Environmental fight: What is fracking, exactly?
The Environmental Protection Agency’s claim in a long-awaited, 998-page report that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, sometimes has contaminated drinking water has turned into a fight over semantics.
Environmental fight: What is fracking, exactly?
By
June 5, 2015 4:01 am
The Environmental Protection Agency’s claim in a long-awaited, 998-page report that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, sometimes has contaminated drinking water has turned into a fight over semantics.
Fracking is the drilling method that has unlocked a domestic energy boom, turning the United States into the world’s top oil and natural gas producer. It involves injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into tight-rock formations to access hydrocarbons buried deep underground. It also has raised fears of water pollution.
Not unlike an energy version of former President Bill Clinton’s infamous “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” the energy industry and environmental groups are battling over the EPA’s definition of fracking.
The industry says the EPA’s scope of what is considered fracking was too broad. They said the EPA erroneously counted fracking-related activities, such as cement casings used in wells and managing wastewater extracted from a completed fracking operation, as part of its definition of fracking. Environmental groups say every element of the process should count.
“Here’s where the distinction lies — the key here is that any of the findings by the EPA did not come from fracking,” Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman with the American Petroleum Institute, told the Washington Examiner.
The EPA said in a draft of its five-year study that the drilling method didn’t lead to “widespread, systemic” impacts on water, but that there were specific documented instances of pollution. Environmental groups said that was a blow to industry’s claims that there has never been a documented case of fracking polluting drinking water.
“I expect them to drop those claims because it’s right in the report,” John Noel, spokesman with Clean Water Action, told the Washington Examiner. “They will, however, add the caveat, ‘OK, but the impacts are not widespread.'”
To the industry, pollution during fracking would mean water contamination stemming from the three-day period in which drillers stimulate rock formations and inject a liquid cocktail to free up creases needed to tap oil and gas deposits. Well failings, the industry contends, can happen regardless of whether fracking is involved.
Tom Burke, EPA’s science adviser and deputy assistant of research and development, said fracking itself — not related activities, like whether a well was properly constructed — contaminated groundwater. “There are instances where the fracking activity itself have led to well construction problems that have led to water impact,” he told reporters.
When asked if Burke’s comments were a misstatement and that he instead meant fracking-related activities, EPA spokesman Liz Purchia said they weren’t. Purchia provided an example in which she said a pressure spike during injection at a well in Killdeer, N.D., ruptured casings that allowed fluids to escape to the surface.
“Brine and tert-butyl alcohol were detected in two nearby water wells. Following an analysis of potential sources, the only potential source consistent with the conditions observed in the two impacted wells was the well that ruptured,” Purchia said.
That’s a failing of well casing that industry officials contend is easily remedied.
“There’s natural pressure in the ground. There’s pressure in the ground whether it’s water or a conventional well. It’s not something unique to fracking,” Wohlschlegel said. “We strongly maintain that there has been no contamination of water by fracking.”
“We believe the science and data will reaffirm the industry’s safe practices. This begs the question, though, what is the federal government’s definition of hydraulic fracturing?” Neal Kirby, a spokesman with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, told the Examiner in an email.
The industry’s definition of fracking is too limited, said Amy Mall, land and wildlife program senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If the well failed because of the frac job because the well was not made to withstand the pressure, the fracking activity — to me, that’s because of the fracking.”
Environmental groups and oil and gas industry detractors plan to use the draft report against the industry, especially when it contends fracking hasn’t ever led to groundwater pollution.
“Today’s announcement will be spun by industry lobbyists as a clean bill of health for oil and gas developers around the country. Nothing could be further from the truth, as EPA’s own findings have shown,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.
But Dan Kish, vice president of policy with the conservative Institute for Energy Research, said fracking opponents were straining to conclude that the EPA study said the practice contaminated groundwater.
“My guess is knowing how EPA has allies, and by that I mean green groups, on a lot of issues … it gave them a lot of stuff that was smoky without any fire because they didn’t have any fire,” Kish told the Examiner.
Purchia, however, said that the study “was not designed to be a list of documented impacts” and instead intended to inform state regulators, policymakers and others about potential “vulnerabilities” throughout the fracking process.
Katie Brown, a spokeswoman with industry-backed Energy in Depth, noted that there’s always potential for something to go wrong, but maintained that the study showed the chances were small.
“The bottom line is that there’s going to be a certain amount of risk associated with any kind of development, so the important question is can you manage that risk?” Brown told the Examiner. “The fact that EPA’s report found only a handful of incidents in the tens of thousands of wells being drilled every year, shows that the risks can and are being managed.”