Hydraulic Fracturing

Last month, a study performed by the United State's Department of Energy was publicized by an article written by the Associated Press (here is a link to CBS's version of the story) on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." Fracking is a method of extracting natural gas resources using a combination of chemicals to cause small fractures below the Earth's surface, releasing more gas energy than other extraction methods. The piece was picked up by hundreds of news websites each running different headlines along with the story. Here are some examples of headlines the story received (either publishing the Associated Press article in full or their own report of the same study):

• Study Finds Fracking Chemicals Didn't Pollute Water: AP (CBS, July 19th 2013)
• Department of Energy Study: Fracking Chemicals Didn't Taint Water (Dessert News, July 19th 2013)
• Fracking Chemicals Don't Spread to Drinking Water Sources, Study Finds (The Vancouver Sun, July 19th 2013)
• Department of Energy Study Claims Fracking is Safe (Albany Tribune, July 19th 2013)
• Study: Fracking Chemicals Didn't Taint Water (The Palladium Times, July 19th 2013)

Just looking at these five reports on the same study, we can see a clear difference in the headlines (remember, these are all for either the same article or reporting on the same scientific report). Some are reasonably accurate, claiming that no pollution of water was discovered during a study of fracking chemicals. Others go as far as to claim that a United States Agency has taken a hard stance claiming no pollution. But what did the scientists actually discover, and what are they trying to make known?

Looking at just the Associated Press article, the tone quickly shifts away from any absolute conclusions. Just a few paragraphs in, Duke University scientist Rob Jackson (who was involved in the DOE study) claims that while the research is valuable, cautions that a single study doesn't prove that fracking can't pollute since geology and industry practices vary widely around the country. He also doesn't rule out the possibility that those studying the fracking took extra care of the site either knowingly or unconsciously. Finally, he says that other methods of the operation could lead to contamination including wastewater, poor well construction, and surface spills.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the actual study at this time. However, based on the report written by the Associated Press, the following seems an accurate summation of events:

1. In July of 2013, a study by United States' Department of Energy was publicized.
2. The study focused on one drilling operation taking place at the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, PA.
3. Eight wells drilling into the Marcellus Shale were studied, in addition to some nearby older wells.
4. Fracking fluids were injected more than 8,000 feet into the ground, but were not detected in a monitoring zone of 5,000 feet. 
5. Groundwater supplies are usually no more than 500 feet below the Earth's surface, meaning that these fracking fluids were nearly a mile away from drinking water supplies.
6. This study was performed in one location of the Marcellus Shale, which has a unique geological makeup from other fracking sites. Additionally, there is no way to confirm or deny that extra precaution was consciously or unconsciously taken during the study.
7. This information comes from one scientific study, and is not ready to be used as a basis for judging all instances of hydraulic fracturing throughout the country.