TOUGH SELL: Strict regulations might be key to winning over citizens who fear unsafe drilling practices, such as demonstrators in Albany, N.Y., who supported a state ban.
Image: Mike Groll/AP Photo
In Brief
- If fracking is defined as a single fracture of deep shale, that action might be benign. When multiple “fracks” are done in multiple, adjacent wells, however, the risk for contaminating drinking water may rise. If fracking is defined as the entire industrial operation, including drilling and the storage of wastewater, contamination has already been found.
- Advanced tests, such as putting tracer chemicals down a well to see if they reappear in drinking water, could ultimately prove whether fracking is safe or not.
- Some regulators are not waiting for better science; they are moving toward allowing fracking on an even wider scale.
More In This Article
Is fracking polluting our drinking water? The debate has become harsh, and scientists are speaking out.
Anthony Ingraffea, an engineering professor at Cornell University and an expert on the controversial technique to drill natural gas, has had much to say, especially since he attended a March meeting in Arlington, Va., hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. There he met scientists from top gas and drilling companies: Devon Energy, Chesapeake, Halliburton. All had assembled to help the agency determine whether fracking, accused of infusing toxic chemicals and gas into drinking-water supplies in various states, is guilty as charged. The answer lies at the center of escalating controversy in New York State, Pennsylvania, Texas and Colorado, as well as Australia, France and Canada.
This article was originally published with the title The Truth about Fracking.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentSo this article appears to be totaly useless. Please define the title to what, if any, the article actually concludes a premise. All I hear is more study needed. Using color to trace trail to ground water or not seems to be held up in a study. More money than needed being spent and still no test being run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWest Virginia is one of the states that is giving natural gas extraction on the fracking of the shell "no-holds-barred" access anywhere they want to drill, evening knowing that it was the natural gas fracking that killed all the fish at the river on the Pa and WV border. If you want to know what natural gas fracking does to the water, come to West Virginia; we have billions of gallons of natural gas fracking waste water polluted rivers, streams, wells, and lakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup, that's where I live. You must have missed the power plant about 0.5 miles from the border. Or all the tributaries to the Mon River filled with mine drainage, because I'm sure that has little to do with fish population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can light the tap water on fire, there is so much leakage of NG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHyperbole is not helping. Fracking has been around a long time--I worked in the oilfield 30 years ago. Why haven't we noticed these problems in the past? If it truly is a problem, then Until we ween ourselves from fossil fuels, we will continue to see an "any means necessary" approach to drilling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in the south central part of West Virginia, Neil5150, and I've lived around MTR and stripping all my life, and now fracking. I am very familiar with the orange water from the coal mines and the antifreeze green colored water. Here, our water doesn't have a chance to catch on fire; all the methane causes it to blow up before it gets to the house.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour tap water catches on fire, but we still hold the record for being #1 in the nation in chronic childhood diseases because of the MTR and fracking. A person would think that the rest of the country has forgot about Pa. and West Virginia and all the death, destruction, poverty and war coal, oil, and natural gas has brought to us. I think they just don't care as long as we provide them heat and electricity for their big houses down in Virginia and out in California.
You obviously have no experience with fracking other than what you read in this and other similarly eco-jihadistic shmatas. Your left wing must be fracked from all the flapping that it does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRock mechanics dictate that it is impossible to past a few 10's of feet vertically with the power of anything other than a Romulan quantum singularity. Breaking through a mile of rock is so utterly ludicrous that it defies belief.
As to the people lighting their taps of fire, the director of "Gasland" as to where this came from has admitted that these people had issue with their water long before the gas companies showed up.
Just another example of eco-jihadist sleight of hand as pioneered by Michael Moore, Al Gore, David Suzuki etc.
I've fracked a ton of wells, but I guess I'm no expert because I've done it. Darryl Hannah knows way more about it than I do.
Boredom has struck, so here is a little for your pipes, brains, or w/e we want to call our bodies CPU; (sarcasm is a lost art, not even I perform it adequately in these days).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems like the conversations about energy are always the same, haha. I know real people get hurt sometimes when we are dealing with energy (mining, refining, etc.), and just as many or more benefit financially and enrich their lives with modern-industry because of our present energy practices.
woo-who! I am on a computer made feasible by fossil fuels (I don't know if I am right about my computer, but if someone wants to seriously check how much of a Dimension 9100 is made out of Fossil fuel...), but someday we will have to change, so with that blah, blah, blah, lets move forward like rational human beings. We can choose to have continual conversational confrontations through blogs about our future, or maybe someday settle this face to face because we are wasting time, which at our pace a bitter face to face may seem inevitable.
