Does the Future Look Bleak for Fracking in the U.S?

Whilst writing this blog, I have explored many of the environmental concerns that have been raised surrounding the fracking debate... and there are a whole range of potential threats that come inevitably with each and every stage in the fracking process. These threats range from groundwater contamination to declining species diversity. However, those countries involved in the fracking boom, have made the decision that the economic benefits outweigh the potential threats to the environment. 

However, a new report by David Hughes entitled 'DRILL BABY DRILL, Can Unconventional Fuels Usher in a New Era of Energy Abundance' and published in the Post Carbon Institute, questions the unblinking trust in the sustainability of shale-gas production. (http://shalebubble.org/drill-baby-drill/)

In this report Hughes explains the difference between The Rate of Energy Supply and The Net Energy Yield. The rate of energy supply corresponds to the rate at which the resource can be produced. Although there are huge in-situ volumes of shale gas, that rate of extraction is limited by geochemical geological and geographical factors. The net energy yield refers to the difference between the energy input required to extract the shale gas and the energy value of the final product; this is often called 'the energy returned on energy invested' or EROEI. Fracking, like other unconventional energy resources, has a lower EROEI that conventional energy resources and as Hughes states, this equates to higher production costs, lower production rates and more environmental damage in the process!

Hughes, whose credentials include 32 years working with the Geological Survey of Canada, explains that over-optimistic estimations of natural gas resources could result in an economic crash with disastrous consequences, comparable to the 2008 real estate collapse. Hughes analysed 63,000 wells in production in the USA and has voiced concerns over the following issues:

(unfortunately the axis units are unavailable but the graphs can be viewed in full at the link for the report).

1. The exponential boom in shale gas production since 2000 has plateaued at 2011. The x-axis shows year from 2000 to 2012. The y- axis shows gas production in billion cubic feet per day from 0 to 25. The legend shows 10 major shale-gas production sites in the USA.

 The general trend shows the exponential increase in hydraulic fracturing, that began in the early 2000's and led to 40% of the USA's gas production coming from shale fracturing. However, since 2011 there has been a plateau in shale gas production; more the 4/5 of the shale-gas is produced from 4 major shale-gas reserves (Haynesville, Barnett, Marcellus and Fayetteville), which are already in decline.

2. The volume of shale gas production decreases year by year for every well. The x- axis shows months of production from 1 to 46. The y-axis shows gas production in million cubic feet per day from 0 to 8000.

Shale gas wells unanimously have very high rates of yearly decline in gas production; the result is that huge amounts of capital must be invested continuously to keep production in process. Hughes estimates this value to be $42 billion per year to drill 7000 wells. The economic viability of this must be questioned when the value of shale gas produced in the year 2012 was only a measly $32.5 billion. Essential the EROEI becomes too low- too much capital is required to keep up fracking operations.

3. Future predictions for shale gas production show an overwhelming downward trend. The x-axis shows year from 2005 to 2025. The y-axis shows shale gas production in thousand barrels per day from 0 to 2025. The legend shows shale gas fields in the USA: Eagleford, Bakken and all other plays.

Several of the best shale reserves in the USA are already in decline and yearly productivity is set to decrease... this has led to morbid predictions for the future of fracking. Even though huge volumes of shale gas resources can be found in the USA, as time goes on, it will become increasingly more difficult, expensive and risk-intensive to extract these resources. The confusion over the numbers is evident in both printed and on-line  media. Even President Obama made reference to a '100 year supply of natural gas' in his State of the Union speech this year (http://www.cnbc.com/id/47279959/The_Math_Behind_the_100Year_NaturalGas_Supply_Debate), clearly someone didn't get the memo on the difference between The Rate of Energy Supply and The Net Energy Yield. 

So, what can we conclude from this? Are the days of fracking are numbered? Well, yes. It is a fossil fuel after all and is ultimately a finite resource. The problem ultimately resides in the fact that the global market has its foundation firmly based on fossil fuels, maybe the time has come to focus capital investment on renewable energy resources that don't contribute to climate change or pose a threat to the environment.... well we can dream at least!

Waste Water Disposal...The Future Of Disposal and Treatment

OK, so over past few weeks I've really gone to town on posts about fracking wastewater and I hope that I've provided enough information for you to make your own decision on the sustainability of the hydraulic fracturing future.

The last topic I'm going to cover regarding fracking watsewater is the news that in 2014, the  Environmnetal Protection Agenecy (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/) of the USA are going to set national guidelines for the safe disposal of fracking wastewater. This comes partly in response to pressure from anti-fracking campaigners, such as group Earthjustice, who have been pushing for rigourous and uniform standards of wastewater disposal since the fracking debate began. The new standards specifically require the removal of carcinogenic and toxic chemicals before it is released from water treatment plants. Prior to this amendment, fracking wastewater was classified as 'non-hazardous waste', with American Congress specifically exempting fracking wastewater from hazardous classification in the Solid Waste Disposal Act (1987) (www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/cpg/pdf/rcra-6002.pdf)

Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator said:

"The president has made clear that natural gas has a central role to play in our energy economy, that is why we are taking steps — in coordination with our federal partners and informed by the input of industry experts, states and public health organizations — to make sure the needs of our energy future are met safely and responsibly."

In a scientific paper entitled 'Wastewater Generation and Disposal from Natural Gas Wells in Pennsylvania' (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdukespace.lib.duke.edu%2Fdspace%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10161%2F5320%2FLewis_MP2.pdf&ei=vSFfUsvGEbCO7Ab34oGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFyXVJrW-tw4HOc5pEc0I6EWnzJoA&sig2=Lw4HVIguoriGZ3KzHlUTZA) by Aurana Lewis from Duke University documents the shift in disposal techniques of fracking wastewater and also draws important comparisons with conventional gas extraction. Interestingly, it has been documented in this paper that fracking wells produce 3 times the amount of natural gas for every gallon of wastewater generated when compared to conventional gas extraction; suggesting that fracking is the more efficient method of gas extraction. However, fracking can only take place where the natural reserves of shale are; concentrating and amplifying wastewater generation in certain areas. This creates a delicate balance of the water budget between the use of fresh water to create the fracking fluid and its subsequent disposal. Historical disposal techniques included direct discharge of wastewater into surfacewater where the small volumes could be adequately diluted but as the fracking industry continues its exponential increase it it evident this is no longer a sustaible future for wastewater disposal. This was particluarly apparent in the period of 2004-2009, where early fracking exploits overwhelmed freshwater systems with wastewater disposal, resulting in reduced surface water quality.

