I guess I should have paid more attention when I attended those webinars that EPA held regarding their Hydrofracturing Study. Their study is huge and wide-ranging. It is certainly about more than simply what underground mechanisms could transport natural gas and hydrofracturing fluid to people’s domestic water wells. And after reading the project plan and the 2012 update on research, I can see why they haven’t published a final report. This is an enormous endeavor. EPA does say though, that they are close to getting a draft report out for peer review and public review. They were supposed to have a final report at the end of 2014, but I think that was very optimistic considering the scientific studies they had planned.

In addition to looking at subsurface mechanisms for contamination of drinking water wells by hydrofracturing activities, EPA is also looking at potential routes of contamination caused by surface spills of hydrofracturing fluids and what is called flushback water. Flushback water is simply the hydrofracturing fluid coming back up the cased hole once the fracture of the oil and gas formation is completed.  It makes sense that EPA is looking at potential for contamination of drinking water aquifers from spills of flushback water. It is certainly a likely scenario if drill pads are not bermed or if fluids fill an unlined area.

And you know that hydrofracturing fluid. Well it is more than 98% water. That water has to come from somewhere, so EPA is researching impacts to available water resources in an area. This makes sense as well, since the amount of water involved is not trivial. EPA says up to 13 million gallons can be needed to conduct hydrofracturing. Of course the exact amount of water is going to be variable depending on a lot of engineering factors. It might not be a big concern say in Pennsylvania where there is a lot of water available. But think about Texas and North Dakota. Those are some pretty dry states that have serious oil and gas development. The good thing is that many oil and gas companies have gone to treating and recycling water that they use for hydrofracture, so it will be interesting to see what EPA’s final conclusions are. And in all fairness, other energy development, such as solar power, uses a lot of water in dry environments as well.

What I find really interesting though is EPA’s proposed research on treatment and disposal of hydraulic fracture wastewater. A lot of wastewater from hydrofracturing is disposed of through underground injection, a permitted activity under Underground Injection Control regulations. But a good bit of wastewater in Pennsylvania has been disposed through Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Those are your local city and county treatment plants that treat mostly sewer water. EPA will also be looking at Commercially Owned Treatment Plants where more of your industrial wastewater gets treated. Why the EPA interest, you ask? Here’s the deal. Some people are concerned that POTWs are unable to adequately treat hydrofracture wastewater. The wastewater contains a lot of chloride and bromide and what is termed NORM or naturally occurring radioactive material. NORM is not an additive. NORM comes from the formation being fractured and comes back up with the fracturing fluid. So if it is not being treated it goes out into the river at the POTWs discharge point. Downstream from the POTWs are city and county intakes for public water supply. The river water captured for water supply is treated for public consumption. EPA wants to see if the treatment plants for the public water supply are capable of treating the river water to EPA’s drinking water standards.

More about these different studies in posts to come.

We’ve all seen the pictures in the paper or on the TV news. A homeowner opens their kitchen tap or outdoor faucet, takes a lighter, and sets the water on fire. Very cool, huh?  But it’s probably not very cool to the homeowner. The homeowner has natural gas in their water. They are worried that the natural gas got into their well from a process called hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracturing for short (some people even shorten the term to just fracking). Hydrofracturing is being widely used to develop oil and gas resources in what are called “tight” shales. In addition to natural gas, homeowners also worry that chemicals used during hydrofracturing may end up in their drinking water wells. 

I’m a geologist and have worked in the environmental field for some 30 years. So I get the question all the time from people. Is it really possible for the hydrofracturing process to contaminate people’s water wells with natural gas? My off the cuff response has always been, oh no, I don’t see how it is possible. Oil and gas development is really deep – a mile or more beneath the surface. Most groundwater wells are much shallower. There are miles of rock between where the oil and gas is located and where the groundwater is. And on top of that, oil and gas companies use cement to protect groundwater resources during hydrofracturing. As they are drilling, they insert steel casing into the hole. To protect groundwater they cement the area between the rock and the casing.

 But what about those pictures of burning water, people ask? In areas where there are lots of oil and gas resources, water may have natural methane in it. Maybe the homeowner just never tried to light their water before. I further explain that in the 1800’s drillers often located oil resources from the natural oil seeps they would find at the surface. Scientists have even documented methane seeps on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico where we all know there is a ton of oil and gas wells.

The problem with many scientists like me is that we often give these off the cuff assessments based on limited knowledge. I’ve been a little uncomfortable about my response because frankly I haven’t followed the science on the issue. So I decided, if I’m going to provide some expertise on the subject instead of admitting I just don’t know, I had better inform myself about the science. Now the good thing is that I had been following the hydrofracturing controversy (just a little bit) a few years back and I know that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the United States Geological Survey have been working on a series of studies to answer the questions so many people have about hydrofracturing. Like how effective is that cementing in preventing gas and hydrofracturing fluid from getting into groundwater? What are some of the ways that gas and hydrofracturing fluids could get from those deep rocks where the oil and gas is being developed into people’s much shallower water wells? Are gases and fluids migrating upward along faults and fractures through thousands of feet of rock? Or are those fluids and gases coming up through old abandoned oil and gas wells that were never properly cemented or plugged?

 It’s been several years since EPA, DOE and the USGS embarked on these studies. I think it was in 2011 that I first heard about them. So I thought what the heck, I’ll just get onto EPA’s website and see what they have to say. I’m sure they will have issued some scientific reports by now. I’ll read them and then the next person who asks me about the possibility of the hydrofracturing process contaminating groundwater will get a better informed answer. I’ll let you know what I find out.