- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh found no evidence that chemicals from a drilling site moved up to contaminate nearby drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site. The study was the first in which a drilling company let government scientists place tracers into the drilling fluid to follow the movement of the fluid and determine if it is capable of reaching shallow aquifers. The results of the study, though preliminary, showed that the chemically treated fluid used in the drilling process stayed thousands of feet below the aquifers that provide drinking water.
Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” is a process that has been developing since the 1970′s and is now a widespread way of accessing unconventional sources of oil and gas. It is used as a method for stimulating wells in order to maximize the extraction of certain natural resources. Recent technological developments with horizontal drilling and hydrofracking (a process involving the injection of large quantities of fluid into a well) have made available many shale formations that had been either physically or economically impossible to access.
This study shows that fracking can be carried out safely in certain situations; however, it likely will not ease the fears of local property owners facing the risk of contaminated water. This is primarily due to the fact that the safety of any well is highly dependent on the construction and operation of the particular well. Poor construction, surface spills, and wastewater pose continuing risks despite the safety of the wells in the study. Additionally, there is the concern that this company, being aware of an upcoming study, took extra precautions with the operation of the well in order to demonstrate its safety, and thus did not represent a typical fracking operation.
Furthermore, opponents of fracking have complained not only against the potential for contaminations due to poorly constructed wells, but also the lack of transparency in the fracking fluid used. While certain chemical additives are voluntarily disclosed by drilling companies on websites such as Fracfocus.org, many chemical additives are claimed as trade secrets and are not disclosed to the general public. Therefore, even if the chances of water contamination are low, the secrecy involving the chemical additives and fear of the unknown risks decrease the impact of this study.
The domestic energy revolution from the exploitation of shale gas now accessible through fracking has led to major economic benefits for certain areas of the country. Additionally, the Energy Information Administration predicts U.S. natural gas production to increase 44% by 2040. With this enormous economic upside, it will be interesting to see how state and federal regulators will respond to the increasing use of hydraulic fracturing technology, and to the use of trade secret protection to maintain the confidentiality of proprietary chemical additives used in the process.
- John Craven
Recent Blog Posts
- EU Charges Google with Antitrust Violations
- After Adobe, will more data breach cases survive a standing challenge?
- Can the FCC Create Net Neutrality?
- AT&T Levied with the Largest Privacy and Data Security Action the FCC has Ever Taken
- MLBPA Contemplates Legal Action Against the Cubs
- Monday Morning JETLawg
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution