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?