There are four methods outlined for future wastewater disposal; the stringent new outlines cap levels of chloride, dissolved oygen and sulphate levels.

1. Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW's); this is the treatment of wastewater by municpal treatment facilities that traditionally handle the disposal of household waste and sewerage. By applying filtration techniques such as coagulation, settling ponds and ultra-violet light purification, biological and heavy metal contaminants can be removed.
2. Injection Wells; the permanent disposal of fracking fluid by underground injection into rock formations. This is currently used in Colarado and Western states of the USA.
3. Centralised Wastewater Treatments (CWT's); these are privately owned commercial businesses that handle to  the disposal of industrial waste from both gas and oil exploration.
4. Recycling; this is where fracking wastewater is re-used following blending with freshwater of treatment to remove TDS ( Total Dissolved Solids).

So, this is good news for the US. But what about the UK? (http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/shale-gas/water-uk-position-paper-on-gas-shale-extraction--sept-2012-.pdf). Well, once again the government seem to be well and truly off the pace. There are no current standards outlined for the disposal of wastewater by the large onshore companies in the UK. Indeed, the whole process is 'self-regulated' by energy company itself. When the future of surface water quality and so many other important environmental concerns hang on the safe disposal of fracking wastewater, the last thing we want to see is a comprimise between quality of water treatment and a companies profit margin . My personal opinion echoes that of the general public: why should fracking companies be allowed to exploit loopholes in the law at the expense of our own environment and countryside. Having spent considerable amounts of time reading up on the UK fracking debate, there is a strong feeling that governmental bodies are waiting for disaster to strike before acting. What's really required is for the UK to come to the forefront of the global fracking debate and set guidelines and regulations in place to mitigate the impacts on the environment and ensure a sustainable future.

Image URL: http://www.presseurop.eu/files/brown-fracking.jpg

Fracking...a Threat to the Ecosytem. A study of the Marcellus-Utica Region

A recent study of species biodiversity, conducted in the Marcellus-Utica shale region, suggests that the effects of fracking could pose a serious threat to the populations of 15 quasi-endemic species from various habitats in the vicinity of Hydraulic Fracturing sites.

The article published by Gillen. J. L & Kiviat. E. in Environmental Reviews and Case Studies , 2012 is available at the following link:
http://hudsonia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/GillenKiviatFracking.pdf

The premise of the study was to investigate the susceptibility of 15 species (1 mammal, 8 salamanders, 2 fishes, 1 butterfly and 3 vascular plants) to the environmental impacts of fracking which is a rapidly expanding business in the Marcellus-Utica region.

 The quasi-endemic species were selected on the basis that they shared a 35-100% overlap biogeographical range with the Marcellus-Utica region; the average overlap is 68.4%, indicating a high potential for fracking induced habitat degradation. Information was gathered on the following criteria: natural history, habitat needs and legal status with regard to susceptibility to the chemical and physical effects of fracking on the environment.

Here is a brief review of the results:

Mammal: The Appalachian cottontail:

Image URL: http://www.jeffpippen.com/mammals/appycottontail060513-1613bckcrkz.jpg

This beautiful sister species to the New England cottontail is already in decline due to small populations separated by  habitat fragmentation and destruction. Fracking effects on average 30 acres of forest for every site that is built. Due to its small population size and small geographic range, the cottontail is already a species that has high vulnerability status; it is suggested that fracking will exacerbate and increase forest destruction and fragmentation therefore increasing the risk of endangerment.

Salamanders: 8 species from the Plethodontidae family; lungless salamanders

Image URL: http://www.discoverlife.org/IM/I_NAT/0000/320/Eurycea_bislineata,I_NAT34.jpg

 Salamanders are thought to have particular sensitivities to environmental change as they respire through the skin and therefore require a constant water source. The paper also states that forest fragmentation and destruction of the salamanders habit may cause both loss in species numbers and genetic diversity; this is because terrestrial salamanders have great difficulty in crossing roads and also struggle to move outside of their forest habitat. Multiple roads are built for access to fracking wells and not only have heavy truck traffic, but also provide an obstacle to terrestrial salamander movement and reduce movement by 51%. The paper also predicts that dispersal may be reduced by a staggering 91%.
Further concerns are also raised over effects of micro-climatic drying  and salinization, the combined effects could lead to the elimination of salamanders from fracking localities and could lead to cumulative species loss.

Fish:  the Bluebreast Darter

Image URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Etheostoma_camurum.jpg

The Bluebreast Darter and the Tounguetied Minow, according to classification by the Environmental Protection Agency both require water of very high quality and are very susceptible to water pollution. Studies by Rozel and Raven, 2012, show that there is a high probability of waste-water from fracking exploits entering local waterways and leaving stream fishes vulnerable to contamination.

Butterflies: the Appalachian azure

Image URL:     http://www.discoverlife.org/IM/I_SOP/0015/640/Celastrina_neglectamajor,_Appalachian_Azure,I_SOP1560.jpg

This species of butterfly, the beautiful Appalachian azure, also has a high sensitivity to forest fragmentation. Furthermore the larvae of this butterfly feed on a plant species (Actaea rasemosa) which could be threatened by non-native plant invasion and by white-tailed deer, set to benefit from the forest fragmentation caused by fracking well and road construction.

Plants: Northern Wild Monkshood

This species of plant is listed as federally threatened plant with high susceptibility to soil contamination. It will also likely be affecting by forest fragmentation, increased soil salinity, and potential contamination from fracking waste water. Furthermore, this species has very narrow biogeographic localities with limited gene flow between isolated populations. It is also threatened by nonnative plant species and fracking is known to facilitate the spread of such plant species.


The conclusion of this article is that fracking could pose a threat to a very diverse range of species, this is particularly prevalent for species that are already threatened or have small and isolated populations. Although this study refers particularly to the Marcellus-Utica region, the wider implications of this study suggest a real need for the sustainable management of edemic species which could be affected by the fracking industry. This encompasses a wide range of threats, including: forest fragmentation, increased salinity of soils, decreased fresh water availability and potential exposure to toxic chemicals. In order to mitigate these threats and ensure future biodiversity, anthropogenic impacts need to be thoroughly studied so that the neccesary regulations can be put in place to manage and prevent species population decline. The need to careful management is also underlined, as the effects of climate chage, logging and other industrial activities will further compound the effects of fracking and make more species susceptible to decline and loss of diversity. Fracking is more than likely going to go ahead at the majority of proposed sites, but we have the opportunity to act early and preserve biodiversity at all levels.

