Quantcast

Here's What Most Media Outlets Left Out of Their Reporting on EPA Fracking Study

Energy

Many major media outlets reported that a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found no evidence that hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking") has had "widespread" impacts on Americans' drinking water, but did not mention the EPA's explanation for why the study doesn't necessarily indicate "a rarity of effects on drinking water resources." The EPA study identified several "limiting factors," including insufficient data, the lack of long-term studies and inaccessible information, which it said "preclude a determination of the frequency of [drinking water] impacts with any certainty."

The EPA emphasized that the lack of evidence of "widespread" drinking water impacts could be due to "limiting factors," and that "data limitations" prevent the agency from having "any certainty" of how often fracking actually impacts drinking water.
Photo credit: Shutterstock

On June 4, the EPA released its assessment of the risks the fracking process poses to the nation's drinking water supply. The agency determined that "there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources," and identified "specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells." However, the EPA also said it "did not find evidence" of "widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States." [EPA, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, June 2015]

The EPA emphasized that the lack of evidence of "widespread" drinking water impacts could be due to "limiting factors," and that "data limitations" prevent the agency from having "any certainty" of how often fracking actually impacts drinking water:

This finding could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors. These factors include: insufficient pre- and post-fracturing data on the quality of drinking water resources; the paucity of long-term systematic studies; the presence of other sources of contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact; and the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.

[...]

This assessment used available data and literature to examine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing from oil and gas on drinking water resources nationally. As part of this effort, we identified data limitations and uncertainties associated with current information on hydraulic fracturing and its potential to affect drinking water resources. In particular, data limitations preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty. [EPA, Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources, June 2015]

In March, InsideClimateNews published a lengthy investigation about the many factors preventing the EPA from conducting a comprehensive study of fracking's impact on drinking water. The investigation which was based on a review of internal EPA documents and interviews with people who had knowledge of the study, noted that geochemist Geoffrey Thyne said the EPA study was "not going to produce a meaningful result," and that "[m]ore than a half-dozen former high-ranking EPA, administration and congressional staff members echoed Thyne's opinion, as did scientists and environmentalists." InsideClimateNews further detailed how the oil and gas industry had prevented the EPA from conducting the prospective studies necessary to determine fracking impacts:

The EPA's failure to answer the study's central question partly reflects the agency's weakness relative to the politically potent fossil fuel industry. The industry balked at the scope of the study and sowed doubts about the EPA's ability to deliver definitive findings. In addition, concerns about the safety of drinking water conflicted with the Obama administration's need to spur the economy out of recession while expanding domestic energy production.

For the study's findings to be definitive, the EPA needed prospective, or baseline, studies. Scientists consider prospective water studies essential because they provide chemical snapshots of water immediately before and after fracking and then for a year or two afterward. This would be the most reliable way to determine whether oil and gas development contaminates surface water and nearby aquifers, and the findings could highlight industry practices that protect water. In other studies that found toxic chemicals or hydrocarbons in water wells, the industry argued that the substances were present before oil and gas development began.

Prospective studies were included in the EPA project's final plan in 2010 and were still described as a possibility in a December 2012 progress report to Congress. But the EPA couldn't legally force cooperation by oil and gas companies, almost all of which refused when the agency tried to persuade them.

[...]

Eventually, two companies agreed to participate in the prospective studies, though ultimately the collaborations fell through.

[...]

After three years looking for suitable locations for baseline research, the EPA determined it had to move on or risk further delays to the overall study. [InsideClimateNews, 3/2/15]

Many Media Outlets Reported on EPA Study Without Mentioning Uncertainty of Findings

The following articles neglected to mention the uncertainty surrounding the EPA's findings or any of the limiting factors preventing the agency from fully evaluating the impacts of fracking on drinking water:

Associated Press: "EPA: No widespread harm to drinking water from fracking" [6/4/15]

NPR: "EPA Finds No Widespread Drinking Water Pollution From Fracking" [6/4/15]

USA Today: "EPA: Fracking has no broad impact on drinking water" [6/4/15]

Newsweek: "Fracking Doesn't Pollute Drinking Water, EPA Says" [6/4/15Media Matters6/4/15]

New York Post: "Fracking doesn't harm drinking water: EPA" [6/5/15Media Matters6/4/15]

NBCNews.com: "EPA Says Fracking Has No 'Widespread' Impact on Drinking Water" [6/4/15]

The Hill: "EPA gives Republicans new ammo in fight against fracking regs" [6/4/15]

FoxNews.com: "EPA declares no 'widespread' harm to drinking water from fracking, boosting industry" [6/4/15]

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: EPA report: Fracking has caused isolated, not widespread, water pollution [6/4/15]

Read page 1

By Contrast, Many Other Outlets Noted the Severe Limitations of the Study

Los Angeles Times: EPA Report "Emphasized The Agency's Well-Documented Problems In Gathering Information." The Los Angeles Times detailed several limitations of EPA's fracking study:

[T]he report itself emphasized the agency's well-documented problems in gathering information, including the industry's refusal to cooperate with some testing.

Limitations on data available to the agency, the report said, prevented a determination "with any certainty" of how frequently water supplies had been affected by fracking activities.

The agency said the relatively small number of cases of negative effects it had identified "could reflect a rarity of effects on drinking water resources, but may also be due to other limiting factors."

