ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania groundwater holding own against drilling boom, studies find

| Monday, June 18, 2018, 5:09 p.m.
A drilling rig used to extract natural gas from the Marcellus shale stands above a pond near the Washington County borough of Houston in 2008.
Associated Press
A drilling rig used to extract natural gas from the Marcellus shale stands above a pond near the Washington County borough of Houston in 2008.

New research suggests drinking water supplies in Pennsylvania have shown resilience in the face of a drilling boom that has turned swaths of countryside into a major production zone for natural gas.

Energy companies have drilled more than 11,000 wells since arriving en masse in 2008, making Pennsylvania the nation's No. 2 gas-producing state after Texas. Residents who live near the gas wells, along with environmental groups and some scientists, have long worried about air and water pollution.

Two new studies that looked at groundwater chemistry did not find much of an impact from horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — the techniques that allow energy companies to extract huge volumes of oil and gas from shale rock deep underground. The results suggest that, as a whole, groundwater supplies appear to have held their own against the energy industry's exploitation of the Marcellus shale, a rock layer more than a mile underground that holds the nation's largest reservoir of natural gas.

In a study published Monday, a team from Yale University installed eight water wells and drew samples every few weeks for two years — during which seven natural gas wells were drilled and fracked nearby — to measure changes in methane levels at various stages of natural gas production. Methane is not toxic to humans, but at high concentrations it can lead to asphyxiation or cause an explosion.

Researchers found that methane spiked in some water wells but attributed rising methane levels to natural variability, not drilling and fracking. Their findings were published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Natural variability “is potentially a lot greater than previously understood,” said Yale University hydrologist James Saiers, a study co-author. That's important, he said, because residential water wells are typically tested only a few times before and after the start of drilling. “Before-and-after sampling might not be sufficient and might lead to misattribution of sources of methane,” Saiers said.

Rob Jackson, a Stanford University scientist who has studied the impact of drilling on groundwater, challenged the researchers' assertion that elevated methane levels in the water wells had nothing to do with natural gas development, though he agreed the gas found in the water did not come from the Marcellus shale.

“The simplest explanation is that something associated with drilling and hydraulic fracturing caused shallower gas to migrate into the monitored aquifers,” he said via email.

Penn State University scientists, meanwhile, obtained an enormous trove of data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection — 11,000 groundwater samples collected since 2010 — and, using what they said was a novel data-mining technique, concluded that water quality is either unchanged or even slightly improved for substances like barium, arsenic and iron.

The authors found slightly elevated concentrations of methane near only seven of 1,385 shale wells in the study area.

“It really doesn't look like the groundwater chemistry has gotten worse, even though we've had this huge number of shale gas wells drilled,” said Susan Brantley, a Penn State geoscientist and study co-author.

Their research , which also looked at a small number of water samples taken before 1990, appeared in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Allen Robinson, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor who wasn't involved in the study, said the large sample size represented an improvement over earlier studies, but he questioned whether researchers' focus on just one county — Bradford County, one of the state's drilling hotspots — might have skewed the results.

“Overall the data demonstrate that there is certainly not a crisis around ground water contamination and unconventional oil and gas activity. That is good news,” he said via email. “However, it does document some contamination. Is ‘rare' contamination around a few percent of wells acceptable? That is a policy question.”

Environmental regulators have held drillers liable for tainting more than 300 residential water supplies statewide over the years, while homeowner lawsuits have accused gas companies of polluting the water with methane, heavy metals and toxic drilling chemicals. Older research linked faulty gas wells to tainted water.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me