How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Well Integrity

“When you create doubt, no matter how specious your argument is…it doesn’t matter if you go out and say something ridiculous. … The whole purpose is to create inaction and create a feeling that we do not know what is happening when we actually know exactly what’s happening.”

Josh Fox, director of Gasland and Gasland Part II

In the past week, we’ve covered three separate issues where anti-fracking activists categorically reject any scientific conclusion that differs from their preconceived ideology: air emissions and methane leaks, groundwater contamination, and public health. In this latest installment, we’ll look at activist claims on well integrity, “leaky” wells, and failure rates.

To be sure, we’ve covered this issue extensively before (see here, here, and here). But we continue to see activists claim excessively high failure rates as a means of scaring the public and, by extension, trying to shut down development altogether.

Without a doubt, the most commonly cited source of this claim is anti-fracking activist Tony Ingraffea, who has claimed frequently that “industry documents” reveal astronomical leakage rates from existing wells. Yoko Ono penned a letter to the editor in the New York Times leveraging Ingraffea’s “research,” and we all know about Josh Fox’s short film “The Sky Is Pink” that relied heavily on that same information. The Sierra Club has encouraged its members to read Ingraffea’s work on failure rates, and Food & Water Watch similarly claims that 50 percent of “fracking wells” will leak over a 30-year period.

The reality, however, is that these anti-fracking activists are deliberately misleading the public about well integrity and failure rates.

One of Ingraffea’s “industry documents” is a decade-old chart from the now defunct Minerals Management Service. You probably haven’t heard much about MMS in the context of hydraulic fracturing, because its jurisdiction was offshore, not onshore where the big shale plays are actually located. In fact, the chart was an assessment of deepwater oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico, and the caption explicitly stated that “land locations” were excluded.

The situation gets even more embarrassing for so-called “Godfather of Cement” Tony Ingraffea and his activist following, though. The data presented in that chart were not examples of leaks, but rather instances of what’s known as sustained casing pressure (SCP). Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the oil and gas industry knows that SCP is the accumulation of pressure in a well; it’s not the same thing as a leaking well, nor does it necessarily indicate the well is leaking.

There are also a variety of tools and processes to address SCP. How do we know that? Because the same article that included Ingraffea’s bombshell chart was written entirely to explain how the industry can prevent, reduce, or address SCP.

The entire basis for claiming “half of all shale wells leak” is data that refer neither to shale wells nor leaks.

What a properly cased and cemented well looks like.

What a properly cased and cemented well looks like.

As it turns out, activists claiming high leakage rates have such a dubious case that they can’t even get their own stories straight. In a column for USA TODAY, Josh Fox argued that five percent of wells experience “an immediate failure of the concrete casing.” Eight months later that figure climbed eight-fold, when Fox told DemocracyNow! that “casing that protects the groundwater cracks in 40 percent of the cases.” That same month, Fox told Al Jazeera the failure rate was closer to “50 percent” (20:16). In his short film “The Sky Is Pink” (09:23), Fox established a new number: 16.7 percent. Finally, during his media tour for Gasland Part II, Fox told Platts that the rate is actually 35 percent worldwide, citing the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

The last point is noteworthy, because Fox and many others have tried to establish their credibility by saying the Society of Petroleum Engineers is their source. But SPE denies that it ever made that assessment. In July 2013, a spokeswoman for SPE told the Daily Kos:

“Neither SPE, nor anyone representing SPE, has ever made the claim that 35% of the world’s [oil and gas] wells are leaking. We have no basis for making such a determination.”

If we look at real data, we can see why opponents have had to resort to such raw and deliberate deception.

An August 2011 report from the Ground Water Protection Council examined more than 34,000 wells drilled and completed in the state of Ohio between 1983 and 2007, and more than 187,000 wells drilled and completed in Texas between 1993 and 2008. The data show only 12 incidents in Ohio related to failures of (or graduate erosions to) casing or cement – a failure rate of 0.03 percent. In Texas, the failure rate was only about 0.01 percent.

