Fracking Safety Improves Dramatically, Says Independent Study

Fracking is getting safer and should present no major environmental problems in New York when the state allows drilling to commence
—that’s the headline from a university-funded study released today by the Shale Resources and Society Institute at the University of Buffalo.
A team of researchers from UB, University of Wyoming and Penn State University examined violations at almost 4,000 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania between January 2008 and August 2011. The peer-reviewed study found approximately two-thirds of the 3,000 violations were administrative, 38 percent were environmental, and only 25 were deemed “major,” defined as site restoration failures, serious contamination of water supplies, major land spills, blowouts and venting and gas migration.
The majority were “due to operator error, negligence, or a failure to follow proper procedures when drilling,” according to the report. “This suggests that the industry has room for improvement, and the frequency of environmental events can be reduced,” the authors wrote.
The safety profile of hydraulic fracturing has improved dramatically in Pennsylvania since 2008. Environmental violations as a percentage of wells drilled dropped by more than half over the course of the years examined. The study—the first based on comprehensive data rather than on anecdotal claims or selective reports—contradicts claims by anti-fracking groups that shale gas extraction is poorly regulated in Pennsylvania and that the environmental dangers are increasing.
“This study presents a compelling case that state oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective,” said University of Wyoming economics professor Timothy Considine, who was the lead author. “Regulatory learning and technological progress has been considerable over the past four years.”
“While prior research has anecdotally reviewed state regulations, now we have comprehensive data that demonstrates, without ambiguity, that state regulation coupled with improvements in industry practices results in a low risk of an environmental event occurring in shale development, and the risks continue to diminish year after year,” Considine added.
Horizontal hydraulic drilling uses water mixed with minute quantities of chemicals to crack shale and release gas. High-volume fracking is a hot issue in New York, which currently bans the process. Regulations proposed last year in preliminary form by the Department of Environmental Conservation are still under review.
John Martin, co-author of the report and director of the newly founded shale gas institute, said the incidents could have been avoided or lessened under New York’s proposed regulatory framework.
“New York’s current regulations would prevent or mitigate each of the identified major environmental events that occurred in Pennsylvania,” Martin said. “It’s important that states continue to learn from the regulatory experience—both strengths and weaknesses—of others.”
Jon Entine is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication and at STATS at George Mason University.
9 comments, 2 called-out + Comment now + Comment now PrintReport CorrectionsReprints & Permissions document.write(" document.write(" Post Your Comment Cancel reply Post Your Reply Please log in or sign up to comment. Enter Your Comment Submit Comment
Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.
Comments Called-Out Expand All Comments fredlinn 6 months ago
This “study” is not even a study. It is an industry PR blurb.
Totally insufficient data.
Of 4,000 violations—38% were environmental—–” only[?] 25 were major”—-I think you’d have a different opinion of “major” if YOU are the one affected.
Would you take your car to a brake shop and have brakes with a 38% failure rate installed?
How can an industry with a 38% failure rate brag that it is safe?
———–” “This study presents a compelling case that state oversight of oil and gas regulation has been effective,” said University of Wyoming economics professor Timothy Considine, who was the lead author. “Regulatory learning and technological progress has been considerable over the past four years.”——–
What evidence? There is no statistical base of the number of wells being drilled—-and no evidence whatever that there is any increase in the oversight and regulatory staff needed to issue the violations on which the study is based. The “increased safety” is purely illusory. What is “Regulatory learning and technological progress…….”——–learning to use the new coffee pot and avoiding field inspections?
——-” Environmental violations as a percentage of wells drilled dropped by more than half over the course of the years examined.”——–
That does not mean that the wells are safer—-more likely it means that fewer and fewer wells are being inspected as more and more wells are being drilled.
——–” The majority were “due to operator error, negligence, or a failure to follow proper procedures when drilling,” according to the report. “This suggests that the industry has room for improvement, and the frequency of environmental events can be reduced,” the authors wrote.”———
It also means that they could possibly kill you due to operator error, negligence, or failure to follow proper procedures when drilling…………….
It also means that “has room for improvement” and “the frequency of environmental events can be reduced”—–is not the same as showing actual improvement, or reducing the frequency of environmental events. Suggesting that things CAN get better is not the same as MAKING things better.
Permalink Flag Reply fredlinn 6 months ago
This “study” does not present any evidence at all that fracking safety has improved.
