Hydraulic Fracturing

-- What risk does it pose to groundwater quality? --

The truth is, we don't know.

Why don't we know?

• Because studies have not been conducted to investigate these issues. According to the EPA, "Most of the literature pertaining to fracturing fluids relates to the fluids' operational efficiency rather than their potential environmental or human health impacts. There is very little documented research on the environmental impacts that result from the injection and migration of these fluids into subsurface formations, soils, and underground sources of drinking water."¹
• Because neither EPA nor state oil and gas agencies require onshore oil and gas companies to conduct tests into the toxicity of hydraulic fracturing fluids. Nor do they require companies to monitor groundwater quality following hydraulic fracturing events.

What has been done to examine the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water?

In June of 2004, EPA came out with a final version of study entitled: Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs.

The main finding of EPA's study was that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids "poses little or not threat to Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) and does not justify additional study at this time."

What are the problems with EPA's study into the effects of hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking water?

OGAP and many others question EPA's conclusions. Many who have studied the EPA report believe that EPA failed to provide adequate data and information to support its claim that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a threat to drinking water. OGAP and many others believe that EPA should continue investigating the risks posed by hydraulic fracturing.

OGAP has just completed an in-depth critique of EPA's hydraulic fracturing study.  Read OGAP's report "Our Drinking Water At Risk: What EPA and the oil and gas industry don't want us to know about hydraulic fracturing."

Read comments from others who question the lack of scientific evidence and the potential political motivations behind EPA's conclusions:

• Wes Wilson, engineer with Environmental Protection Agency, blows the whistle on EPA's study (1 MB pdf file)
  This 26-year EPA employee submitted an 18-page report to Colorado's congressional delegation challenging the conclusions of the EPA study.
• Letter from Senators Jeffords and Boxer to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt (80 KB pdf file)
  The Senators requested a response to three recent actions taken by EPA: the adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding with three hydraulic fracturing companies; the release of the final EPA study on hydraulic fracturing; and the EPA's response to a court remand (LEAF v. US EPA).
• Letter from Representative Waxman to EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley (324 KB pdf file)
  Congressman Henry Waxman requested "an investigation into whether political considerations improperly influenced a recent scientific investigation of the risks of hydraulic fracturing."

Recent news articles on hydraulic fracturing

Los Angeles Times Articles

• "Halliburton's Interests Assisted by White House" October 14, 2004 (By Tom Hamburger and Alan C. Miller)
• "Investigation of Drilling Regulations is Urged" October 15, 2004 (By Tom Hamburger and Alan C. Miller)

Read more about hydraulic fracturing in the Public Health Issues and Toxics section of OGAP's web site.

1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2004. p. 4-1.