cleanup hit!
    Public tv ran this earlier this week so maybe one or more of the major networks will stumble on it within the next week?
    They do tend to be slow on pro energy issues?
    Great article Jim ! Great news too! Too bad nobody will ever hear it.

    • Look ..Buddy let me get you up to speed (quickly ) ….wells drop to around 20 % after as little as 2 yrs. ..many co’s make more on assignments than actual drilling and production .In PA we have had companies screw people on royalties using a clause called “Enhanced Marketing ” look it up means they can take post production costs out of royalties .Chesapeake is one of the co’s and has threatened to send bills to royalty owners because they claim they aren’t making enough out of their production .All you people that live out of the drilling only think it’s all about money and is just “So simple ” but it is far from that .Write down what I post you’ll need it for reference if drilling is ever done near you …If you think this is just BS then it’s your loss .Very few make out for awhile most do not but suffer all nuisances and health issues related to the extractions . So you all here can wish your way to NO where because it isn’t as wonderful as cracked up to be !..YOUR call !

  3. Like i have said time and time again Bill, I agree on a lot of what you post!
    I had a landman tell me the most he could offer by state law was %12.5 on royalties? He informed me that he was willing to go as high as a dollar fifty a foot for pipe!Big bucks !
    Needless to say , I didnt sign . Sadly a lot of my neighbors did! They wanted big up front lease payments!
    They got um and are still renewing those leases that came with a rite to survey atachment.A 50 year contract for transport pipe! A 30 incher at that!
    As i have posted on here before, a little caution goes a long way towards protecting your rights!
    A boilerplate lease mixed with a lot of greed can put a real hurtin on a land owner! The od part is the same names seem to keep poppin up on those deals?
    And Bill due to your strong will and true determination I suspect that some day we might well be buddies? Just as soon as we can come to some middle point on all this? Ya see Bill, I look at this as a lot bigger than just the two of us! I look at this in terms of the whole U.S.
    Sorry i baited you on the royalty crap but it helps the greater cause when brought out in the open!

  4. Where does this diesel contamination come from? When I worked for the Coast Guard I investigated a spill at a typical suburban home. The oil company filled the 275 gal. outside tank. the legs sunk into the soft ground, the tank tipped over breaking the pipe and dumping the contents. At another home the family had a basement full of water after a flood and on top of the water was 1/4″ of fuel oil. The house was heated with Natural gas. It turns out that 30 years earlier they had a spill of fuel oil. The oil had remained under the house until flood water brought it back up. In my experience the majority of fuel spills come from consumers. Funny, I never got called for a Natural gas spill.

  5. Study conducted by Yale University [elitist liberal bent faculty] and even so Hydraulic Fracturing is once again proven innocent of claims made by opponents of this technology.
    Yale’s conclusions agree with
    the EPA’s peer-reviewed draft assessment confirms what many investigators have already published (1). The scientific and technical consensus agree that Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing can be accomplished in an environmentally compatible manner – provided Good Engineering Practice is applied. “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States:… 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”

    The following lists examples of a Proper Engineered Project:
    • Achieving Adequate Well Integrity by Monitoring Cementing Application
    • Recycling and Reuse of Flow-Back and Production wastewater – reducing disposal costs and localized earthquake effects by elimination waste injection wells
    I have been working with USEPA’s Scientific Advisory Board [SAB] on Hydraulic Fracturing since April 2014 (2).
    REFERENCES:
    (1) Goodwin, R.W.; “Environmental Perspective Update: Hydraulic Fracturing”; Pollution Engineering; Oct.2014, pgs. 34-38
    (2)Goodwin, R.W. “ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING” Published by USEPA on 4/4/14; http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D3AE85DC5A40EEC885257CB3004E03F8/$File/Public+comments+submitted+by+Goodwin,+Richard-4-4-14.pdf

    Richard W. Goodwin West Palm Beach FL

  6. Pingback: PennLive Shale Series Shows Why Media No Longer Trusted

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *