Well, this is going to be my last blog post ...sob. I have to admit when I started this blog, I was definitely a little apprehensive. But, I can say with pride, that I am a blogging-convert and have loved the experience writing for GEOG3057. Through this blog I feel that I have thoroughly disected the world of fracking and it has allowed me to come up with some informed opinions on the matter!
The widespread mood of the general UK public regarding fracking is 'not in my back garden'. Do people want the economic benefits? yes. Do people want the creation of jobs? yes. But many people, myself included, would be horrified to find fracking occurring in their local area.
I think that in order to improve the public's confidence in hydraulic fracturing more information needs to be readily available about the life-cycle of hydraulic fracturing. A common misconception is that once drilling is in operation, it will never stop... and this is simply not the case. The lifetime of a typical well is only 4 years, making it by no means a permanent fixture.
The key factor is what happens after drilling has ceased. The immediate focus should be the restoration of the landscape, habitats and waterways to their pre-fracking condition. If this were the case then hydraulic fracturing could be managed in a way that mitigates environmental damage. Although I do concede that there would be localised short-term disruption.
The situation has not been helped by the constant bombardment of claim and counter-claim, from both anti-fracking campaigners and pro-frackers alike. Its no wonder that the public are confused! This problem, I believe stems from the lack of scientific literature on the subject. This is probably not so surprising, seen as this is a relatively new technology that has expanded exponentially over the past decade. But with fracking now at the forefront of everyone's attention- and everyone's news papers- it is fast becoming a fundamental branch of geological, environmental and engineering science.
My personal opinion is that it is too late for feeble attempts of protestation against fracking...the wheels are already in motion for fracking to become the biggest thing to happen to the UK since the discovery of oil and gas deposits in the North Sea. All that we scientists can hope to do is to try and mitigate any damaging effects of fracking to the environment. The Government has the responsibility of ensuring that all drilling operations adhere to the strictest codes of conduct and always operate to the code of best practice.
Maybe all fracking needs to do is sack its PR?!?
Monday, 13 January 2014
Sunday, 12 January 2014
Fracking and Carbon Sequestration: a Beautiful Future Together???
Anthropogenic combustion of fossil fuels has led to an excess of atmospheric carbon dioxide... in order to counteract this, and maintain the delicate equilibrium, the technique of Carbon Capture Sequestration - or CCS - has been developed. CO2 is captured at power plants and transported as a supercritical fluid through pipelines to offshore/onshore geo-sequestration sites. These are commonly depleted oil and gas fields or saline aquifers, acting as a porous reservoir rock; the site is then capped by an impermeable cap-rock that prevents the migration of the CO2... and Bob's your Uncle- 1000's tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere and stored underground.
Image showing the geological storage options for CO2; number 5 applies to us frackers.
Image URL: http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/BCOG/images/CCScartoon.jpg
For more information visit the CCSA site: http://www.ccsassociation.org/
The even better news is the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture sequestration could be combined in future exploits. This works through fracturing of the shale by pumping supercritcal CO2 into the shale formation, instead of using the standard fracking fluid- a water, propant and chemical additive mixture. Furthermore, the shale has a higher affinity for carbon dioxide than it does for methane; this means that the shale will preferentially take up CO2 and release CH4. This seems like a win-win situation: more methane can be extracted and a greenhouse gas is stored in its place.
New research published by Tsuyoshi Ishida (http://geo.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lab/member/Ishida_t/English.htm) from the Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, entitled 'Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing Laboratory Experimentwith Supercritical and Liquid CO2,' further highlights the advantages of combining the techniques. Ishida's team found that using carbon dioxide in its supercritical form leads to the production of a 3-dimensional fracture network that greatly increases shale-gas extraction (this is opposed to a typical 2-dimensional fracture network seen in shale fractured with water. It is though this difference is caused by the low viscosity of supercritical CO2, which has 1/10 the viscosity of water. The report is unfortunately unavailable online, but can be viewed through the Wiley Library at (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052788/abstract;jsessionid=FC83C33F80EA526FEC11FE0553B6A4D2.f01t03)
A report conducted by the US Department of Energy, in 2006, entitled 'Geologic Storage Options and Capacities for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership' is available at the following link: (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/06/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20147.pdf). In this report, shale formations which have been hydraulically fractured were found to be the second most effective way of storing CO2.; fractured shale beds were designated to be able to hold 45 gigatonnes. In first place were the saline aquifers with a slightly embarrassingly high 470 gigatonnes.