This is a quote from the article summary:

 

 

Biodiversity at all levels, from genes to ecosystems, constitutes many important values to human society and ecosystem

functions, as well as the intrinsic importance of each species.

Conserving biodiversity is important because each species has unique compounds, behaviors, and other information that we may be able to use to improve human health, biotechnology, and enjoyment.

Biodiversity is also of great value to the function of ecosystems—and we do not know how the elimination of certain species will affect ecosystem function.

Water Use in Fracking- Is There a Future for the UK?

According to new estimates by British Geological Survey, (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/) recoverable shale gas reserves in the UK lie between 1,300-1,700 trillion cubic feet... this is enough natural gas to heat every single home in the UK for 1,500 years

Image showing location of shale gas reserves in the UK

Image has been adapted from The Times,

Image URL: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/11/article-0-1A41C79D000005DC-927_634x828.jpg

 This has many positive potential outcomes:

• The creation of many jobs-  capacity for the employment of a large and diversely skilled workforce
• Cheaper energy bills for residents of the UK
•  Greater 'Energy Independence' for the UK. This would reduce the reliance of the UK on imported gas, providing a more secure energy source. The price of imported gas is controlled by fluctuations in the global market, largely caused by the rapidly increasing demand for gas and oil in developing countries. The International Energy Agency (http://www.iea.org/) has predicted that by 2030, gas consumption in developing countries will have overtaken that of mature economies. (http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/energy-gap-security/gas-and-the-energy-gap-security)

The advantages of fracking are many, especially when considered in economic terms  and as of May, 2012, fracking in the UK was given the green light to go ahead....

Can the UK supply the fresh water demand?

The first fracking site, and consequent dummy model, for fracking in the United Kingdom was at the Preese Hall Hydraulic Fracturing site in Blackpool, Lancashire. Operations at the site, run by energy company Caudrilla Resources (http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/), have not always gone smoothly.

There were serious concerns over fracking-induced seismic activity at the site, when in June 2011, two minor earthquakes occurred within 500 meters of the fracking site. As a result the site was temporarily suspended from all hydraulic fracturing practices.

Following this, a government commissioned report supported the lifting of the suspension, provided that improvements were made regarding the monitoring of micro-seismic events.
The report, available below, was released by Keele University and the British Geological Survey
(http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/oil-gas/5055-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-recomm.pdf)

However, earthquakes are only a small part of the picture. Many questions have been left largely unanswered; this is particularly evident in regard to the sourcing of the huge volumes of water required for the hydraulic fracturing process.

The water used in the fracking process, such as  at Caudrilla Resources, is 90% sourced directly from fresh water  resources, such as rivers and reservoirs. Furthermore, the site in Blackpool is located within the catchment of the River Wyre and according to a new impact-assessed report by the Environmental Agency and the Department of Energy and Climate Change, all areas in this catchment zone are classified as 'over-licensed', 'over-abstracted' or 'no water available'.

Following the drought of summer 2012, the Environmental Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/drought/default.aspx) declared that East Anglia, the South East, the South West, parts of Yorkshire and the Midlands were all in a state of drought; the result of which was hosepipe bans for many residents of the UK. Yet, it is apparent that at that moment in time Caudrilla obtained licences to begin fracking operations in many of the areas affected by drought last summer. Although water resources are now partially replenished, the sustainable management of water resources for the future is clearly an immediate public concern, especially after three consecutive dry winters. This is heightened by new estimates of water consumption of 2000 cubic meters per day, by Water UK, for a 1000 well capacity field. That is the equivalent to the water use of 13,000 people per day....

At the UK Shale conference, on the 17th of July, speaker Dr Jim Marshall (Policy and Business Advisor at Water UK[http://www.water.org.uk/]) highlighted the real concerns regarding freshwater resource competition. In water-stressed areas there may be limited availability freshwater, due to high demand from domestic and agricultural industries... could fracking be supported as well?
 The speech is available here: ( http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/challenge-on-gas-fracking/publication-version---jm-shale-gas-speech.pdf)

Notably, Marshall states:

 ' If we get it wrong then water has the potential to stop the industry in its tracks.' 

Marshall concludes with:

'Provision of drinking water is a cornerstone of our public health and as such a 

service that cannot be compromised. Public health is as much about perception and trust as 

it is about absolute quality. Water needs to be properly addressed and planned for - not 

taken for granted or as an after thought'

The sentiments of this report are repeated in a statement from the United Nations Environment Programme (http://unep.org/geas/) that states: 'the needs of water for exploration and the depletion of aquifers has (and will) create conflicts in water usages. Notably, competition with agricultural users is likely to be a serious issue”.

To summarise, I believe that the fracking industry is a multi-component operation that will require the intimate cooperation between many different organisations - such as the fracking company and water board- to ensure safe and sustainable management of the environment as a whole, and with special notation of fresh water supplies. Water resource competition seems almost inevitable, but the scale of water shortage is likely to be on a local scale, rather than nation wide. This means that with careful planning and management, effects can be mitigated.

Recycling Flowback Water

Following on from my last post, How Much Is Too Much...Water Use In Fracking: An Introduction, you may have felt a little disheartened about the huge volumes of water used in hydraulic fracturing and the extent of negative impacts on the environment.

One problem traditionally associated with the recycling of flowback fluid, is that it has a strong tendency to return as brine-water- i.e. a highly saline solution. In the past, his has always been seen as a negative attribute and consequently past recycling of flowback fluids has been very limited. It is even common procedure among many energy companies to leave flowback fluids in open pits to evaporate...releasing harmful VOC's, carcinogenic compounds such as benzene and naturally occurring radioactive elements(http://www.dangersoffracking.com/). This has resulted in reported local atmospheric pollution, low-level ozone and acid rain.

Fracking flowback fluid, left to evaporate in an open pit

Image courtesy of Tom Wilber

Image URL: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhke5Pf9h_BtaBBidLctrSXpR6m24Ip62_psM7EVVrJRlvxKwdIJ0hf_bV5UCrr84BwYeFoP44_DUiYhYn6FGjVq4FnvVrJa3oYAVzqVY9-x5QL-GLXbi-j9bZKkQMkJbY40wKwFIs9E_A/s1600/Fracking-pit-Helen-Slottje.jpg

However, fear not Frackers, there is a light at the end of the tunnel...This post is about the technologies currently in development for improved treatment and recycling of flowback fluids

A recent publication by the Society Of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) (http://www.speeurope.org.uk/), has recently detailed a report concluding a new use for the highly saline flowback fluid recovered from the ground after a fracking operation. The report was conducted by Haliburton and XTO Energy.

