{"id":2350,"date":"2012-02-16T20:09:28","date_gmt":"2012-02-16T20:09:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=2350"},"modified":"2012-02-16T20:09:28","modified_gmt":"2012-02-16T20:09:28","slug":"if-the-problem-isnt-hydraulic-fracturing-then-what-is","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2012\/02\/16\/if-the-problem-isnt-hydraulic-fracturing-then-what-is\/","title":{"rendered":"If The Problem Isn’t Hydraulic Fracturing, Then What Is?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today<\/a>, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin released a major report titled, \u201cFact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.\u201d The report\u2019s conclusions are those of the authors, though Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) helped the University of Texas at Austin define its scope of work and reviewed drafts during the course of the project.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>What are the main conclusions? As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can\u2019t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate.<\/p>\n

The following conclusions are particularly important:\u00a0<\/p>\n