The document summarizes the key findings of a study by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin on the environmental and health impacts of shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing. The study found: 1) No evidence that hydraulic fracturing contaminated groundwater, but some surface spills posed risks; 2) Methane in water was likely from natural sources; 3) State regulations varied and lacked enforcement in some areas like wastewater disposal; 4) Media coverage of fracking was overwhelmingly negative despite little mention of scientific research finding few environmental impacts.

1. Separating
Fac tFROM
teION
FiSc l Gas
In ha
Development
A report By

2. Assessing the Real and
Perceived Consequences
of Shale Gas Development
t h e a st on ish ing su rge in domestic natural gas production, brought
on by the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has
transformed the outlook for U.S. energy. Conservative estimates project the
use of these techniques in shale gas development will all but assure a clean
and affordable natural gas supply for generations to come, creating new jobs
and enhancing our nation’s energy security.
That sanguine view has been tempered, Marcellus Shale, in Pennsylvania, New
however, by concerns that hydraulic York and portions of Appalachia; and the
fracturing may contaminate groundwater Haynesville Shale, in western Louisiana and
and pose other threats to public health. northeast Texas.
While little evidence exists directly linking
the practice to environmental harm, such The Energy Institute team investigated
fears have ignited a controversy that has an array of issues related to shale gas
dominated public discourse on the issue. development, including groundwater
In fact, some areas have halted shale gas contamination, toxicity of hydraulic
development altogether, at least temporarily. fracturing fluids, surface spills, atmospheric
emissions, water use, drilling waste
In response, the Energy Institute at The disposal, blowouts, and road traffic and
University of Texas at Austin funded an noise.
independent study of hydraulic fracturing in
shale gas development to inject science into The goal of this research is to provide
a highly charged emotional debate. policymakers a fact-based foundation
upon which they can formulate rational
For this study, the Energy Institute regulatory policies that ensure responsible
assembled an interdisciplinary team of shale gas development.
university experts to examine a broad
array of issues associated with hydraulic
fracturing in three prominent shale plays
— the Barnett Shale, in north Texas; the
2 | Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute

3. Fact-Based Regulation for
Environmental Protection in
Shale Gas Development
For this study, the Energy Institute at The
University of Texas at Austin assembled a
team of experts with broad experience and Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat
expertise, from geology and environmental
law to public affairs and communications.
In addition to university faculty, the
Environmental Defense Fund was actively “Our mission is to
involved in developing the scope of work
and methodology for this study, and
reviewed final work products. alter the trajectory
Under the leadership of Institute Associate of public discourse
Director Dr. Charles “Chip” Groat,
researchers examined three critical areas in a positive manner,
related to shale gas development:
• Environmental and health effects
as exemplified in our
related to all phases of shale gas
development in the Barnett, Marcellus credo — good policy
and Haynesville shale plays, including
hydraulic fracturing, groundwater based on good science.”
contamination and air emissions.
Where problems were reported,
researchers determined the actual Dr. Raymond L. Orbach
cause of problems, based on a review Director, Energy Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
of scientific and other literature.
• Public perceptions of shale gas
development and hydraulic fracturing, The following pages provide an
as well as the tone of popular media — overview of key findings from the
positive, negative, or neutral.
Energy Institute’s study.
• State and federal regulations related
to shale gas development, including an For the complete report visit:
analysis of individual states’ capacity www.energy.utexas.edu
to enforce existing regulations.
The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development | 3

