It has been reported that Industry and governmental pressure have made it difficult to conduct and report the results of comprehensive studies of hydraulic fracturing. EPA investigations into the oil and gas industry's environmental impact have been narrowed in scope and/or had negative findings removed due to industry and government pressure[9][10][11] A 2012 Cornell University report noted that it was difficult to assess health impact because of legislation, proprietary secrecy, and non-disclosure agreements that allow them to keep the proprietary chemicals used in the fluid secret. Cornell researcher Bamberger stated that if you don't know what chemicals are, you can't conduct pre-drilling tests and establish a baseline to prove that chemicals found postdrilling are from hydraulic fracturing.[12] Pre-drilling tests and other assessments have found, however, that water supplies -- especially private water wells -- often suffer from high levels of naturally occurring contaminants, as the U.S. Geological Survey concluded in August 2011.[13] Nonetheless, these particular Cornell researchers recommended requiring disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluids, that nondisclosure agreements not be allowed when public health is at risk, testing animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites and animal products (milk, cheese, etc.) from animals raised near hydraulic fracturing sites prior to selling them to market, monitoring of water, soil and air more closely, and testing the air, water, soil and animals prior to drilling and at regular intervals thereafter. Despite the lack of conclusive data, however, the researchers also wrote that "a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health."[12] The co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Programme, Dr. Ian Rae, recently criticized the Cornell researchers' conclusions, saying: "It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep analysis of the data gathered to support its case." Rae added that the Cornell researchers "cannot be regarded as experts" in this particular field. Others have pointed out that the study does still raise important questions, and it echoes similar concerns of some landowners and environmental groups.[14] In addition, after court cases concerning contamination from hydraulic fracturing are settled, the documents are sealed. While the American Petroleum Institute deny that this practice has hidden problems with gas drilling, others believe it has and could lead to unnecessary risks to public safety and health.[15]
File:Steve Katz and Bob Castelli call for hydrofracking ban.jpg
New York State Assembly members Robert Castelli and Steve Katz call for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the Croton Watershed in October 2010.
The New York Times reported that the results of the 2004 EPA Study were censored due to strong industry influence and political pressure (regulatory capture),[9] however EPA agency officials stood by the results.[citation needed] An early draft of the study discussed the possibility of dangerous levels of fracking fluid contamination, and mentioned "possible evidence" of aquifer contamination. The final report concluded simply that fracking "poses little or no threat to drinking water".[9] The study's scope was narrowed so that it only focused on the injection of fracking fluids, ignoring other aspects of the process such as disposal of fluids, and environmental concerns such as water quality, fish kills and acid burns. The study was concluded before public complaints of contamination started emerging.[16]:780 The study's conclusion that the injection of fracking fluids into coalbed methane wells posed a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources[17] may have influenced the 2005 Congressional decision that hydraulic fracturing should continue to be regulated by the states and not under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The 2012 EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Plan was also narrowed. It does not include studying the effects of iodine-131 (found in Philadelphia's drinking water)[18][19][20] or other radioactive tracer isotopes used in hydraulic fracturing.[21][22][23][4] Nor does the draft plan include evaluating the impact of wastewater. Christopher Portier, director of the US CDC's National Center for Environmental Health and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, argued that, in addition to the EPA's plans to investigate the impact of fracking on drinking water, additional studies should be carried out to determine whether wastewater from the wells can harm people or animals and vegetables they eat.[24] A group of US doctors called for a moratorium on fracking in populated areas until such studies had been done.[25][26]
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing have claimed in the press and other media that the recent University of Texas Study ("Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development") found that hydraulic fracturing caused no environmental contamination,[27][28] although the study did note that other steps in the drilling process -- excepting the actual injection of the fluid -- have been sources of environmental contamination.[29] Conflicting interpretations of this study are based on disagreement between industry and the environmental community about what "hydraulic fracturing" actually is: Industry notes that hydraulic fracturing is a specific process, which takes place after the well has been drilled and the drilling equipment has left the pad; the environmental community, however, uses hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," to describe the entire production phase. The radioactivity of the injected fluid itself was not assessed in the University of Texas study.[29] While the EPA recognizes the potential for contamination of water by hydraulic fracturing,[citation needed] EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified in a Senate Hearing Committee stating that she is not aware of any proof where the fracking process itself has contaminated water.[30] State regulators from across the country have similarly noted that they have seen no evidence of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water in their respective jurisdictions.[31]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/27/us/natural-gas-map.html