Most of those incidents, by the way, occurred before modern technology and updated state regulations came online over the past decade.

Granted, a failure rate of anything above zero percent leaves room for improvement, and there have been casing failures in different basins across the country. These are serious issues, and strong rules and regulations are in place to address and minimize those risks. In fact, major producing states like Texas are moving forward with updated regulations on well construction to make sure these and other potential risks are managed properly. Pennsylvania, which is on track to become the second-largest gas producing state in the country, updated its regulations in 2011.

The industry has also adopted and published a series of recommendations and best practices. The Marcellus Shale Coalition has a document outlining responsive actions, and the American Petroleum Institute has a lengthy list of well construction and integrity guidelines, which include actions designed to minimize or, more often, completely eliminate the risk of well integrity failure.

The activist talking point on well casing failures is not based on science or hard data. It is purely a manufactured story line; a series of misleading or outright false claims designed to instill doubt in the public’s mind about the safety of shale development. It is not a discussion of risk or even risk management, much less an attempt to have a reasonable dialogue about safety.

Simply put, opponents hope the public is too stupid to do its own research to discover just how divorced from reality their claims are.


  • JB Evans
    Posted at 17:33h, 24 August Reply

    Thank you for the detailed research! It is so difficult to overcome public misconceptions, but the numeric and sourced information you provide make it achievable.

  • Bill
    Posted at 17:47h, 25 August Reply

    Another great article in this series! The one other piece that would really drive the nail in the coffin of this issue would be to have data on what the real world manifestation of a well casing failure is. Obviously it’s not a major catastrophe; we have no rampant water contamination. My guess it that it’s just a matter of increased methane leakage or something that, while serious, is no disaster. And which is something that can be corrected or mitigated.

  • Lorraine Gudas
    Posted at 15:54h, 27 August Reply

    How much are you paid by the gas companies to write this? Why are the fracking technologies exempt from EPA regulation? Why don’t the gas companies that use hydrofracking voluntarily disclose all of the chemicals they use to dissolve and shatter the rocks? Why don’t the gas company employees drink the waste water from hydrofracking if they say that it is so safe? Pipe the water into the companies drinking water systems!!! Germany is now getting almost 50 % of its energy from non-fossil, renewable sources. That is what the gas companies are really afraid of-that they will soon become obsolete. And I bet you won’t post this comment…

    • Stuart Downs
      Posted at 19:04h, 28 July Reply

      Bravo Lorraine has anyone answered your questions?

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair Early 20th Century.

      • bronach
        Posted at 17:09h, 30 August Reply

        I neglected to SHOUT the banner head line – “Wind power generates 140% of Denmark’s electricity demand” on one day. Step back from your ideological view point and ask yourself a simple neutral question- which form of energy production is both sustainable and better for your grandkids?

    • Jackson
      Posted at 03:59h, 14 September Reply

      Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of debate. At least deal with the information they have put forward in the article.

      Nobody would drink wastewater – I don’t know why you are suggesting they do. Why don’t you drink your toilet water?

      The actual amount of renewable energy produced by Germany in the first half of 2014 was 30%, no ‘almost 50%’. If you are going to enter a debate then it is best to have some facts, and to get the straight.

  • Leom Smith
    Posted at 12:07h, 28 August Reply

    I will offer that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. having worked in the concrete industry, concrete does fail, but not always. Your above picture doesn’t show the issues that lie below that can cause concrete to cure improperly, water seapage, air entrapment. etc.

    Also, all concrete cracks. As it is well known the earth is continuously moving. if you don’t believe concrete cracks, you just have to look at ant concrete structures and see for your self. the groung around the well moves and creates stresses and the concrete will crack. the concrete itself goings will shrink as it cures, and it will crack. (sure there is non shrink concrete, that will minimized but not eliminate shrinkage)

    Let face it, there will be seepage.

