Presented by ProPublica

By Abrahm Lust­garten — ProPublica

This is part of our year-end series, looking at where things stand in each of our major investigations.

This was the year that “fracking” became a household word.

It wasn’t just that envi­ron­mental concerns about the under­ground drilling process finally struck a main­stream chord — after three years of reporting and more than 125 stories. For the first time, inde­pendent scien­tific inves­ti­ga­tions linked the drilling tech­nique with water pollution, and a variety of federal and state agencies responded to the growing appre­hension about water cont­a­m­i­nation with more studies and more regulation.

The most important devel­opment — and perhaps a crucial turning point — was in December. In a landmark finding, the Envi­ron­mental Protection Agency concluded that hydraulic frac­turing was the likely culprit in a spate of ground­water cont­a­m­i­nation that had forced resi­dents to stop using their water in dozens of homes in central Wyoming. The agency had been inves­ti­gating since 2008.

Earlier in the year, a study published through the National Academy of Sciences deter­mined that in Penn­syl­vania, private water wells in close prox­imity to fracked gas wells were 17 times more likely to be cont­a­m­i­nated with methane gas.

Those studies are separate from a national research project the EPA has under­taken to assess the risks fracking poses to water resources. The agency is exam­ining five case studies across the country and is now esti­mating that some of its report will be complete by the original 2012 deadline and the rest will continue into 2014.

The study is meant to help Congress and regu­lators determine whether fracking should be regu­lated like other similar processes under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies that frack should be forced to disclose the details about the chem­icals they use.

Last winter, the Obama admin­is­tration — which has repeatedly referred to natural gas as a bridge fuel and encouraged its devel­opment — urged the Department of Energy to conduct its own assessment of fracking’s safety on a quicker timeline than the EPA.

In a matter of months, a DOE panel deter­mined that the envi­ron­mental risks were substantial and needed to be addressed in order to safely develop more natural gas resources. The panel raised concerns that pollution could have serious health conse­quences for those who live close to drilling operations.

Indeed, a report published by ProP­ublica in September found that resi­dents in drilling areas across the country complained of serious health symptoms ranging from skin lesions to tumors, and that health and science orga­ni­za­tions had yet to develop any compre­hensive system for studying such problems.

While water pollution is one concern, many of the health effects reported are believed to be related to air pollution and emis­sions released in the natural gas devel­opment and drilling process.

Earlier in the year, a ProP­ublica inves­ti­gation found that the EPA had grossly under­es­ti­mated the amount of methane that seeps out of pipelines and drill rigs as gas is produced, and reported that the agency was doubling its calcu­la­tions. Our analysis of the new emis­sions levels showed that they threaten to offset the relative advan­tages presented by cleaner-burning natural gas over oil and carbon in combating climate change and reducing carbon emissions.

In some cases, government offi­cials didn’t just debate fracking and call for addi­tional study. They enacted real changes in how drilling is overseen.

The EPA announced that the drilling industry would have to comply with tough new indus­trial emis­sions stan­dards. Then it said that it would issue new rules governing how waste­water from fracking is disposed of; this addressed concerns first raised by ProP­ublica in 2009 that in eastern drilling areas, which cannot inject waste into under­ground wells the way the industry does in the west, chemical-laden waste is winding up in river systems, and then drinking water. In December, Colorado imple­mented the toughest law yet requiring compre­hensive disclosure of frack fluids, following similar but weaker laws in Texas and Wyoming.

This was also the year fracking went global. While France banned fracking outright and South Africa enacted a temporary mora­torium, multi-national energy companies began exploring shale reserves in Poland, Argentina and China.

Closer to home, New York state offi­cials continued to inch closer to allowing drilling to take place in the coveted Marcellus Shale. After a multi-year process and its own temporary mora­torium on some fracking activity, New York finished up the latest version of its envi­ron­mental review and has signaled that it intends to begin permitting more drilling early next year.

According to the state’s envi­ron­mental assessment, no fracking will be allowed on state lands, and the process will be severely limited within the New York City watershed.

Still, the state’s chief envi­ron­mental regu­lator, Joe Martens, told ProP­ublica he is confident the drilling can proceed safely, and that he does not expect there will be much to learn from the EPA’s research into the issue. New York’s draft plan is in its final stage of public review, and is expected to be completed on Jan. 11, 2012.

Staff reporter Nicholas Kusnetz contributed to this report.

ProP­ublica

ProP­ublica is an inde­pendent, non-profit newsroom that produces inves­tigative jour­nalism in the public interest. Our work focuses exclu­sively on truly important stories, stories with “moral force.” We do this by producing jour­nalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them.

More PostsWebsiteTwitterFacebook