High-volume hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method for extracting natural gas from the ground through high-pressure injection of large amounts of water mixed with chemicals and sand, has the potential to create a “gas boom” of activity and economic growth in Michigan, but fracking could also harm air and water quality and degrade ecosystems, according to a series of reports released by University of Michigan researchers today.
The reports are the first phase of a two-year assessment process at U-M that will provide a foundation for analyzing fracking policy options.
It’s unclear how prominent high-volume fracking will ever become in Michigan. Only 19 high-volume wells have been completed in Michigan in recent years, likely because of the low price natural gas currently garners and the deeper, costlier wells required to reach it in Michigan when compared to more active states, such as Pennsylvania, U-M researchers said.
But Michigan’s lull in activity and ample underground gas supply “is why now is a good time to do this assessment,” said John Callewaert, project director at U-M’s Graham Sustainability Institute.
The roads, power grid and heavy equipment associated with fracking wells can cause erosion and sedimentation, water contamination from chemical spills or equipment runoff, habitat fragmentation and lowered groundwater levels, the environmental portion of the reports state.
Fracking fluids include toxic chemicals such as ammonium persulfate and hydrochloric acid, and the effects of injecting fracking wastewater deep underground aren’t yet well understood, said Knute Nadelhoffer, a U-M biologist and coauthor of the reports.
“While we may know what chemicals are injected, these chemicals do react in the formation, and we aren’t sure what the end products are,” he said. “What we inject in isn’t necessarily what comes out. And that poses another risk.”
Though potential impacts to groundwater are a frequently cited fracking concern — one well in Michigan required more than 20 million gallons of water to drill, the reports note — possibilities for surface water contamination also were identified. Evaluations of fracking operations in central Arkansas found that nearly half of surface water quality violations came from erosion, illegal discharges and chemical spills from drilling sites.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool, a system used to evaluate long-term groundwater withdrawal impacts, may not effectively “address short-term, intensive withdrawals such as those associated with hydraulic fracturing operations,” the report states.
“Depending on where in a watershed a drilling site might be — if it’s at the headwaters of a cold-water stream, depending on the time of extraction — it could have major impacts on the stream,” Nadelhoffer said.
The public health risks related to the thousands of oil and natural gas wells drilled in Michigan “have been poorly documented,” the reports find. And determining fracking as the cause of a public health problem involves complex, large-scale studies, the report states.
“Ideally, these efforts would already be under way, given the extent of existing hydraulic fracturing in the state,” it states.
More exact data are needed on not just the types of chemicals used in fracking, but the amounts of them that are utilized, the report finds.
The Integrated Assessment researchers are now accepting public comment both on the reports and on other fracking-related issues residents see as concerns. A second phase of the assessment will include a report by mid-2014 outlining conclusions and policy recommendations, Callewaert said.
The seven technical reports, and an online comment form, are available at http://graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing/technical-reports.
Contact Keith Matheny: 313-222-5021 or firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter @keithmatheny.