  • Watch
    Posted at 13:23h, 29 November Reply

    Alarmism is only necessary when there is something to be alarmed about.

    Over-extremes are damaging to the message.

    The number of leaking land-based wells appear to number in the 6-7% range in some regions according to other studies. While not in the alarmist 50% and up range, when dealing with thousands of well heads, 6-7% is definitely something to take very seriously.

    The subject is discussed here in more detail, (where the MMS chart is fully disclosed for what it is; offshore data) here:

  • Fracking Ethics - Natural Gas Now
    Posted at 08:07h, 16 January Reply

    […] goes on to cite his usual litany about high methane leakage rates. That’s interesting because Ingraffea developed his figures using, among other things, old off-shore drilling data of little or …. Is it ethical for fracking opponents to use irrelevant data to make their case? Clearly, it is […]

  • homunculus
    Posted at 19:39h, 14 February Reply

    Well, I could trust legitimate third-party studies showing failure rates to be around 5%, nationwide, or I can trust an astroturf website that is, according to your own “about” page: “Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other ‘tight’ formations across the country.”

    So, yeah, excuse me if I don’t trust your obviously biased sources. Especially when you can’t even seem to understand that the different figures Fox cited are for different failure rates for different time periods. You conflate all of those percentages as if Fox is giving different numbers for the same thing, but he’s not. You’re distorting his statements.

    Nearly 50% of wells are estimated to fail within 30 years, worldwide. 5% of wells fail within the first year, worldwide. The “new” 16.7% is failure rates only for the USA. At no point did Fox make up new numbers nor change anything. You just can’t seem to follow basic comprehension.

    • Steve Everley, Energy In Depth
      Posted at 09:16h, 17 February Reply

      Thanks for your response. The numbers cited above are not generated by a “website,” but rather the result of data compiled by state regulatory officials and analyzed by the Ground Water Protection Council. Notably, an AP investigation of drilling incidents and failures more or less corroborated the low leakage rates. Based on AP’s data, the failure rate in Pennsylvania, for example, is about one-third of one percent. In other states, including Texas, the rate is significantly lower. More on that here:

      As for your claim that 50 percent of wells are estimated to fail within 30 years, did you not read the blog post? That number refers to incidents of “sustained casing pressure” (which is not the same thing as a leak) in deep offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico, not shale wells as Josh Fox and fellow activist Tony Ingraffea were suggesting. The data supporting that claim are also more than a decade old, and thus were aggregated before modern containment mechanisms were developed, not to mention stringent new offshore regulations.

      The real question is: If anti-fracking activists like Josh Fox had the facts on their side, why do they need to mislead the public?

      Once again, thanks for your response. Hopefully all of this clears things up.


      • Carlos A.
        Posted at 09:44h, 07 May Reply

        The irony of this statement is hilarious… As a Masters candidate in environmental studies, who has just written a capstone on hydraulic fracturing with numerous PhD candidates from other fields of studies, it is really quite sad to see this kind of misinformation “pop” up when “google-ing” “hydraulic fracturing cement casings”.

        For those who don’t know, hydraulic fracturing fluids are pumped into the ground at pressure of up to 15,000 pounds per square inch (Zweig 2009) and the cement casings used, generally, have an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of about 4,000 to 8,000 pounds per square inch (Brufatto 2003) making sustained casing pressure (SCO) a common problem. (I assume since you are claiming to be knowledgable in hydraulic fracturing cases and are so quickly to discredit others’, I am sure you can find these studies I have cited. If you can not efficiently find them, let me know..)

        I would love for you, Steve, to cover why the O’Benco gas service provider’s 2013 incident in Texas where “During a fracture treatment the casing parted” occurred or when Lareda Petroleum, Inc’s, in 2012, onsite staff reported that their “Well blew out and caused fire”.

