For five years, the University of Colorado has led a team of researchers to explore the benefits and drawbacks of oil and gas development and to use their findings to inform public policy.
Teams of researchers studied the effects of oil and gas development on air and water quality, as well as the politics and economics involved in the development.
They set out to answer the central question: “How can we better integrate research about the environmental, economic, and social tradeoffs of oil and gas development into policies and regulations governing development?”
“So much of this was motivated by recognizing that residents were getting opinions about oil and gas from the two opposite sides of the issues,” said Joseph Ryan, a CU professor of environmental engineering who led the research project. “… We knew the truth was somewhere in between.”
Ryan said they wanted to do research and provide evidence so residents and regulators would have a better understanding of the tradeoffs.
Ballot measures are a bad way to do oil and gas regulations, he said, because they don’t address the tradeoffs well. He pointed to Proposition 112, a statewide ballot measure voters will decide on in November, which would increase setbacks for new wells to 2,500 feet.
On one hand, he said, the higher setbacks would better protect downwind air quality and prevent the stress of industrial activity in residential neighborhoods.
But, on the other hand, the setbacks could significantly curtail oil and gas development in the state — fracking has made natural gas more available, and natural gas is on its way to replacing coal of a means of generating electricity.
They’re “tricky tradeoffs,” he said.
The team created a national database of state oil and gas regulations, as well as a Colorado database of memoranda of understanding between local governments and oil and gas operators. They’re also exploring decision-analysis tools that regulators could use to defend their decisions in regards to oil and gas development.
“We thought that’s what’s needed,” Ryan said. “We recognize that a lot of our regulators and legislators are subject to those who can get a message out by putting money into it.”
The oil and gas industry is willing to spend money to make its arguments highly visible, he said, but such tools and data could help regulators.
The team also worked on various outreach projects, including working with more than 100 high school teachers on energy issues and lesson plans they could use to teach students about energy choices.
The team’s research included findings about fugitive methane emissions, the most toxic ingredients in fracking fluid, and conditions leading to methane in well water, according to a CU post about the project.
Karl Linden, a senior research associate on the project, said his research examined fracking and flowback water. He and other researchers built relationships with oil and gas operators in the state so they could test the water, determine what chemicals were in it and determine how best to treat it.
Fracking mobilizes water that has been trapped underground for thousands of years, and minerals and organic matter get mixed into the fracking fluid, he said.
That makes treating the water complex.
Currently, the least expensive option is to inject the used water deep into the ground, but his team examined technologies they could use to treat the water so it could be used again for fracking or released back into the environment safely — rather than being deposited in a disposal well.
“Just breaking down those barriers and creating opportunities to have a collaboration within that kind of climate was challenging for us,” he said. The AirWaterGas project was funded by a National Science Foundation grant and involved 27 investigators from 10 institutions, as well as undergraduate students, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers.
They’ll continue work with their remaining funds to collect measurements and examine the effects of large, multi-well pads in the state.
Cassa Niedringhaus: 303-473-1106, email@example.com