The Report is available here: (http://blog.ecologixsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Recycling-Produced-and-Flowback-Water-for-Fracking.pdf)
 The full reference is : Lebas.R. et al., February 2013, " Development and Use of High -TDS Recycled Produced Water for Crosslinked-Gel-Based Hydraulic Fracturing" SPE 163824

The real crux of this report is the discovery that a brine-enriched flowback fluid, which contained Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) at levels as high as 285,000 mg/L- which equates to 28.5% salinity - could be treated and reused. Even more importantly, the level of efficiency of this recycled fracking fluid was as high as that of traditional fracking fluid, generated from 100% fresh water. In this study, the brine flowback fluid was mixed with several chemical additives commonly used in drilling operations: Carboxymethyl Hydroxypropyl Guar Gum; a zirconium based cross linker; sodium chlorite breakers and non-emulsified surfactants. The result was a fracking fluid that had the required viscosity to effective transport proppants and yet, it was also slick enough to permeate micro-fractures in the target shale formation. Positive results were found in both lab studies and out in the field.

This revolutionary method was used in the Delaware Basin, New Mexico to complete 7 wells.

Furthermore, there were several other benefits from this new technique:

1. Fresh water reserves can be left untouched, for use in agricultural and commercial applications.
2. Can remove ~1400 trucks off the road; reducing congestion and reducing associated carbon footprint
3. Can replace the use of disposal wells and associated atmospheric pollution
4. Using brine-water actually increases productivity as it prevents clay molecules from swelling
5. This results in savings of up to ~ £50,000 per well.

This quote taken from the SPE publication is pretty definitive: 'The study shows that brine water possesses all the characteristics required for effective fracking: easy preparation, rapid hydration, low fluid loss, good proppant transport capacity, low pipe-friction and effective recovery from the reservoir...Simply put, salt water is good for fracking and any statements other-wise are unfounded'

The key step is now to convince energy companies to move from exploiting freshwater, which is unfortunately cheap clean and readily available. BUT...

With significant savings to be made and improved productivity, surely it makes sense to make the move to a more sustainable and environmentally friendly future?

Opposition to fracking operations is growing among the public domain...perhaps this is the answer to, at least one, of the negativities associated with fracking?

Perhaps, it is time for governing bodies to administer sanctions against excessive fresh-water use and thus promote a more eco-friendly attitude toward the local environment surrounding hydraulic fracking operations?

 Protesters at the Deleware Basin

Image URL:http://protectingourwaters.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/img_1748.jpg

How Much Is Too Much....Water Use In Fracking: An Introduction

A report published by the International Energy Agency (http://www.iea.org/) entitled: Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook, Special Report on Unconventional Gas, 2012, has stated that each fracking well can require up to twenty thousand cubic meters of water, per well, per day....that is a lot of water...if you multiply this by the number of wells...and then multiply this by the number of days the fracking well will be in operation....That is a lot of water! It  also makes hydraulic fracturing the most water intensive energy resource. Having said this, the volumes of freshwater used for fracking may only account for 0.3% of total freshwater use in the USA - the effects on local hydrology could be devastating if they are allowed to go unchecked.

The report is the main source of information used for this blog and introduction to water use in fracking. the Report is available here: (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/weo2012_goldenrulesreport.pdf)

Image URL: (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/frackwater/FRACKINFOGRAPHIC_laura.jpg)

Sourcing the vast volumes of water required for hydraulic fracturing is a much debated environmental concern that still has no real resolution. At this moment in time, water plays an integral role in releasing the valuable natural gas from tight shale formations and therefore the sustainable sourcing of said water is of vital importance. Currently, water is taken from surface water supplies (rivers, lakes and streams), from local boreholes and aquifers or is transported via trucking.

The argument put forward by those advocating an anti-fracking campaign, is that none of these options are sustainable and ultimately may have serious implications for the local environment, including water table draw-down, biodiversity loss and other negative effects on the ecosystem, such as increased sediment run off. 

The removal of fresh water from local rivers and streams may have disastrous consequences, currently fresh water ecosystems are among the most stressed in the world (http://vmpincel.bio.ou.edu/download/publications/VaughnB10.pdf). There have been numerous reports stating that the biodiversity of fresh water ecosystems have already been decimated by anthropogenic activity, particularly by the effects of eutrophication. Furthermore, there is global concern about increasing fresh water demands for an increasing population, with water scarcity affecting 40% of the world population (http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html). Seen as we already have a grasp of the fragility of fresh water ecosystems, is it morally right to source water in such a manner?

In the case of groundwater extraction from local aquifers, concerns have been voiced regarding the reduced availability of water for use by local communities and in other water intensive uses, such as agriculture. Further contention arises around the issue of over-extraction; which, if it occurs, can lead to falling water tables, higher pumping costs, empty wells and saline intrusion in coastal areas. (http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-resources/impacts-due-to-over-abstraction)

The use of trucks to carry water to the fracking sites, also has many negatives associated with this practice. As stated in the Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook, Special Report on Unconventional Gas, 2012, if a well were to require 1500 cubic meters of water, this would amount to 500 truck loads of water to be delivered ( this is done on the basis that the average truck can hold approximately 30 cubic meters of water). This is obviously a very energy intensive activity and may raise the carbon footprint of the whole operation. Furthermore, this can lead to high congestion rates on local roads and can exacerbate wear and tear of roadways and bridges.

Another concern is that annual water use for fracking is 100% consumptive. Around 4/5 of the injected water remains in the shale formation into which it was injected and the remaining 1/5 will return to the surface as contaminated flow-back water (which is usually treated and injected into deep wells). Whereas use of water in other industries, such as in the nuclear power industry, there can be treatment and discharge back into local waterways- thus mitigating effects of water consumption.