        I have read some of your other articles and would also love for you to respond to the 2004 gas well site in Alaska where 1.5 MILLION gallons of drilling muds, and other hazardous wastes, were released in the local wetlands, well below the water table. or the EPA study, spanning from 1996 to 2002, where 290 out of 475 gas well sites throughout Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota were found to have problem with their flowback pits.

        Or lets talk about the report by the Colorado School of Public Health, released Jan. 28, gathered evidence from heavily drilled rural Colorado, which has among the highest densities of oil and gas wells in the U.S. where the study found that “births to mothers in the most exposed (areas with over 125 wells per mile) had a 30 percent greater prevalence of CHDs than births to mothers with no wells in a 10-mile radius of their residence.” Or that in December of 2011, the EPA linked aquifer contamination in a small Wyoming town to natural gas drilling activities including hydraulic fracturing, or the “Halliburton Loophole”, or how geologists in Ohio have for the first time linked earthquakes in a geologic formation deep under the Appalachians to hydraulic fracturing. Any would be fine.


        P.S. Quit citing your rebuttal statement “proofs” with your other articles…It is embarrassing and quit disappointing. I understand that you get paid for every “hit” you get on articles and your website, but when it comes to the safety of our societies and the environment, where it only takes ONE spills to degrade, you should be taking this more seriously.

        • Steve Everley, Energy In Depth
          Posted at 11:03h, 07 May Reply

          Hi Carlos, thanks for reading.

          First of all, I would offer that the plural of anecdote is not data. You’ve named a handful of cases here, and as this post clearly notes, no one is saying there is a zero percent failure rate. The risk is exceedingly small, but low risk isn’t the same as no risk. The fact that you were able to name a couple of cases of well incidents in no way debunks anything written in this post.

          Second, your talking points on “flowback pits” are not germane to discussions about well integrity. Pits are not wellbores, and any potential issues related to pits — or any handling/disposal of water — are by definition a separate subject matter. The fact that you had to leverage individual anecdotes that are unrelated to the subject matter at hand speaks more to the validity of your critique (or, in this case, the lack thereof) than to any sort of credibility of what’s in this post. But as someone who has studied cementing and other well integrity issues extensively, I imagine you already knew that.

          Regarding the Colorado School of Public Health study, the chief medical examiner for the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) — himself a former Colorado Pediatrician of the Year — responded directly to the study’s findings:

          “As chief medical officer, I would tell pregnant women and mothers who live, or who at the time of their pregnancy lived in proximity to a gas well, not to rely on this study as an explanation of why one of their children might have had a birth defect… Many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored in this study. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this study, due to its design and limitations … With regard to this particular study, people should not rush to judgment.”

          You can read more about that here:

          The CDPHE also recently released its own analysis. The Denver Post headline says it all: “Colorado finds no link to drilling in Garfield County fetal problems”

          I could respond to your claims regarding Pavillion, the so-called “Halliburton Loophole,” and all the others, but it should already be clear enough for other readers, based on the above, that you unfortunately got your talking points from activists like Josh Fox and other discredited voices on this issue. Debunking the other items would just be piling on.

          Once again, thank you for reading and for taking the time to comment.


          • JP
            Posted at 18:49h, 06 December

            Just want to be clear that the Chief Medical Officer for the CDPHE sits on the board for the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Conflict of interest, party of one, your table is ready.

  • Christy Clark’s Natural Gas Conference was Shadowed by BC’S Opposition
    Posted at 19:47h, 24 May Reply

    […] oft repeated statistic that 5% of gas wells leak is disputed by the website Energy in Depth. One of their bloggers claims there were only twelve known failures in Ohio and the failure rate is even less in […]

  • Blake Raynor
    Posted at 16:20h, 09 July Reply

    Taking statistics from various websites I have found that 80,000 wells have been created since 2008. Taking your percentage of well failures (0.03%) and multiplying by 80,000 is still 2,400 well failures within the next 30 years. I think the benefit of hydraulic fracking is undermined by the importance of water quality and human health. Anyone that would sell their well-being for a quick buck is neither rational or intelligent. I am no environmental fascist, but I just don’t see the benefit here.