However, when it comes to fracking, nothing is ever that plain cut! In a new research paper by T.R Elliot and M.A Celia,of Princeton University entitled 'Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production' (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), it is revealed that fracking may actually have detrimental effects for the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide. This report concluded that there is commonly a large overlap between sites used for fracking and optimal CCS sites. This is because, under normal circumstances, a shale bed overlying a porous reservoir rock will act an impermeable cap rock, preventing migration of a carbon dioxide plume. However, if the cap- rock has been fractured,it could provide pathways for CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere. The studies shocking conclusion was that up to 80% of the potential on-shore CCS sites in the USA could become redundant due to hydraulic fracturing operations.
If the technologies surrounding CCS can be refined to restrict the migration of carbon dioxide through fractured shale beds, this may have massive implications for fracking all over the globe. Not only will the yield of shale-gas increase but there could be a net storage of CO2. Furthermore, if carbon dioxide were to be used in place of water, this may alleviate the issues associated with the exploitation of local water resources and it would remove the need for the use of harmful chemical additives from frackwater. To me, this seems like the perfect PR for the government to use in a bid to increase public support for fracking.... so watch this space and get ready to hear a lot about CCS!!
Image showing the geological storage options for CO2; number 5 applies to us frackers.
Image URL: http://www1.gly.bris.ac.uk/BCOG/images/CCScartoon.jpg
For more information visit the CCSA site: http://www.ccsassociation.org/
The even better news is the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and carbon capture sequestration could be combined in future exploits. This works through fracturing of the shale by pumping supercritcal CO2 into the shale formation, instead of using the standard fracking fluid- a water, propant and chemical additive mixture. Furthermore, the shale has a higher affinity for carbon dioxide than it does for methane; this means that the shale will preferentially take up CO2 and release CH4. This seems like a win-win situation: more methane can be extracted and a greenhouse gas is stored in its place.
New research published by Tsuyoshi Ishida (http://geo.kumst.kyoto-u.ac.jp/lab/member/Ishida_t/English.htm) from the Department of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Kyoto University, entitled 'Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Hydraulic Fracturing Laboratory Experimentwith Supercritical and Liquid CO2,' further highlights the advantages of combining the techniques. Ishida's team found that using carbon dioxide in its supercritical form leads to the production of a 3-dimensional fracture network that greatly increases shale-gas extraction (this is opposed to a typical 2-dimensional fracture network seen in shale fractured with water. It is though this difference is caused by the low viscosity of supercritical CO2, which has 1/10 the viscosity of water. The report is unfortunately unavailable online, but can be viewed through the Wiley Library at (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052788/abstract;jsessionid=FC83C33F80EA526FEC11FE0553B6A4D2.f01t03)
A report conducted by the US Department of Energy, in 2006, entitled 'Geologic Storage Options and Capacities for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership' is available at the following link: (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/06/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20147.pdf). In this report, shale formations which have been hydraulically fractured were found to be the second most effective way of storing CO2.; fractured shale beds were designated to be able to hold 45 gigatonnes. In first place were the saline aquifers with a slightly embarrassingly high 470 gigatonnes.
However, when it comes to fracking, nothing is ever that plain cut! In a new research paper by T.R Elliot and M.A Celia,of Princeton University entitled 'Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production' (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), it is revealed that fracking may actually have detrimental effects for the geo-sequestration of carbon dioxide. This report concluded that there is commonly a large overlap between sites used for fracking and optimal CCS sites. This is because, under normal circumstances, a shale bed overlying a porous reservoir rock will act an impermeable cap rock, preventing migration of a carbon dioxide plume. However, if the cap- rock has been fractured,it could provide pathways for CO2 to leak back into the atmosphere. The studies shocking conclusion was that up to 80% of the potential on-shore CCS sites in the USA could become redundant due to hydraulic fracturing operations.
If the technologies surrounding CCS can be refined to restrict the migration of carbon dioxide through fractured shale beds, this may have massive implications for fracking all over the globe. Not only will the yield of shale-gas increase but there could be a net storage of CO2. Furthermore, if carbon dioxide were to be used in place of water, this may alleviate the issues associated with the exploitation of local water resources and it would remove the need for the use of harmful chemical additives from frackwater. To me, this seems like the perfect PR for the government to use in a bid to increase public support for fracking.... so watch this space and get ready to hear a lot about CCS!!
Fracking in the UK: is there a North/South Divide?
