Over the past couple of years, the number of studies related to
the alleged environmental impact from hydraulic fracturing have
increased dramatically. In fact, some of these studies have
contradicted each other. That said, lately, multiple studies have
concluded that hydraulic fracturing does not have the detrimental
impact on the environment that several environmental groups have
alleged. The latest study to examine hydraulic fracturing has
concluded that fracking does not cause methane contamination of
drinking water in Pennsylvania.
The study concluded that the methane present in drinking water did
not result from hydraulic fracturing operations in the area. This
latest report studied over 11,300 drinking water wells in
Pennsylvania. This study was led by Donald Siegel, a hydrogeologist
at Syracuse University. Siegel noted that in rare instances poorly
constructed wells permit the transfer of methane to drinking water;
however, he stressed that this was the result of poor construction,
not hydraulic fracturing in general.
Siegel's study casts doubt upon two earlier studies that
suggested that there was a connection between the methane content
in drinking water and hydraulic fracturing. Notably, one of these
studies only examined 60 wells and the other 141 wells. According
to Siegel, these prior studies erred by selecting wells known to
have structural problems. In fact, the prior studies acknowledged
that the primary culprit for methane contamination is poorly
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
The content of this article is intended to provide a
general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be
sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Bokenfohr v Pembina Pipeline Corporation, 2016 ABCA 382 provides an important reflection on admissibility of evidence in the permission stage of an appeal in the oil and gas context.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).