University Of Texas Faculty Bring Science and Policy To Hydraulic Fracturing Debate

On July 10, The Denver Post published two side-by-side op-ed pieces on hydraulic fracturing. One by Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the American Gas Association, argued that the natural gas extraction process has led to an energy revolution in the U.S., one that reduces the nation's dependence on foreign energy, creates domestic jobs and safely helps the nation meet its diverse and growing energy needs while reducing its carbon footprint. The second piece by Sam Schabacker, a senior organizer for the consumer advocacy organization, Food & Water Watch, paints a different picture. In it, hydraulic fracturing – a process that injects sand, water and chemicals into deep shale formations to extract natural gas – is a water-guzzler. It's a poisonous process that pumps toxic chemicals into the ground, contaminating water and air, and harming people, wildlife and agriculture along the way.

The two drastically differing views cut to the heart of an increasingly polarized debate about hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracing. While fracing has been used since the 1950s, debate about the controversial process has escalated in recent years as oil and gas companies have expanded their operations into "shale plays," geologically tight formations containing vast natural gas resources. Recent documentaries like "Gasland" and "Haynesville" have further heightened public interest in fracturing, and earlier this summer Texas lawmakers passed groundbreaking legislation requiring oil and gas operators to publicly disclose the specific chemicals used during the extraction process.

But behind the scenes of this typically oversimplified issue are experts – experts like those at The University of Texas at Austin and the Cockrell School of Engineering. Their innovative and interdisciplinary research is helping to improve the safety and efficiency of hydraulic fracturing, identify issues that need to be corrected and untangle the knowns and unknowns of a process that is expected to constitute perhaps half of the nation's total natural gas supplies in coming years.

Along the way, the researchers are adding important science and policy-based contributions to the national dialogue.

Research to improve the process

Fracing creates fractures in shale formations and extracts natural gas by injecting wells with sand, water and chemicals. Thanks to the ability to drill wells horizontally, the process has transformed traditionally unproductive deep shale formations and over the past decade it, along with two other forms of unconventional gas, has increased the nation's domestic energy production by 30-40 percent.

"They've added the equivalent of about 3 million barrels of oil production per day to the U.S. To give context, we only produce about 7 million barrels of oil per day here," said Mukul Sharma, a professor in the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department, who is internationally regarded for his expertise on hydraulic fracturing. "You can't think of any technology that has done that in the last 50 years or more."

But some say this energy gain is not without serious costs, and concerns about environmental impacts have spurred France, the state of New Jersey and – up until recently – New York, to ban the practice altogether.

Among the myriad of concerns expressed about the process is that it contaminates groundwater, causes earthquakes and leaks chemicals like methane and benzene into the air.

To date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology has been conducted.

Danny Reible, a professor in the Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Department, who recently lent his groundwater expertise to the Environmental Protection Agency for a fracing study the agency plans to conduct, said contamination could occur as a result of poor well design and construction, or bad waste management at the surface level.