 Water availability is already recognised as a serious constraint on localities of fracking developments. For example in the Xinjian Uyghur Autonomous Region, China are some of the largest economically viable shale gas deposits in the whole of the China, but also suffers from severe water scarcity.  There are also many other prospective sites that remain, to date, utilised because there is already intense competition for water resources. This means that developments have been favoured in the Sichuan Basin, were there is abundant water, readily available. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-slow-to-start-fracking-for-natural-gas-in-shale)

Over the next few posts I will explore the wider issues surrounding extensive water use in the fracking process. These include:

- Potential consequences for the UK's future fracking prospects

- Studies of past effects on ecosystems

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/275na3.pdf)

- The development of less-water intensive techniques and technological advances

(http://www.americanrecycler.com/0512/1517energy.shtml)

- Recycling of flow-back water and improving the yield of flow back waters.

(http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/08/13/low-cost-fracking-water-treatment-method-in-development/)

Hazard Mitigation: Well Blowouts

From my previous posts, you may have realised that there seems to be a lot of potential negative impacts that can result from the fracking process. Many of these are not due to the fracking process itself per se but from human error; often associated with improper management and maintenence of boreholes and fracking wells. This is particularly prevalent for borehole blowouts. Although borehole blowouts are not well documented in popular scientific literature, they are becoming increasingly prevalent, with disasterous consequences for the local environment, ecosystem and residents in the vicinity of the well alike.

This video is short news article documenting one such well blowout in New Mexico, which resulted in the outpouring of 8,400 gallons of water, fracking fluid and oil. Constituents of fracking fluid, as previously mentioned, include many hazardous and carcinogenic chemicals; such as VOC's, benzene and toxic heavy metals to name but a few. See (http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used) and (http://www.dangersoffracking.com/) for more information.

So, 'what is a well blowout?' I hear your cry....

Essentially, well blow outs are caused by elevated borehole pressures that result  from communiactions between neighbouring wells- fracking fluids pumped down the intended well end up spilling out at high pressures unintentionally from a neighbouring well. This results in the contamination of soil; furthermore, there is still an unresolved issue regarding the potential for groundwater contamination, when a well is intersected by fracking fluid .

The example from New Mexico was the result of interference between two wells, owned by different companies- the energy giant Encanna (http://www.encana.com/) and Parko Oil LCC (http://parcooilfieldandrentals.com/). In this case, the well owned by Encanna was being hydraulically fractured, but drastically the fracking fluid intersepted the Parko well situated half a mile away, resulting in the fracking fluid spill. Worringly, prior to this incident, 5 other cases of well communication were documented, but the energy company Encanna took no measures to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. Time and time again we are presented with the depressing fact that energy companies seem to simply not care about the impacts they have on the local environment. Even more worringly, the fedral land on which both of these wells are situated, should have been regulated by New Mexico Oil Conservation Division (NMOCD) (http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en.html). Many people, myself included, believe that the lack of action taken by the NMOCD and BLM is the real cause of this spill and ultimately it was preventable.

Current law states that energy companies do not have to identify, assess or monitor nearby wells which may be affected through hydraulic fracturing processes. Simply put, this is completly and utterly non-sensical.

The severe nature of borehole blowouts, and potential consequences have long been understood and documented, but little progress has been made to rectify the mistakes that are at the root of the problem. In the 1970's  the EPA ( http://www.epa.gov/) created the Underground Injection Control (UIC) progamme, which indentifed blowouts as a potential migration pathway that could lead to groundwater pollution ... the only problem? Fracking is exempt from the UIC. Once again, this seems to defy all reason and logic.

Thankfully, gas regulators in Alberta, Canada have finally taken steps to prevent the repeat occurence of blowouts and have recognised that well communication during fracture stimulation is a serious threat to groundwater supplies and local ecosystems. As a result, they have produced a set of mandatory requirements and restrictions to ensure blowout occurences are curbed. These guidelines are presented by the Alberta Energy Regulator (http://aer.ca/) in the following paper(www.eub.gov.ab.ca/documents/directives/Directive083.pdf). The Canadian company Enform, a gas and oil industry safety regulator, have produced a set of recommended practices to regulate borehole blowouts: (http://www.enform.ca/safety_resources/publications/PublicationDetails.aspx?a=29&type=irp).

Thanks to the Canadians, at least some advances are being made to mitigate the effects of borehole blowouts, but is this simply too little too late? Public confidence in the fracking industry is at an all time low, with many people calling for an overhaul of the laws and regulations that indentify fracking wells as 'safe'. With almost daily occurences of blowouts and spills, is it really any wonder?

                                                           Borehole blowout in Turkmenistan
URL: (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYMrEaedA81UsJQiNh0-r22fxMGZo2apDYIrwdz-si7k9oKUPJ)

Contradiction and Contention: Fracking Fluid Migration

                                         Henry Fair, 2009

It is the uncomfortable truth that 'spent' fracking fluid is left to reside in the shale formation into which it was injected after drilling for natural gas has ceased (http://www.dangersoffracking.com/). This fracking fluid is composed of water (50 million gallons per well), propellant (usually sand) and a whole host of chemical additives, listed here: (http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used). 

There have been many concerns in recent years about the likelihood of aquifer contamination due to the migration of spent fluid, away from the site of injection. Previous suggestions regarding the potential for aquifer contamination have been dismissed by fracking companies; this is largely because fracking operates at depths of around 2000m deeper than those of shallow aquifers exploited for drinking water. Indeed, a new preliminary report published by The National Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, suggests that fracking fluids remained in-situ at the Pittsburgh site in Greene County, Western Pennsylvania. The study, backed by the Department Of Energy (DOE), placed radioactive markers in the fracking fluid to monitor its progress...or lack of progress as the case proved to be. The report is currently unavailable as it the study is still ongoing, but a nice summary of these preliminary findings is found in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/pennsylvania-fracking-study_n_3622512.html).


Although this appears to be a victory for the fracking companies, and probably a welcome relief for the residents of Greene County, it is important to remember that finding one well without contamination is far from providing any conclusive results about other wells. Furthermore, the report is still ongoing and has yet to be subject to independent peer review.

On the other side of the coin, a recent study conducted by Tom Myers, published in the peer-reviewed journal Ground Water (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwat.2012.50.issue-3/issuetoc) suggests that  hydraulic fracturing may have serious implications for groundwater sustainability. Myers used a multi-component modelling system in an attempt to model the migration pathway of such fracking fluids. The results appear to show that fracking fluids could reach shallow drinking aquifers in as little as three years. This may be through zones of secondary permeability, including joins; the reactivation of local faults or 'leak' in the cap rock over the shale.

Myers, who has worked for both the government and conservation group had this to say:

“If contaminants reach natural fractures under pressure, the upward flow has the potential to be enhanced greatly. It can flow upward if there’s a pathway and unless it’s completely impermeable, there’s always a pathway. It’s just a question of how long it takes.”