Lets put it this way, if humans don't change their way of thinking about the future, and our planets habitability, mind as well pee into the wind for eternity, and maybe that is our destiny.
I heard it is much more likely to find artificial life (AI) on other planets, hmmmm.
So bored of this.
P.S. check out this series, for what it worth.
The.Origins.of.Civilization_Legacy: Michael Wood
I have no connection to the producer/writer, and bare no critical comment/opinion on it of this series, and have been unable to fact check it. Just think it rings some truths (facts).
The Barbarian West
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8213001278676327450#docid=181966379384354506
Napoleon supposedly said that "history is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon"
Jnas88 supposedly said that "Every generation has to assume, distinguish, experience or test to know if our ancestors were right about our past knowledge, or bare the possibility of starting from scratch every time."
No one knows the full story, but we all better put one together and agree upon it with reasonable facts, and then use it for betterment of mankind.
yours truly,
A man that wishes to stay anonymous forever.
progress kills
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is overall reasonably well balanced. If any controversy needs more scientific input, this one certainly does. The industry is truly flying at least half blind. Currently, there is a great deal of uncertainty and lack of information concerning the effects of multiple fracture jobs. The fracture process, is too vital to just be banned; it is too crucial for our energy needs. Therefore, there is room for more research into new methods of monitoring the fracture process that can add to the existing fracture monitoring procedures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the problems that have been described in the article are controllable. Surface contamination problems can be controlled through proper contamination control methods and procedures. Reentering old abandoned wells that are near wells to be hydraulic fractured may be necessary to properly abandon them to protect aquifers from contamination during the fracture process (costly but may be necessary). Casing cement is a crucial industry protection against unwanted infiltration into undesirable locations, and it is in the best interest of the industry to have the best casing possible for all wells, especially wells that are to be fractured multiple times. This means that casing cement design and implementation must be done with the highest integrity (really important). The major remaining uncertainty is, where are the fractures going, and how can we figure it out? Unfortunately, it is clear that it will not be possible to completely image or determine the full extents of all fractures in a complex induced fracture system, but that does not mean that we must terminate the process.
The principal method (microseismic monitoring) for tracking the fracture process comes with a great deal of uncertainty concerning the measurement and localization of induced fractures and the opening of existing fracture systems. Research is ongoing, and more improvements will help here.
Also, be careful about any hidden, alternative motivations for opposing the fracture process as a whole. Alternative motivations may seek, to artificially shut off crucial energy supplies to force drastic draconian political solutions onto a problem that needs improved methodology for monitoring and the best possible contamination control procedures, and more research to gain a better understanding of induced fracture systems. The integrity of the industry is at stake here, and the best possible practices should always be employed (even for small operators). Rationality will lead us to develop good policy decisions.
I have to say I too am disappointed with this article. Scientific Amercan used to be an unbiased and wholely scientific journal. Now it appears to be a left wing vehicle. This article has little or no substance and again appears to be nothing more than thinnly veiled liberal political hogwash designed to promote a political agenda. Test any well in America, and you can find some sort of comtamination from progress. Not good I agree, but targeting energy seems to be a favorite of the left and has no business in a scientific journal. Can't you report impartially, which is what is expected of a SCIENTIFIC journal. This smacks of the global warming claims, riddled with false, old, tained,and mistaken data, yet presented as nerely coming from God. I think you should be ashamed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"**Rock** mechanics dictate that it is impossible to past a few 10's of feet vertically with the power of anything"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would you assume "rock" is always nonporous, contains no faults, and extents horizontally for countless miles.