Those factors, it said, could include insufficient data on the quality of drinking water resources both before and after fracking; the paucity of long-term studies; the presence of other sources of contamination, making it difficult to establish a definitive link to fracking; and "the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing." [Los Angeles Times, 6/4/15]

The New York Times: Environmental Groups Pointed To "Limitations In Data" In EPA Report. The New York Times reported that "environmental groups pointed to what they saw as holes in the report. In particular, they said, the report's authors relied on data supplied by companies and wrote that limitations in data 'preclude a determination of the frequency of impacts with any certainty.'" [The New York Times, 6/4/15]

News & Observer: "Study Does Admit Several Limitations In Its Scope." Charlotte's News & Observerreported of the EPA study:

The study does admit several limitations in its scope—limitations that environmentalists say call for further research and study to really understand fracking's implications.

For example, before the study got underway, the EPA said it would conduct two kinds of case studies: retrospective case studies and prospective case studies.

Retrospective case studies examine instances of reported drinking water contamination. Prospective case studies would take samples of water before and after fracking. While the retrospective studies were conducted, the prospective ones were not.

"Baseline testing is crucial to determining whether fracking caused contamination," said Elizabeth Ouzts, a spokeswoman with Environment America, a federation of environmental advocacy organizations. [News & Observer, 6/4/15]

National Journal: Environmentalists Say "Lack Of Involvement From The Industry Should Cast Doubt On The Findings." National Journal reported that EPA's study has "been met with criticism, however, regarding the scope of the research, with environmentalists charging that a lack of involvement from the industry should cast doubt on the findings." [National Journal, 6/4/15]

The Wall Street Journal: Environmentalists Noted That Findings "May Be Subject To Limiting Factors, Such As Insufficient Data." The Wall Street Journal reported:

Environmentalists pointed to a line in the report that said the EPA's findings on fracking and drinking water may be subject to limiting factors, such as insufficient data.

"How can the EPA say there are no widespread impacts if they didn't study this on a widespread basis?" said Josh Fox, director of "Gasland." [The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/15]

Bloomberg, Reuters Cited NRDC Spokesperson Highlighting Study's Limitations. Bloomberg News andReuters quoted Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who described the EPA report as "limited." Bloomberg reported that Mall said "a lack of cooperation from industry meant EPA lacked key data necessary to fully assess its safety." And Reuters quoted Mall as saying the study "is site-specific and limited, which makes it impossible to fully understand all the risks at this time." [Bloomberg News, 6/4/15; Reuters, 6/4/15]

CNBC.com: Insufficient Data And Presence Of Other Contaminates "Made It Impossible To Conclude Fracking's Effects On Certain Areas." CNBC.com reported: "In its report, the EPA notes that its findings could have been limited because of an insufficient amount of data and the presence of other possible contaminates that made it impossible to conclude fracking's effects on certain areas." [CNBC.com, 6/4/15]

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Don’t Be Fooled by Yesterday’s Headlines, EPA Finds Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

Long-Awaited EPA Study Says Fracking Pollutes Drinking Water

Josh Fox Gets Kicked Off of Fox News While Exposing Misleading Coverage of EPA Fracking Report

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Serena and Venus Williams have been known to follow a vegan diet. Edwin Martinez / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

By Whitney E. Akers

  • "The Game Changers" is a new documentary on Netflix that posits a vegan diet can improve athletic performance in professional athletes.

  • Limited studies available show that the type of diet — plant-based or omnivorous — doesn't give you an athletic advantage.

  • We talked to experts about what diet is the best for athletic performance.

Packed with record-setting athletes displaying cut physiques and explosive power, "The Game Changers," a new documentary on Netflix, has a clear message: Vegan is best.

Read More Show Less
An illegally trafficked tiger skull and pelt. Ryan Moehring / USFWS

By John R. Platt

When it comes to solving problems related to wildlife trade, there are an awful lot of "sticky widgets."

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Pexels

By Franziska Spritzler, RD, CDE

Inflammation can be both good and bad.

On one hand, it helps your body defend itself from infection and injury. On the other hand, chronic inflammation can lead to weight gain and disease.

Read More Show Less
Pexels

By Dan Nosowitz

It's no secret that the past few years have been disastrous for the American farming industry.

Read More Show Less
Pexels

By Gavin Van De Walle, MS, RD

Medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil and coconut oil are fats that have risen in popularity alongside the ketogenic, or keto, diet.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Pexels

By Bijal Trivedi

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report on Nov. 13 that describes a list of microorganisms that have become resistant to antibiotics and pose a serious threat to public health. Each year these so-called superbugs cause more than 2.8 million infections in the U.S. and kill more than 35,000 people.

Read More Show Less
Rool Paap / Flickr / CC BY 2.0

By Franziska Spritzler, RD, CDE

Inflammation can be good or bad depending on the situation.

Read More Show Less

By Joe Vukovich

Under the guise of responding to consumer complaints that today's energy- and water-efficient dishwashers take too long, the Department of Energy has proposed creating a new class of dishwashers that wouldn't be subject to any water or energy efficiency standards at all. The move would not only undermine three decades of progress for consumers and the environment, it is based on serious distortions of fact regarding today's dishwashers.

Read More Show Less