Alex Mills
By Alex Mills
Under heavy pressure from environmental groups, it appears that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could be back tracking on its opinion that hydraulic fracturing has not contaminated drinking water?
A few months ago the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of EPA noted that “hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water sources.”
Environmental groups were furious. They were counting on EPA to conclude after a five-year study that fracturing pollutes and it should be regulated by EPA if not prohibited altogether.
Lee Fuller, executive vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, sent a nine-page letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Dec. 11 stating that there was a news report that the chairman of SAB the previous report now may be “ambiguous and requires clarification” and it needs to be modified.
“To be clear, there is nothing ambiguous about EPA’s finding,” Fuller wrote.
“We recognize that several critics of U.S. oil and natural gas production, who have waged a years-long campaign to ban or restrict the use of hydraulic fracturing, have publicly pressured EPA and the SAB into revising its finding,” Fuller said. “But we must remind you that the SAB is a scientific body, and thus its conclusions should be based on science; they should not be subject to political pressure from environmental groups who simply disagreed with what the EPA’s five-year study found.”
Fuller cited numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirm SAB’s findings.
…EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged in May 2011 that she was “not aware of any proven case where fracking itself has affected water.”
The study text itself explains the sheer breadth of the research that was conducted: “The EPA used a broad search strategy to identify approximately 3,700 sources of scientific information that could be applicable to this assessment. This search strategy included both requesting input from scientists, stakeholders, and the public about relevant data and information, and thorough searching of published information and applicable data.”
Hydraulic fracturing has been extensively studied since its first commercial application in the 1940s, no only in EPA’s current comprehensive analysis, but also in numerous studies by other prestigious institutions. In fact, in 2004, EPA published a separate comprehensive assessment of potential groundwater impacts from hydraulic fracturing.
The EPA stated: “Based on the information collected and reviewed, IPA has concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coal bed methane wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time.”
Fuller noted former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged in May 2011 that she was “not aware of any proven case where fracking itself has affected water.” One year later, Ms. Jackson told the news media: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
If there were anything to suggest widespread or systemic impacts to drinking water as a result of hydraulic fracturing, such evidence would have been uncovered during the past decade of extensive study of the process, including the EPA’s latest comprehensive report. The lack of such evidence means the SAB’s conclusion is scientifically sound, Fuller said.
Fuller concluded by warned that there is nothing in the draft report from a “scientific and technical” standpoint that suggests EPA’s finding of no “widespread, systemic” groundwater impacts from hydraulic fracturing is incorrect, and he urged the SAB to maintain its role as a scientific body by rejecting calls to change its scientific findings, which are based on political campaigns, not scientific analyses or technical reviews.
Alex Mills is President of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. The opinions are solely of the author.
Speak Your Mind