It was nice to meet you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur policy should be developed hand and hand with the environment and our knowledge of how life is created, evolves, and maintains its life in a dynamic atmosphere. Policy shall no longer be based off growth (neo-classical economics), but scientific technologies/innovations/and studies which assist in progress, based on subsistence and sustainability (a old/new model of economics, something Jokers cannot abuse, but subjects everyone to fair trade. Albeit this design would probably only work in Babylon, I believe the world can operate by it very successfully). We have the power to curb our desires but fail, so let our greatest teacher, Earth, do it for us (oh wait, it already is).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also forgot not all politicians, nor do scientists understand what the spiritual feeling towards the physical planet is like. Our connection with the planet is dieing because we do not study our personal connection with our world enough. I.E. I cannot live without this planet right now: How do I protect it, and how do I protect my self from it while protecting it? Consult the Incas on this one, or the few distant tribes people left.
Remember, our intelligence means nothing to something which has no purpose but to exist; we may modify something, and easily over modify something, and nothing says this something cannot over modify us (evolution is a given, and healthy), or simple outmode us. This simple, but rough practicing theory (not law because the statement is incomplete) occurs now.
This gets tough, rough and confusing, but the complexity of our issue at hand is really simple, take fundamentals and start building a new economic theory for sound politics and a stable future regarding of future catastrophes. I am ready, are you?
If I ever get this sorted I will post a more coherent model someplace to advert insanity.
As yet there is no hard evidence that generating fractures in deep rock by fracking has ever contaminated drinking water. Methane is widespread in rocks, deep and shallow; and some does migrate up from the depths; so, if it shows up in your tap water, unless you also see tracers of known origin, you have no idea where it came from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat tickled me about the article was Ingraffea's confidence that high-powered hydrofrac modeling would go a long way towards resolving the issues for him. To me this means he left Schlumberger before he discovered the real world of geophysical modeling and its pitfalls.
In my career I was intimately involved with fracking and with microseismic and other kinds of monitoring. While we could predict some things, as a rule the fractures had a mind of their own and were largely controlled by rock properties we did not understand and hence could not properly model.
Look at the article on "Economic Calamity" that precedes this one in the November issue: The author perceptively observes that climate modelers have been trying to change the world with their model predictions that do not take cloud formation properly into account. But everyone knows that clouds have a major influence on climate.
Earth scientists in the hydrocarbon industry have far more experience modeling Earth phenomena than any other group of scientists; often they get to test their model predictions against real measurements. Often they learn that their model input was not valid.
Climate scientists have had almost no chance to test their important predictions, yet world economies bow down and naively believe and slavishly follow. Too bad climate scientists have not had closer ties to the geophysical modelers in the hydrocarbon industry! They likely would have learned a thing or two.
In brief, tracers in hydrofrac fluids should work. Modeling has no chance. It may be useful for understanding what happened after the fact, but it's not going to make reliable predictions. Nobody knows enough.
Dr Anthony Ingraffea, who holds several patents in the fracturing process and who worked for a decade as a scientist with Schlumberger, disagrees with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile not discounting your experience, the opinion of the man who helped develop this process also holds significant weight.
So, please, we don't need you to berate, denigrate or insult the posters here or the author of this article. And as an aside, since the Dr Ingraffea helped develop the process by which you earn a living, I suggest you open your mind enough to at least consider this man's opinion. Hardly a jihadist, not is anyone else here, we just tend to appreciate drinkable water flowing from our taps.
Also, I know Josh Fox personally, and can say with certainty that he has admitted no such thing.
You may have fracked a ton of wells, but compared to the science which Dr Ingraffea has pursued his entire professional life, you are merely the hourly grunt on the well pad.
The sad thing is that the author exhibits Ingraffea only as an observer offering seat-of-the pants opinions and feelings. There's no substance. His single novel offering is: maybe single fracks are OK, but how about multiple fracks? But there's no reason given as to why multiple fracks should be significantly more dangerous. It's all fuzz, as, apparently, is also the public opposition to hydrofracking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, if fracking is responsible for releasing gas from shallow zones of poorly cemented wells, why hasn't anyone noticed for the several decades over which fracking of both vertical and horizontal wells has been done? (Yes, horizontal wells have been fracked before; the new thing is to do it in previously ignored shale formations.) (Or: perhaps people have noticed and not made it public?)
When there are 2 opposing sides negotiating the data or the interpretation of the data, it becomes impossible to draw a conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is more trustworthy: the environmentalists or the energy providers?
I can't tell.