4. Scientific Investigation into
Groundwater Contamination
and Other Environmental Impacts
the public debate over hydraulic development until additional research
fracturing in shale gas production has is conducted.
been marked by fears that the process will
contaminate groundwater. Concerns also For this report, the Energy Institute
have been raised that underground methane research team focused on reports of
releases are contaminating water wells. groundwater contamination and other
environmental impacts of shale gas
Though little scientific evidence exists to exploration and production in states
support such claims, policymakers in some within the Barnett, Marcellus and
areas have banned the practice, and others Haynesville shales.
have imposed moratoriums on shale gas
Key findings:
• Researchers found no evidence • Methane found in water wells
of aquifer contamination from within some shale gas areas
hydraulic fracturing chemicals (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely
in the subsurface by fracturing be traced to natural sources, and
operations, and observed no likely was present before the onset
leakage from hydraulic fracturing of shale gas operations.
at depth.
• Surface spills of fracturing fluids
• Many reports of groundwater appear to pose greater risks to
contamination occur in groundwater sources than from
conventional oil and gas hydraulic fracturing itself.
operations (e.g., failure of
well-bore casing and cementing) • Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid
and are not unique to hydraulic releases during construction or
fracturing. operation — are a rare occurrence,
but subsurface blowouts appear to
be under-reported.
4 | Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute

5. Regulation of
Shale Gas Development
researchers surveyed federal and The research team also examined several
state laws and regulations related to shale exemptions of shale gas development from
gas development in 16 states that have or are federal environmental laws, including
expected to have shale gas production. This the Resource Conservation and Recovery
analysis covered all major phases of the Act, the Comprehensive Environmental,
shale gas lifecycle — exploration, well siting, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
drilling and fracturing, production, well the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking
plugging, and site closure. Water Act.
Key findings:
• Primary regulatory authority for • Gaps remain in the regulation of
shale gas is at the state level, and well casing and cementing, water
many federal requirements have withdrawal and usage, and waste
been delegated to the states. storage and disposal.
• Most state oil and gas regulations • Regulations should focus on
were written well before shale gas the most urgent issues, such as
development became widespread. spill prevention — which may
pose greater risk than hydraulic
• Some states have revised fracturing itself.
regulations specifically for shale
gas development, with particular
focus on three areas of concern:
> disclosure of hydraulic
fracturing chemicals
> proper casing of wells to
prevent aquifer contamination
> management of wastewater
from flowback and produced
water
The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development | 5

6. Enforcement
of State Regulations
researchers also reviewed state
Key findings:
agencies’ enforcement capabilities,
including a review of staff responsible
• Enforcement capacity is highly variable
for conducting inspections and attorneys
among the states, particularly when
supporting enforcement. The review
measured by the ratio of staff to numbers
covered violations recorded, enforcement
of inspections conducted.
actions, field sampling, and monitoring.
• Most violations recorded are of the type
associated with conventional gas drilling
rather than being specific to hydraulic
fracturing and shale gas production.
• Enforcement actions tend to emphasize
surface incidents more than subsurface
contaminant releases, perhaps because
they are easier to observe.
Treatable groundwater aquifers Private well
Municipal water well;
<1,000 feet
Shale Gas Extraction
Additional steel casing
and cement to protect
groundwater
Protective steel casing
Shale fractures
N OT TO S CA LE
Approximate distance
from surface: 8,000 feet
Graphic by Chesapeake Energy
6 | Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute

7. Public Perception
of Shale Gas Development
energy institute researchers analyzed Researchers also found that less than
print, broadcast and online news media 20% of newspaper articles on hydraulic
coverage of shale gas development in the fracturing mention scientific research
Marcellus, Haynesville, and Barnett shale related to the issue. Similarly, only 25%
areas. They found that the tone of media of broadcast news stories examined made
coverage has been overwhelmingly negative reference to scientific studies, and about
in all forms of media. Roughly two-thirds 33% of online news coverage mentioned
of the articles and stories examined were scientific research on the issue.
deemed negative, a finding that was
consistent nationally and at local levels.
Tone of Media Coverage
Negative Neutral Positive
National Newspapers 64% 25% 12%
Local Newspapers 65% 23% 12%
National Television
64% 19% 18%
& Radio
Local Television 70% 27% 3%
Online News 63% 30% 7%
The University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute Separating Fact from Fiction in Shale Gas Development | 7

8. For more visit: energy.utexas.edu