However, researchers questioning the validity of this report are the first to point out that it was actually commissioned by a New-York based environmental group (http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/) that oppose fracking. Could there be some research bias? The plot thickens as Professor Terry Engelder, from the geoscience department of Pennsylvania State University, has discredited the results. Engelder has laid claim that the computer model used to generate results contains inherent errors that scewed the results.

I believe the contradictory reports regarding spent fracking fluid migration, further reinforce the necessity for site-dependant monitoring of fracking wells. This means taking into consideration the unique factors of the regional geology such as the occurrence of local fracture networks or the location and nature of faults in the area. It also highlights the importance for tighter regulations and controls of drilling sites, including bore hole monitoring.There is also a requirement for an evolving manual of 'best practice' that can keep all fracking sites abreast of developments in fracking safety and hazard mitigation.

So What Really Is In Fracking Fluid?

In order to operate, the fracking process not only demands millions of gallons of  a water and sand slurry, every single day, for every single well, but also requires the use of  potentially harmful chemical additives that may have serious health implications for people located in the vicinity of an active fracking well.

However, these chemical components play an integral and irreplaceable role; including the prevention of scale or bacterial growth and for lubrication during the drilling process. Although exact chemical composition may vary between companies and drilling sites, a list of the routinely included chemical additives is included in the link below, taken from the FracFocus website (http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used).

Fracking fluid comprises 99% water and 1% chemical additives. To the untrained eye, this may appear to be an insignificant volume. However, the 'chemical additives' are known- amongst other nasty things- to contain carcinogens, Volatile Organic Carbons (VOC's) and toxic heavy metals...It may therefore surprise you to hear that in certain parts of the USA fracking companies are under no legal obligation to release the chemical concoction that is pumped into the ground!

The Department of Energy released its 90-day report (http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/081111_90_day_report.pdf)  on the use of hydraulic fracturing; amongst other things mentioned the report, the SEAB highlight the need for transparency from the energy companies regarding the use of potentially harmful chemicals.

FracFocus ( http://fracfocus.org/) operated by  The Groundwater Protection Council (http://www.gwpc.org/) is a website designated to the voluntary disclosure by fracking companies of such information. Companies, such as Exxon have done this in a bid to improve the public image of fracking.

The report, and most literature on the subject, suggests that the risks of contamination to drinking water is low as fracking wells are located at substantially deeper depths in the Earth's crust than the shallow aquifers used for potable water supplies. (http://pffacts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/preliminary-results-fracking-chemicals.html).

Once again, there is a whole load of contradictory information both in the media and scientific literature. It seems that no-one can quite decide... Over the next few posts I will explore some of the issues associated with this topic, including:

• the potential for aquifer contamination
• case studies of locals apparently affected by chemical contamination
• the need for 'best practice' regulations and constant monitoring of well sites

For more information, visit this informative blog: (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/08/25/fracking-fluid-disclosure-why-its-important-2/)

Summarising groundwater contamination

The Marcellus shale is one of the most important formations of shale gas in America, it stores enough methane to supply the whole of the USA for 20 years. It also has important implications regarding energy independence for the USA, who are eager to cut reliance on imported gas from the Middle East.

Some members of the local community lucky enough to have owned land which could be used for natural gas extraction have profited greatly from the fracking boom ($$$$$$$$). But other members of the community have been affected in a much more negative way.

There have been many cases of reported tap water contamination. Residents presented horrendous symptoms that they believed to be caused by the tainted tap water. One resident speaks of purple foam emanating from her tap.

These incidents may be isolated but can we be sure they wont happen again? Is it right that people can't even drink they're own tap water? Are accusations of cover-ups by the drilling companies true? Or is this all mass hysteria drummed up by the press?

The DEP commissioned a report and insisted there was no contamination detectable.....

So where do I stand on this issue?  As a scientist *cough* the evidence so far published is far from providing a complete picture. There is a case to be made that groundwater contamination is solely caused by pipeline failure..if this is the case then surely tighter regulations should be put in place to ensure rigorous testing and maintenance? There is also a case that regardless of pipe integrity, leakage from a drilling site is ultimately controlled by regional geology.

Whether we like it or not, fracking is happening. And its only going to get bigger. I hope that 'practice makes perfect' and advances in technology and testing methods will ensure safe gas extraction for the future. This involves a thorough understanding of the underlying geology of the area and the necessity to make a decision on where to build a fracking site not governed by profit.


check out this link to a video and blog on some of the social impacts of fracking: (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fracking-america/)

Fracking Humour

A selection of images for the comedians among us...

Contamination? What Contamination?!?

The report mentioned in the previous post, conducted by Robert Jackson (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.long), seems to provide damning evidence of methane groundwater contamination in close proximity to fracking wells. A claim strenuously denied by the operators of the fracking wells. The report has also been subject to criticism from some members of the scientific community. The particular critique is in relation to the number of groundwater samples used for the report. The general feeling is that not enough samples were taken and samples weren't taken repeatedly over a sustained period of time. There is also documented evidence of natural methane occurring in drinking water in the Pennsylvania area dating back to records from the 1800's.

So as you can gather, like so many of the key issues related to fracking, there is no clear-cut answer.

Furthermore, the threat of groundwater contamination is not just in the form of methane. There have recently been studies in the threat from  harmful constituents of fracking fluid leaching away from drilling sites and entering potable water supplies.  There have been over 1000 documentaed cases of  neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological symptoms ascribed to the ingestion of tainted drinking water. This surely highlights the need for further research, independant of the energy companies, into all aspects of fracking related contamination. It also highlights the blatant discrepancy between narratives from residents and those from the large energy companies.

For more information on groundwater contamionation:

Information on fracking fluid constituents-(http://dangersoffracking.com/)

Information on documented cases of water contamination-(http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html)

BBC Horizon documentary, Dr Iain Stewart speaks to residents in the Marcellus area affected by pollution- (http://youtu.be/v02pX-lBp0g)

The effects of this 'groundwater contamination' has been undeniably felt by the residents of Pennsylvania and elswhere in America. There has been public outcry from many communities affected by the recent fracking boom, sparking many protest groups in response. I feel that these groups are not without foundation.

One such group -and there are many- is the Shale Gas Outrage organisation (http://shalegasoutrage.org/) who are calling for a universal moratorium on fracking.

