A PowerPoint detailing some concerns over hydraulic fracturing and their recent confirmation as valid.

1. THE DANGERS OF
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
CONFIRMED

2. THE BUILD UP
 For the past four years, as innovations in
hydraulic fracturing – fracking – technology
have opened previously inaccessible oil and
natural gas deposits beneath the Earth, oil
men, geologists, and PR people have
fervently denied that there is any concern
that chemicals pumped into the ground for
fracking could move all the way up through
bedrock into the water table.

3. WHAT’S HAPPENED
 Last week, the EPA announced new USGS results
that were consistent with results obtained from a
December, 2011 test in Pavilion, confirming that
fracking likely contaminated groundwater in Pavilion,
Wyoming – pop. 213
 Duke University professor Rob Jackson has studied
the effects of fracking in the areas surrounding
recently developed plays in Pennsylvania and (when
they were still active) New York state.
 Jackson stated, “The industry likes to say there’s never
been a case of fracking contaminating groundwater.
What made the EPA report so controversial is that they
concluded that’s what happened.” .

4. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
 Yesterday, Oct. 2, 2012, the EPA found that methane
has leaked into a watertable in Dimock, PA, where
drillers are tapping into the Marcellus Shale.
 The results in Pennsylvania are not terribly
concerning, however, states Jackson. The methane
leak there was most likely caused by a crack in pipe,
which is a relatively easy issue to address.
 Furthermore, the drilling that occurs in Marcellus takes
place thousands of feet beneath aquifers.
 In Pavilion, conversely, drilling, which was performed by
the company Encana, reaches less than 1,000 feet below
the surface.

5. ENCANA’S REACTION
 Doug Hock, one of Encana’s spokespeople, claimed
in an email that there was nothing surprising in the
USGS’results:
More important is the fact that USGS only
sampled one of the two monitoring wells. This
goes to heart of the concerns raised by state and
federal agencies, as well as Encana – EPA’s wells
are improperly constructed. Specifically, the
report seems to indicate that USGS declined to
sample MW02 because the well could not provide
a sample that was representative of actual qater
quality conditions.

6. WHAT’S NEXT
 The EPA has not announced yet when it will
it will make a final conclusion for Pavilion –
the agency is still in the process of accepting
public comments on its findings from the
December study.
 Jackson is of the opinion that no matter what
the outcome fracking, as a technique, is here
to stay.

7. CONCLUSIONS
 The results will certainly place a great of
pressure on the oil and gas industry, and
scrutiny from environmental agencies and
NPOs should also be expected to increase.
 The oil and gas industry continues an uphill
battle against dissenters who believe fracking to
be environmentally harmful.
 “[The EPA’s decision] will still be controversial,”
said Jackson. “The take home message in
Pavilion is: ‘Don’t frack a well so close to the
surface.’”