The Fracking Debate: Does Hydraulic Fracturing Cause Groundwater Contamination?

Hydraulic Fracturing, also referred to as “fracking”, has quickly become a hotly debated topic in the United States. Although high-volume fracking has been used for upwards of 40 years, it has become increasingly popular since the start of the 2000s. Fracking involves the injection of a fluid and proppant (usually a sand-based mixture) into a horizontally drilled well. As the shale cracks, it releases natural gas, which then flows back up the well and can be collected.

            There are numerous concerns with fracking, including increased seismic activity, groundwater and surface water contamination, high water usage, and methane emissions. This article in Nature World News focuses specifically on the main issue of water contamination. The article is titled “Fracking Does Not Contaminate Drinking Water, Yale Study Confirms”, and is focused around an article in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The PNAS article is entitled "Elevated levels of diesel range organic compounds in groundwater near Marcellus gas operations are derived from surface activities." 

            The short Nature World News article provides an all-too-brief introduction to the topic and quickly summarizes the study and the findings. Overall, the article actually does a good job of hitting the main points of the study – 64 ground water samples from the Marcellus Shale and the study found no contamination upward migration or lateral transport. The article also includes a statement from one of the researchers that claims they are “not trying to say whether [fracking] is a bad or good thing” and concludes by tying in other recent research about water-usage in fracking processes.

            The original article outlines in greater detail the research done. The study concentrates on only organic compounds, specifically those that are gas and diesel range, and briefly discusses bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The study focuses on five modes of potential contamination: upward migration from deep formations, lateral transport from faulty wells, leaking oil and gas waste containment ponds, surface spills of hydraulic fracturing chemicals, and leaking underground storage tanks (unrelated to fracking). The article then goes on to disprove all except from surface spills, stating that they are the only possible way for the organic compounds, which were found in drinking water, to have contaminated the wells.

            The main weakness of the news article is it’s biased language. The title implies that the fracking-debate has been settled and that fracking is officially “good”. It seems as though the main goal of the article, which becomes especially evident at the end, is to convince readers that fracking is entirely safe. This tone originates from the peer-reviewed article and is the main reason I do not agree with original article.

            The study has strength in its findings, using the geology and chemistry of the area to refute claims of fracking solution transport through groundwater. I believe that the article took liberties with these findings, however, and used them to make far-reaching claims in language that implied fact. Even though there is a statement from researchers in the online article, nowhere in the original publication is the ability to apply this data to other regions discussed. Geology, and especially groundwater transport, varies greatly from area to area. The study did not do a thorough job in understanding the groundwater transport mechanisms of the region, simply relying on basic transport from point A to point B. In addition, a large variety of fracking fluid mixtures are used, and there is still little regulation in place for the industry. Throughout the original article, the authors consistently use the lack of information as strong evidence towards the argument. In addition, they downplay the severity of surface spillage and contamination. They imply that because a spill is accidental, it does not have the same importance to safety issues in fracking. I know the purpose of the study was specifically to look at belowground contamination, but I think that the authors shouldn’t have downplayed the severity of surface spills, especially since they tend to be underreported and undisclosed.

In summary, the online article agrees with the peer-reviewed article to a fault. Instead of simply stating the findings, both articles go beyond the reach in proving what is true and known about the safety of fracking. A lot of research still needs to be done and it will be many more years before definitive statements can be made about this matter.