Iris Marie Bloom, Executive Director of Protecting Our Waters and lead organizer, Shale Gas Outrage had this to say:

“As the impacted people with fouled water, polluted air and threatened livelihoods have shown today, shale gas drilling is inherently contaminating. Families should not be forced to live with such dangers and health impacts. The best way to stem the tide of displacement, degraded ecosystems and climate catastrophe is to stop fracking now and divest our support from extreme fossil fuel extraction. We are taking the morally responsible position, out of necessity, for our government has turned a deaf ear to these vital concerns,”  

 

Although cases of groundwater contamination may be site-specific and potentially caused by poor management of the borehole and associated drilling pipeline, the effects on local communities are undeniable. Many residents are left feeling exploited and vulnerable. With further socio-economic issues such as noise pollution, falling house prices and foul odours emanating from the fracking wells...would you want fracking in your back garden?

Methane Groundwater Contamination: Where To Start?

The subject of methane gas migration has become one of the most conentious and widely discussed topics relavent to the fracking debate. There is a vast expanse of literature available online, including journal articles and scientific papers that provide valuable information into the study of methane groundwater contamination, which I will evaluate in the next few posts. However, there is also an overwhelming abundance of news reports and articles presenting anecdotal evidence as fact, often with a limited scientific basis and a definite hint of scare-mongering. Current opinion is polarised, with claim and counter claim from anti-fracking activists and fracking industry leaders alike; it is my aim to carefully sift through this quagmire and present the facts without bias.

There has been huge public interest in this aspect of fracking, popularised by the 2010 film 'Gasland' by Josh Fox. Unfortunately, there is no online link available to the film but the associated website is available here- (http://one.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking). This film clearly falls into the 'anti-fracking camp' but nontheless provides a thoughtful insight into the thousands of lives affected by groundwater contamination.

The most iconic image associated with this film is that of a woman setting her drinking water on fire as it emerges from the tap faucet. This proved to be a very effective method of capturing the attention of world-wide mass media and general public- lets be honest- who isn't shocked by the possibility of setting tap water on fire?

Like 'Gasland', most of the media attention has been focussed on the Marcellus Shale deposits of Pensylvannia, USA; deposited in the Appalachian Basin of Middle Devonian. These deposits consist of well bedded fossiliferous black shale units with high Total Organic Carbon content (1-11%), making it the largest deposit of natural gas trapped in low permeability shale in the USA- and hence the most economically important.

Since 2008 there has been a huge expansion of the drilling operations within the Marcellus Shale; this surge has been implicated as the underlying source of tainted drinking water in the region. Primary research has been conducted by Robert Jackson of Duke University, who undertook methane measurements in drinking water at increasing proximity to fracking wells. The results, as published in Scientific American indicate that : the closer one is situated to a well used for hydraulically fracturing shale for natural gas, the more likely it is that the drinking water is contaminated with methane.

The original report, published online in the Proceeding of the Natural Academy of Sciences is available here:
(http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.long)

With the sumarising articles of Scientific American avilable here:
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-for-natural-gas-pollutes-water-wells)
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-in-pennsylvania-duke-study)

Jackson discovered methane in 115 of the 141 shallow residential drinking water wells, thats a huge 81.56%. Furthermore, homes within a 1 mile radius of the Fracking well showed a 6 fold increase in methane levels than those at futher distances.

Energy companies require unequivocal proof that the methane actually has its source in the Marcellus Shale Formation. This has been evaluated by comparing stable isotopes of carbon in methane from water samples with international standards using del notation:  
  δ = (R_sample/R_standard – 1) * 1000.

The systemmatic collection of gas samples has led to a database, allowing 'isotopic finger-printing' of the gas. Jackson discovered that the isotopes are indicative of gas produced by thermal alteration of organic matter due to heat and pressure during burial.

However countering this, energy companies have claimed gas can rise naturally from deep formations through fissures in the rock and enter groundwater independantly of the fracking process. A claim supported in a scientific journal published by the National Groundwater Association which documents cases of flammable drinking water occuring since the 1700's.
A report summary is availbale here, from Energy In Depth:
(http://energyindepth.org/marcellus/study-naturally-occurring-methane-ubiquitous-in-ne-pa-groundwater/).

Cases of methane release are often associated with poor management of the pipe-line. Any ruptures in the metal casing or of the concrete surrounding the pipe can result in methane leaching. This highlights the need for universal supervison of borehole management and production.
Here is a link to providing information on borehole integrity:
(http://www.energyfromshale.org/environment/ground-water-protection)

 

 

    

     

 

 

 

 

 

Getting Involved

 Over the past few weeks I have immersed myself in the world of anti-fracking and wider climate change activism. On the 16th of October, I attended the launch event for UCL Fossil Free (http://uclu.org/policy/up1231/fossil-free-ucl), a divestment campaign modelled on recent similar and successful movements in the United States. I also got involved at an anti-fracking demonstration on October the 23rd, organised by Frack Off London (http://frack-off.org.uk/local-group/frack-off-london/). Thankfully it was very peaceful and no kettling was involved!

 Events like these are commonplace, with much interest generated through social media and through the  extensive student network. They aim to bring the fracking process under greater scientific  scrutiny and express  the concern of  wider members of the public who have been bombarded with negative, and often contradictory, media coverage.

 UCL Fossil Free is a student body aimed at shifting over £10,000,000 of UCL investments in the fossil fuel industry to holdings that better represent UCL's ethical commitments. Within 6 months the campaign aims to withdraw all of UCL's investments from oil, gas and coal companies. These include Shell, Exxon and Rio Tinto. With some prominent speakers, such Dr. Simon Lewis from UCL's Geography department, the wheels were set in motion to begin a high-profile and high-impact campaign.

Pekka Piirainen, an event organisers for UCL Fossil Free, had this to say:

 'I question UCL's position as "a leader in tackling global challenges" whilst it is actively funding an industry that directly contributes to climate change. Take note of the hypocrisy of direct investments in projects that directly undermine the university's own research on anthropogenic climate change.

At current UCL continues to foster investments in companies whose ethical practices are circumspect at best. Our aim is to get UCL to adhere to its own self-professed values and climate change research. We are part of a wider global campaign aiming to put political pressure on the fossil fuel industry to stop ravaging the planet. An avalanche starts from a snowflake, and equally a social movement arises from the work of individuals.'