    • Steve Everley, Energy In Depth
      Posted at 16:34h, 09 July Reply

      Hi Blake, thanks for reading.

      Quick question: Do you drive a car, or have you ever ridden in one? In 2009, there were more than 10 million vehicular accidents nationwide. Comparing total number of vehicles to accidents, and assuming each car was only involved in one reportable accident (admittedly problematic), that’s a rate of over four percent, which is more than 100 times greater than the well failure rate you used in your computation to suggest there is “no benefit” for the given activity (shale development).

      The point here isn’t to argue against cars, but rather to demonstrate that everything we do in our daily lives, whether we recognize it or not, involves a certain amount of risk. If we want to eliminate all risk, we would live awful and very short lives. Instead, the superior option is to minimize risk, which includes continual improvement of technology and processes. It even means, sometimes, updating rules and regulations as new processes become better understood.

      The well failure statistic (0.03 percent) also doesn’t necessarily mean there was environmental harm or any threat to public health. Redundant safety mechanisms on the well site are in place to address even worst case scenarios.

      Hopefully that clears things up.

      Again, thanks for your comments.


      • 1tscot
        Posted at 00:50h, 08 December Reply

        Your relation of hydraulic Fracking to driving cars based on risk taking is shotty at best seeing as how in most situations one makes the conscious decision to drive a car, but one does not necessarily make the decision to subject yourself to potential consequences of Hydraulic Fracking.
        “It even means, sometimes, updating rules and regulations as new processes become better understood.” If you’re going for a car metaphor, then not having all the rules and regulations while risking the wellbeing of U.S. citizens, then that somewhere close to releasing a car without proper safety inspections.

        If there is a single casualty as product of fracking, whether it be a person or whether it be in the pollution of drinking water that costs someone something irreplaceable or perhaps some yet-to-be discovered facet of fracking, as new scientific data is being discovered every day, then it is not worth it. Human life and wellbeing is precious, and to turn a blind eye to even the most minimal damage is immoral.

  • 100 or So Lies About Fracking - Part I | Natural Gas NowNatural Gas Now
    Posted at 00:01h, 17 July Reply

    […] leak after 15 years and 60 percent leak after 30 years.”  This information is true, but what is conveniently or accidently left out is that these numbers include off-shore oil and gas prod…. Additionally, the Ground Water Protection Council has also done extensive reviews of data from […]

  • richplane
    Posted at 17:20h, 18 August Reply

    Your debunking of the Ingraffea report seems to rest solely on the SCP graph, but he cites more data than this – the Watson et a.l Alberta study which shows a cumulative failure rate at around 4.5% (to 2009). He also disputes the use of the DMRM violation codes which are used to generate the figures in the Kell report which you cite as the more accurate.

    So as far as I can tell, you haven’t really debunked this report at all. The July 2013 Duke University report appears to indicate a higher leakage figure (you may say circumstantially) and most recently, we have a figure from Pennsylvania of 6.3% *reported* integrity violations.

    Your gleeful rubbishing of Josh Fox’s statements doesn’t hit the mark for me. The first quote refers to ‘immediate failures’ of integrity, the second doesn’t, and the third says “50% deteriorate”, not fail (you make this distinction yourselves in some detail elsewhere on this site when it suits a pro-fracking case). He seems quite careful to say that this 50% would be “possibly creating communication between …chemicals and the water table” – which again, doesn’t contradict a figure of 16.7% actually proven to be leaking. I don’t know what sources Josh Fox is using, and I wouldn’t rely on any figure given on a talk show without being able to check out a reference, but I don’t see any scandalous self-contradiction here.

    I’m taking away from all of this a figure of between 5-10%, and a feeling that you aren’t honestly representing your opponents’ arguments.

Post A Comment