By inference, it suggests exactly the opposite.
Permalink Flag Reply Mike Lehner 6 months ago
@fredlinn *Completely* agree. No mention of the man made earthquake issue either. There is NO evidence to support the headline that safety has improved
Permalink Flag Reply Jon Entine, Contributor 6 months ago
It would be constructive if you actually read the study, which is linked in the piece, instead of posting stupid comments. “Major” is a technical term in the field. There were no “serious” incidents that threatened human or environmental degradation and all have either been addressed or are in the process of being addressed. The key point is that most of those 25 “major” incidents would not even happen under most regulations. Will there be accidents? Humans make mistakes and accidents happen in every endeavor. Indications are, as these independent researchers noted, that the percentage of serious incidents is small to begin with and is rapidly decreasing in this industry, still in its technological infancy.
Called-out comment Permalink Flag Reply Gavin Roberts 6 months ago
@Jon. Thank you for posting this on Forbes it is very nice to see some real science in the media as opposed to this “the sky is falling” Earthquake crap. The pace of Hydraulic Fracturing will continue to increase dramatically in the future as a result of rational economics and we will all benefit from this cheap energy source (cheap in terms of enviromental impact and financial cost) a great deal, including our two friends above. It is funny that these guys probably think that if the U.S. banned “fracking” then we would turn more toward more renewable energy sources (which can be incredibly bad for the environment by the way), when in reality we would just continue to burn coal as we always have. Timothy Considine (lead Author of the study) is leading the way in the analysis of creating smart regulations for the future growth in the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to extract this massive energy resource.
As the cost of extracting hydrocarbons increases due to scarcity (a long time from now), the cost of consuming them will also increase. This increase in the cost of hydrocarbons will in turn increase the cost of energy, which will incentivize research and development in new forms of energy (maybe “renewables” like wind and solar, but impossible to know) because the developers of new energy will be rewarded a premium associated with this higher cost.
@Fred, Mike. Read a book.
Permalink Flag Reply fredlinn 5 months ago
——–” “Major” is a technical term in the field.”——-
Then define the term.
——” The key point is that most of those 25 “major” incidents would not even happen under most regulations.”——
Then why are they happening? If they would not happen under most regulations—–then I have to assume that most regulations are not being enforced.
——-” Humans make mistakes and accidents happen in every endeavor. “——-
Which is exactly the point of regulation and enforcement.
——-” Indications are, as these independent researchers noted, that the percentage of serious incidents is small to begin with and is rapidly decreasing in this industry, still in its technological infancy.”——-
——-” examined violations at almost 4,000 natural gas wells in Pennsylvania between January 2008 and August 2011. The peer-reviewed study found approximately two-thirds of the 3,000 violations were administrative, 38 percent were environmental, “——-
75% violation rate in a period of less than three years?——-that is not a small rate, and there is no evidence that it is “rapidly decreasing”, or even decreasing at all.
As for being “still in its technological infancy”—-fracking has been around since 1947, over sixty years.
Permalink Flag Reply ecojones 5 months ago
Jon, did you, a research fellow, actually call these posters comments stupid? Please act like a research fellow and use the critical perspective to examine published research. The study was not peer-reviewed, as you state; the authors sought feedback from colleagues, but no independent peer-review process was applied to the study.
In addition, unfortunately, most violations go unreported. That aside, the results suggest that there are way too many infractions, although probably fewer infractions than many of us might have thought. But better than bad can still be bad.
I laud some quantitative analysis being applied to this highly charged and political topic, certainly. But this is only one study, was not funded by a national scientific organization, and it is not a published peer reviewed manuscript. Again, if I were a research fellow (i’m a research scientist :), i would be a bit more thoughtful and careful. I look forward to further and more systematic studies.
Eric Jones
Greensboro NC
Permalink Flag Reply Gavin Roberts 5 months ago
How could one possibly know that “most violations go unreported?” Maybe some violations get reported more than once as the study indicates…
Permalink Flag Reply Dan Woods, Contributor 5 months ago
Wouldn’t all the issues be addressed by requiring any fracking to be covered by an environmental impact insurance policy? If no independent company will underwrite such a policy or if the premiums for such a policy made fracking uneconomical that would be an important indicator about the safety of fracking. I would love to hear your opinion of this proposal.


View the original article here