Independent expert confirms Wyoming contamination caused by fracking

Tony Ingraffea

Independent Analysis Confirms That Hydraulic Fracturing Caused Drinking Water Contamination In Wyoming
By Public Lands Team on May 1, 2012.

After consideration of the evidence presented in the EPA report and in URS (2009 and 2010), it is clear that hydraulic fracturing (fracking [Kramer 2011]) has caused pollution of the Wind River formation and aquiferThe EPA’s conclusion is sound.

Dr. Tom Myers, the hydrologist who confirmed the results is a brave man. Industry will relentlessly try to destroy him as they do anyone who ever opposes their irresponsible dirty practices.

I wonder what would happen if we got all the people together in one room whose lives have been destroyed by the Big Gas Mafia. That might make a great movie.

UPDATE: to add this photo

About Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.


  1. Tom says

    THIS IS NOT A STUDY. This is a review of the EPA study bankrolled by “several environmental groups” authored by a guy who is a self-described “watchdog of government agencies and different industries.”

    You can’t “prove” anything in a review of a study that’s already been completed. Dr. Myers states “the contaminant pathways suggested by the EPA study could be responsible.” He doesn’t “prove” they are. He “supports the potential for them.”

    In order for EPA/Sierra Club to PROVE fracking caused contamination they would have to identify the actual pathway and collect the evidence. With that you’ll have your day in court. Facts are pesky little things aren’t they?

  2. Eric Jellison says

    It will be interesting to see if any new drilling happens in municipalities that have tracers in the frack fluids.
    So far, zero that I am aware of.

  3. Anonymous says

    Oh and there are other potential pathways from the fracking injection source to water aquifers—and that is nearby old O&/orG wells with all kinds of defects, including bad cement, corroded casing or couplings, etc. etc, etc.

  4. Tom says

    Myers analysis doesn’t prove anything. That’s my point.

    Number one rule of science: correlation does not imply causation. And there is no confidence in EPA’s causal relationship without empirical evidence. EPA’s multiple lines of reasoning approach is useful, but because they didn’t strive to eliminate the uncertainty with empirical observation, its utterly useless. Even they knew that, which didn’t go without mention. EPA’s study used the hydraulic fracturing buzzword in the executive summary to get you yahoos fired up.

    Though he tried, even Myers can’t make up for the inadequacies. The argument should have been built on a conceptual model or multiple simulations incorporating migration data and statistical probability (confidence).

    Just sayin!

    because Dr. Meyers agrees with EPA’s multiple

  5. Anonymous says

    Tommie ‘ole buddy agove—-since you know so F-ing much, please make a statement, under oath, that there is absolutely NO WAY that any induced fracking fluid or any insitu subsurface gas/oil that is being produced or is intended for production can EVER, under any currently existing conditions or any concievable future conditions ever migrate into any drinking water aquifers.
    I wait with baited breadth!

  6. Tom says

    Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you? No wonder they call you radicals and insurgents. Plain crazy! This America notadictatorship where the government can punish private citizens, Americans, for running their business, abiding by the law.

    You can cry all you want. Your not going to have an impact unless you change your tune.
    Think outside the box

    • says

      Innocent until non disclosure agreements are unlocked.

      You know, you are the second industry supporter in the past two days to tell me I need to change my style. Thanks. Confirms I’m on the right track.

      Thanks for commenting.

  7. tom says

    Btw notice I’m not defending the gas co. There is no evidence to prove it, but sure HF, or more likely spills, could impact underground aquifers.

    Nothing is going to get done about it when insurgents and radicals are leading the opposition.

    People don’t believe you because they think your crazy. Prove to them your not.

    • says

      Lots and lots of people love and admire me BIG TIME. Everyday I get calls from new people so my admirers are growing. Funny but the frackers are having the exact opposite experience. Might try being nicer to people and sucking less at what you do.

      Nighty night.

    • FM WatchDog says

      In my neighborhood support for the gas companies peaked at around 80% BEFORE operations began. The support for the site is now less than 50%. The gas industry had all their peak support BEFORE they moved into the neighborhood. They have been losing support ever since. It’s too late for us, but a lot of others are listening and industry is losing ground. I guess by your logic, you would call those 30% who supported it and now don’t, “radicals.”
      Nearly half of the people on this site are Repubs, When you have Dems/Repubs on the same side of issue you don’t call that radicalism, you call it a consensus.

    • FMWatch Dog says

      Denton county is 73% Republican, FloMo voted down gas drilling 60/40 split. Go chew on that for awhile and let me know how that tastes.

    • Anonymous says

      Tommy, I’m waiting with baited breadth!
      And OBTW, I’m not gonna change because your types and the local Gas Holes made me the way I am! And, I know you and your types are not gonna change–if you did, you would be either sidetracked or fired!

  8. Tom says

    Listen, im not attacking anyone personally and its not political. I don’t work for industry and have zero stake in their business. (Outside of filling up the tank and heating my home) If you want to put me in a box, i’m a frustrated environmentalist.

    Excuse me for pointing out weaknesses in your strategy. The public has a hard time taking what you say seriously because you believe everybody is out to get you and every well contaminates the earth. Thats just not true. When a guy that smokes 2 packs a day has a hard time breathing you blame it on the drilling. Come on!

    It’s obvious you don’t think objectively and your agenda is clear. Your reply to my comments demonstrates your inability to interact with people who aren’t on already on your side.

    TX i wish you success.

    Good luck.

    • says

      Tom, Obviously, you haven’t spent much time following me because you are trying to attribute beliefs and attitudes to me that are not mine. We might get along better if you stop putting words in my mouth.

  9. David says

    @TOM Your reply’s demonstrate your inability to interact with people who aren’t on already on your side:

    ….You can’t “prove” anything……you yahoos……you radicals and insurgents. Plain crazy!……. insurgents and radicals

    It’s obvious you don’t think objectively and your agenda is clear.