Do critics of hydraulic fracturing — many of whom resist oil and gas drilling on principle — finally have a true issue to wield as a club?
Possibly. It’s far too soon to reach conclusions — unless you’re looking for that club, of course — but recent research on air pollution near drilling sites can hardly be dismissed.
Still, as we shall see, there’s reason to approach the latest study, by the Colorado School of Public Health, with caution.
Heaven knows that critics of fracking could use a new weapon in their arsenal of fear mongering. The main one they’ve relied upon for years — the alleged threat of groundwater pollution — has nearly run its course. If fracking fluids were able to migrate thousands of feet through layers of shale to well water, you’d think one such instance would eventually come to light. It hasn’t.
Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency tentatively linked fracking to groundwater pollution at a Wyoming site. But the agency has been at pains to emphasize, in the words of one official, “that the causal link … has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field … .”
As a policy adviser with the Environmental Defense Fund recently admitted in The Wall Street Journal, “Groundwater pollution incidents that have come to light to date have all been caused by well construction problems,” not the fracking process.
That’s why it was so unfortunate that Gov. John Hickenlooper gave an opening to the anti-fracking chorus when he did a public service radio spot recently for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) in which he claimed that “we have not had one instance of groundwater contamination associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” What he meant, he later explained, is “there are no examples of fracking, frack fluids getting into groundwater in Colorado, from the actual fracking” — and that’s true. But by including “drilling,” he let activists pounce.
Every year there are a number of spills involving drilling operations. Most never impact groundwater, but a few do, as the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission confirms. The governor, who has every reason to crow about fracking’s safety record, misspoke.
Ah, but what about that new study that concludes, in the words of a CU press release, “that air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing or fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites”?
What about the report’s alarming claim that “We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away]”?
If the findings are sustained and strengthened by additional research, then further regulation may well be called for. But in the meantime, critics at COGA make some interesting points. They note, for example, that this research team previously produced a “health impact assessment” for the same county that drew a sharp critique from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment not even 18 months ago.
State officials cited errors of fact, overly broad conclusions, lack of context and failure to consider key factors such as topology and meteor- ology. And while the assessment showed “there may be some elevated risks,” state officials explained, “other areas (including any larger urban area) may have risks that are higher.”
COGA argues that “data from that report is regurgitated in the current study.” It also says the study “reflects inaccurate assumptions regarding the time required to drill” and fails to account for later air-quality rules.
So hold the rush to judgment.
Still, at least the study deserves to be taken seriously — which is more than you can say about many anti-fracking charges.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com Follow him on Twitter: @vcarrollDP