Hmmmm ... I acknowledge your views on mother earth, but I do not subscribe to them entirely. Recognizing reality is to face the truth of the existing state and acknowledge the difference between ideological, idealistic and dogmatic policies that hinder reasonable and responsible growth, compared against rational, effective policies that promote reasonable and responsible growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a very long way to go to even be able to see sustainability on the horizon. If what you mean by "subsistence" is that we must lead meager lives barely surviving as peasants or return to the conditions of highly localized tribal like economies that are idealistic utopias, count me out.
In general, people want to grow out of their dismal situations to attain the lifestyles they desire. To tell them that they must not grow and improve their situation, that they must instead stay the way they are, artificially removes freedom of choice, and actively suppresses them. Isn't that what we fight against, autocracy, communism, dictatorship?
Truly, we must work our way into a sustainable energy profile, but there is enough energy here, in the US to keep us going for a long time, and reduce or even eliminate our dependency on outside sources of energy, if only we would be allowed to access it. Of course, it must be accessed in responsible and environmentally conscience ways.
Peak oil was predicted 30 years ago. Have we achieved that yet? No, and we are no where near it.
No way. If you put a tracer into hydrofrac fluids and later detect the tracer in a nearby water well, you've empirically established contamination by hydrofrac, provided you've taken sufficient care to control the system. (That is, exclude monkey business, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, people don't tell you their biases and biases often color a person's analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo dirtbag Cheney asks for (and gets!) an exemption for fracking from the Clean Water Act, to help out his old buddies at Haliburton and probably pocket a few more million$ as a thank you. Now, why would they need an exemption? What did they know? That's a toughie...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what kind of Congress, serving "for the people", hands over the health of its people as a bargaining chip in this insane game of politics? Why, that would be a corrupt Congress, in a corrupt government.
Imagine you heard of this exact scenario taking place in some small country on the other side of the world. What would you think of them? Well, that's us now.
Tha American Dream may still be alive, but now there's a second route to riches and a life of luxury. You can get yourself elected to national office and retire a pampered millionaire; just kick back and vote the way you've been paid to.
I believe that the key issue here is that the implementation of the technology is outstripping the ability to assess the concerns, do the research and create needed infrastructure and regulations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, only extremely egregious cases of near surface casing failure would be likely to be documented by short term identification in water wells of tracers placed in the fracking fluid. But yields from these wells are expected to decline. Thus, as you note, they are likely to be fracked multiple times. And as also noted, "a significant percentage of cement jobs will fail".
Many of the new wells are being drilled in areas that have been subject to earlier oil and gas exploration. The older wells may not even be documented thoroughly now. They may be poorly cased or not cased at all. Locating these wells and properly sealing them could prove to be quite difficult, but I agree with @justme1000 above that dealing with these old wells may be necessary.
I think that water well problems would not necessarily require an immediate direct connection. It seems to me that it is quite possible that a chain of events may occur in which fracking related materials (either the fracking liquids or the natural gas released) finds its way into these older wells. These wells may be open to the aquifer in which a water well is located. So some of these linkages could cause pressure gradients that wouldn't necessarily entail having either fracking fluid or deep "thermogenic" natural gas reach all the way to the water aquifer. Pressure from below could potentially push a bubble of nearer surface ("biogenic") natural gas into the water well. Actual direct contamination might take years to occur. Landowners might be left with little legal recourse.
Local communities may experience "fracking" as a here today, gone tomorrow burst of economic activity from which they do not directly benefit. We should work to ensure that this is not just another example of privatizing gains but socializing risks, environmental impacts and long term costs.
There is an obvious technology that would greatly resolve some of the uncertainties concerning the contamination caused by HydroFacking operations. If every fracking operator was required to insert a unique water soluble marker into the fracking fluids at each well site, it could be determined if fracking fluids are truly the source of contamination. Such an approach would protect well drilling firms from false contamination claims, but hold them responsible for actual environmental damage. Knowing they will be held accountable would certainly reduce risk taking by drillers and force a realistic assessment of their confidence to contain fracking fluids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRick Rys - Chemical Engineer P.E.
Held accountable? An oil company? In America? I wish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour theory is good, certainly, but in reality...
Five Finger Death Punch - Under and Over it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LObb3PAyDQ
Wells can be fracked with propane as well as with water. Water contamination is much less probable with propane. Gasfrac of Canada has fracked over 1000 wells
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswith propane.
