The U.S. fracking lobby had all of its birthdays at once earlier this month when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft of a 1000-page report that throws into doubt the contribution of fracking practices to groundwater contamination in states like North Dakota and Pennsylvania. The headline of the report, several years in the making, is that fracking has "not led to widespread, systematic impacts to drinking water resources."
This is the latest contribution in a series of highly politicized and heavily contested reports on the impact of the chemicals injected into fracking wells on public health released since the "shale revolution" kicked off in the U.S. The EPA is nominally objective and independent, but that has not prevented allegations of regulatory capture (it would not be the first time in the U.S.). It would have been naïve to hope the publication of this report would clear up the groundwater question once and for all. Instead, its release has made the issue yet more divisive.
The EPA found that identified instances of contamination around fracking wells it studied were not the result of hydraulic fracturing practices themselves but of specific instances of cement or casing failures, which allowed harmful chemicals to leak. In addition, it finds that fracking accounts for a small proportion of water use "in most locations;" water use has been key ammunition used by environmental groups, given that fracking is prevalent in states like Texas with scarce water supplies.
Videos of people in the Dakotaa setting their tap water on fire have been picked up by press outlets around the world and had thousands of views on YouTube. However the EPA report finds that, while there is evidence of flammable thermogenic methane in the water supply, "pathways of migration are not apparent." In layman's terms, water fireballs are not the fault of the frackers either.
Josh Fox, the director of anti-fracking film "Gasland," famously reacted furiously to the study in a television appearance and accused the EPA of outright lying, and a new counter-report has already been issued by the University of Texas. The Texas report accuses the EPA of taking a "see no evil" approach to the issue and, while smaller in scope and confined to the Barnett shale formation, finds elevated levels of the BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene) used by frackers in 381 of 550 wells surveyed.
The fracking debate is obscured on both sides by political agendas. While fireballs in your sink make a dramatic scandal, in oil and gas rich countries like Azerbaijan, naturally occurring flammable water is a tourist attraction rather than a health concern; the locals even bathe their feet in the water for its supposed medicinal properties. On the other hand, no one doubts the immense lobbying power of the U.S. oil and gas industries and their often too-cosy relationship with those who should be calling them to heel.
We should not aspire to the regulatory rigor of less developed oil and gas producing countries like Azerbaijan, where weaker institutions do not allow local communities a voice. The developed world rightly holds itself up to high environmental standards. It is important that scientists have access to all the data necessary to objectively assess the long-term impact of any new technology on public health, and that reports such as this are released for peer review and public debate.
But we must look closely into the roots of the media noise as environmental concerns are determined not by pure facts but by geography. Rich countries like the U.S. would never allow uranium mining on its territory of the kind you find in Niger, where contamination from toxic radioactive residues have created an "ethical and environmental disaster", and I am certain that Niger would have no problem allowing fracking on its territory if it had the resources and infrastructure.
Oil and gas exploration and production is a dirty business and natural gas should only be envisaged as a bridging fuel to minimise our carbon emissions, while the renewables sector finds the time and resources to scale up. This calls for creativity and is where our public resources should be targeted.
However, the global superpower status that shale gas has made possible for the U.S. is a powerful drive. Ultimately this is a debate for U.S. citizens over what price you are willing to pay for your newfound energy independence.