 UCL Fossil Free's petition, calling for UCL to review its investment policy regarding fossil fuels, can be found online at:
 (http://campaigns.gofossilfree.org/petitions/ucl-divest-from-fossil-fuels)

I also had a chance to get more directly involved with an anti-fracking campaign, going along to the October 23rd demonstration outside the Shale Gas Environmental Summit. The summit, labelled a 'greenwash' was, unsurprisingly, not highly regarded by the Occupy London movement (http://occupylondon.org.uk/greenwash-shale-gas-environmental-summit/). A small group of demonstrators gathered outside the Regent's Park Holiday Inn to protest against the controversial fracking industry. The following link shows some pictures of the event: (http://www.demotix.com/photo/3037442/london-frack-protest-outside-climate-deniers-fracking-conference). Organised by Frack Off! London, the demonstration aimed to highlight the environmental concerns associated with shale gas extraction. The main points raised related to the high carbon-footprint of fracking and the possibility of large scale environmental disasters, such as methane leaks and groundwater contamination. Particular attention was paid to the necessity to preserve the ecological viability of the British countryside.

Seismic Activity in Blackpool associated with Fracking

On 27/03/11 and 01/04/11 two, low magitude seismic events were recorded in Blackpool(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458). The Earthquakes, measuring only 1.5 and 2.3 on the Richter Scale respectively, occured in the vicinity of the Preese Hall fracking site run by Caudrilla Resources ( http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/).

The BGS installed temporary recording devices after the 1st earthquake and were subsequently able to locate to epicentre of the second just 500m from the site.

Here is a link to the BGS Blackpool map showing the epicentre localities: (http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html).

The result of these very small magnitude of these anthropogenic earthquakes was a temporary suspension in fracking practices at the site. The company in charge, Caudrilla Resources, also commissioned independent studies into the complex relationship between the process of hydraulic fracturing and so called 'micro-seismicity' at their site. Caudrila claim that future earthquaes have a very low probability of repeat occurence however as explain in this paper, the answer is not so simple:(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48330/5055-preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-recomm.pdf).

To summarise, the study was unable to definitively locate the 'causative fault' and have made suggestions for further field data. This includes a 3D seismic survey to identify the underlying fracture pattern in the basin.

The most important aspect to take from this report is about 'Hazard Mitigation' and the importance of continuous, passive monitoring- i.e identification of a possible hazard before the event takes place. Take a look at this link to LandTech, a company which provide fracking-induced seismic monitering for large fracking companies ( http://www.landtechsa.com/default.aspx?c=030200)




Here is a useful (but very long!) link to a pdf on Micro-Seismicity:
(http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.api.org%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FPolicy%2FHydraulic_Fracturing%2FFacts-HF-and-Seismic-Activity.pdf&ei=vrNlUu6OA6K-0QWG-IHIAw&usg=AFQjCNHrrew-8A_U-nXBLFzLJhi4sNkBzQ&sig2=hmlzMut9_c5FQhh9DDeMOg&bvm=bv.55123115,d.d2k)

And a link to methods used to monitor Micro- Seismicity:
(http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CHMQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cspg.org%2Fdocuments%2FConventions%2FArchives%2FAnnual%2F2011%2F255-What_Does_Microseismic_Tell_Us.pdf&ei=vrNlUu6OA6K-0QWG-IHIAw&usg=AFQjCNHXjO7I6X8SHfR6S65vztla8WOplg&sig2=q6GFfZynZDfl7zwFIUMC7A&bvm=bv.55123115,d.d2k)

Links for 'key areas of investigation'

Seismic activity in subsurface geology and potential consequences

BBC article with video on seismic activity in Blackpool, UK.-
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458)
Short article by the Guardian on the same topic-
(http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling)
BSGS report 'Fracking and Earthquake Hazard'-
(http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquake_hazard_shale_gas.html)

Likelihood of ground water contamination; concerning sources from both methane leakages and from the fracking fluid used

Scientific American 'Groundwater Contamination May End the Gas Fracking Boom-
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=groundwater-contamination-may-end-the-gas-fracking-boom)
Light-hearted article by Prorepublica on heavy metal ground water contamination-
(http://www.propublica.org/article/new-study-finds-high-levels-of-arsenic-in-groundwater-near-fracking-sites)
Scientific paper: Methane Contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing-
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100993/)

Potentially harmful chemical additives used in fracking fluid; particularly concentrating on American Legislature that allows companies to not disclose the composition of their fluid mixture

Cool website with lots of info-
(http://www.dangersoffracking.com/)
Nature article on disclosing content of fracking fluid-
(http://www.nature.com/news/secrets-of-fracking-fluids-pave-way-for-cleaner-recipe-1.13719)
Science Direct- Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays- The case of Texas
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511001893)

The consequences of elevated fluid pressure in wells and possible 'blowouts'

CBC News- Fracking to blame for well blowout near Innisfail-
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fracking-to-blame-for-well-blowout-near-innisfail-1.1191497)
YouTube video of blowout Canton, Bradford County, USA-
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqMUY9gdRSQ)

Sourcing the millions of litres of water required to run one active well and the potential threats on local hydrogeology and ecology

Carbon Briefing blog on water use-
(http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/carbon-briefing-could-shale-gas-suck-our-rivers-dry/)
Energy Facts: How Much Water Does Fracking for Shale Gas Consume?
(http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/205481/friday-energy-facts-how-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume)
 'Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources, separating the frack from fiction'; there is a link in the text to full scientific report-
http://www.pacinst.org/publication/hydraulic-fracturing-and-water-resources-separating-the-frack-from-the-fiction/

The disposal of spent fracking fluid

Blog- Where does fracking water go?
http://blogs.reuters.com/muniland/2011/12/30/where-does-fracking-water-go/
Scientific paper, DukeSpace- Wastewater generation and disposal from Natural Gas Fracking-
(http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdukespace.lib.duke.edu%2Fdspace%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10161%2F5320%2FLewis_MP2.pdf&ei=vSFfUsvGEbCO7Ab34oGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFyXVJrW-tw4HOc5pEc0I6EWnzJoA&sig2=Lw4HVIguoriGZ3KzHlUTZA)

The safety of fracking...Is it all about good practice?

Blog; Scientific American-
(http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/01/25/guest-post-water-contamination-fracking-is-not-the-problem/)
Frackwire; Fracking and well casing failure-
(http://frackwire.com/well-casing-failure/)
Online Wall Street Journal- Well Sealing cited in Leaks, Not Fracking-
(http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578567853193607238)