Given that well bores are sealed by cement and not concrete, the articles repeated reference to concreted well bores makes me suspicious of the accuracy of the rest of the information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overall issue I have with this article is it was obviously slanted, sensationalistic and lacked objective scientific depth and inspection. The same might be said of the author who lacks serious credential and training as a scientist. The article was more the theme and caliber I would have expected in Sierra or Green Peace Quarterly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been reading Scientific American (SA) for about 45 years: I started in about 6th grade (granted I hardly understood 20% of the material). I continued through college and into my professional career. What I've noticed, particularly in the past several years is how SA is now becoming only slightly more "scientific" than Popular Science or Popular Mechanics. What a shame.
What SA could have run was something like they did with evolution v. creationism, where they had two leaders in their fields debate the issue. I wish I still had that issue. I doubt there were many readers of SA that believed in creationism but it was a debate ongoing in the country at that time vaguely similar to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate that is currently ongoing. The point is SA took on the issue in a scientific manner allowing two people with significant experience and education, recognized by their peers as a leader in the field, make their best arguments. How about it SA, can you be objective enough to repeat a debate but this time on AGW? If it is sales and controversy you seek this should generate both while still maintaining the former SA standard.
Fracking is a serious issue and deserves serious treatment, by a serious author with the credentials and experience worthy of the former standards of SA. I truly hope to see a real examination of the subject in the future either in SA or another publication.
I am truly sad to see what had been a periodical of the highest standard slip into the doldrums of mediocrity. What will the “50, 100 & 150 Years Ago” section look like when they review this period?
I subscribe to Scientific American. I came to the website to get the article so that I could put it up on Facebook - but can't do that. Why is this article so different? Can't use it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes she probably does. You my dear are guided by greed alone with no conscience whatsoever. Take a seat next to Mr. Cheney. Please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow...it cant contaminate the water? What about the possibility of a casing failure when 15000psi is exerted upon it. Yes the actual pressure used to release the gas could also allow toxins to escape. There was an extensive air quality study done in Fort Worth Texas which showed contamination...flare offs and compressor stations both relese toxins from fraking into the atmosphere. There is also an increase in cases of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (usually rare)in individuals living near well sites. But then again what do I know I haven't fraked "tons of wells"...I only live 228 feet from one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas suppost to be 1,500 psi...typo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first article I've read since re-subscribing, and it was a disappointment. First, the author states methane levels are 17X higher than wells farther away. What was the CH4 level before the frac? We can only guess. Is the CH4 level in "other wells" constant or does it vary well to well? Back to guessing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem is he is writing about a technology that has been used for decades and completely ignores the brand new technology that has many on-shore rigs tied up in America. CO2 sequestration. Why don't you look up the properties of CO2 at deepwell pressures and write about the risk involved there? It's on an opinion, but I think sequestration is going to make these frackers look harmless. But with what this article lacks in facts, isn't it also an opinion piece?
A thorough discussion of fracking must address the implications to further damage to our climate. Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. A methane molecule is considered 25 times as potent as a co2 molecule in changing the climate. Therefore leaks of natural gas into the atmosphere must be examined in an EIR. Moreover, the investment in fracking must be weighed against investing in truly renewable energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn "Safety First, Fracking Second" and "The Truth About Fracking", the need for a more powerful computer simulation model that can analyze complex drilling and fracking scenarios with more complete data is stated as a basic requirement for sorting out the fracking puzzle. Bayesian methods for modeling complex systems such as drilling and fracking scenarios, offers another and complimentary approach for estimating the probability of contaminating drinking water. None of this is static. Each time incomplete data is updated, Bayes' method is recalculated. The interaction of the two methods should increase the quality of their individual results. Baysian averaging model studies have shown that when two models that are not highly correlated are combined in a smart way, the combination often does better than either individual model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bayesian Approach also requires the close cooperation of industry and environmental experts in formulating the probabilities of scenario hypothesis before new data is observed and Bayes recalculated. This cooperation leads to benefits of mutual trust and respect beyond that of the analytic process.
Stan Roberts
Vienna, VA
"I think they just don't care as long as we provide them heat and electricity for their big houses down in Virginia and out in California."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't speak for Virginia, but in California, being next to the rockies provides a great deal of hydro power, and areas of the highest solar gain in the country. As for heat, if it gets cool, I'll put a light jacket on over my T-Shirt.