I was born and raised in Yorkshire and the majority of my family live just over the Pennines in Lancashire. Like many other people from the North East, I was shocked to hear our home described as 'desolate' by Lord Howell, Tory Peer and former Conservative Energy adviser to William Hague. Below is the clip itself, so you can draw your own opinions. I think this raises important issues about the future of fracking in the North of England under a Conservative Government, and further highlights the ever growing divide between the North and South.
"Would the minister accept that it could be a mistake to think of and discuss fracking in terms of the whole of the United Kingdom in one go? I mean there obviously are, in beautiful natural areas, worries about not just the drilling and the fracking, which I think are exaggerated, but about the trucks, and the delivery, and the roads, and the disturbance." But there are large and uninhabited and desolate areas. Certainly in part of the north-east where there's plenty of room for fracking, well away from anybody's residence where we could conduct without any kind of threat to the rural environment."
Obviously, following these comments- which sparked a media furore and inspired gasps of shock in the House of Commons- there was the obligatory back-pedalling in true Conservative style. In which, Lord Howell bribed the public with promises of tax breaks and 1% of profits, if gas is recovered, for communities in the vicinity of fracking operations.
Eric Ollerenshaw, Conserative MP for Fleetwood and Lancaster, added fuel to the fire by stating:
"It does look as if the rest of the country wants to use Lancashire as its energy base.. but long term what is going to be the benefit to the area where this is going to happen?" Ollerenshaw continued by commenting on the unacceptability of a situation in which "the North gets the dirty end and the south sucks up all the energy."
In the murky world of politics I'm not sure how much trust can be placed on the comments of Tory MP's. In order to get some actual scientific information, I've come to a government commissioned report for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), entitled: The Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources of Britains Onshore Basins- Shale Gas, is available here: (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66172/uk-onshore-shalegas.pdf).
Below is a map of the potential sites for shale-gas exploration in the UK. At first glance this may seem like a pretty even distribution in the UK; but as is explained in the above report, it's not just about where the shale is, it is also about the accessibility of the shale gas. The accessibility of shale gas is largely dependant on risk-assessment. (Sorry about the poor resolution of the image, follow the link to see the image in all its glory.
Image URL:
http://millicentmedia.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sg_fig_4_hydrocarbon_provinces_2010.jpg?w=223&h=300
As is discussed in the report, the best shale gas prospects are those which have already been explored for conventional hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the yield of shale-gas is greatly increased when there is an inclusion of quartz or calcite in the formation; this increases the chances of fracture propagation as these minerals make the shale more brittle. The prime target areas are:
- Upper Bowland Shale of Pennine Basin. For the full report on the Bowland Shale, follow this link: (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/226874/BGS_DECC_BowlandShaleGasReport_MAIN_REPORT.pdf)
- Kimmeridge Clay of Weald Basin
- Lias of the Weald Basin
- Potentially the deeper Dinatian shales of Pennine basin
- Potentially the Oil-Shale group of the Midland Valley, Scotland
Unlike the US, which have intra-cratonic basins forming in geologically stable regions, the UK shale basins have undergone intense deformation and faulting in the geological past, due to past close-proximities to plate boundaries. The result is shale plays that are highly deformed, offset by faults and can contain igneous intrusions. Dr Nick Riley, the Leader for Unconventional Gas at the BGS had this to say:
“There’s a lot of single depositional tectonics going on, so not only do you have over-printing of faults between the
late-Carboniferous and post-Carboniferous periods, you've got active
faulting during the Carboniferous period and that is controlling a lot
of the quality of the shale, the thickness of the shale. Plus at certain
times of the Carboniferous period the sea level goes up and down as
polar ice caps waxed and waned, which changes the organic nature of the
shale.”
However, the shale deposits have a much greater thickness than those in the US and thus have the potential to contain much larger reserves of shale gas. On the other side of the coin, the thickness and depth of shale deposits could cause problems during extraction and could also lead to viable shale-gas deposits being more widely dispersed within the shale unit. One certainty is that shale-gas exploration is by no means simple, and there will be large variability in both the quantity and quality of shale gas at both intra- and inter- site levels.
Below is a table that shows the thickness and depth of shale plays in the UK, taken from 'Shale Gas Extraction in the UK- a review of Hydraulic Fracturing', published in the Royal Society of Engineering:
So, although fracking exploration has been announced to be taking place in every county except from Devon, there does seem to be a concentration of hydraulic fracturing in the North and Middle of England. This will be predominantly felt in Lancashire, where Caudrilla Resources are expecting to conduct extensive fracking and enter full-blown production by the end of 2014. Cuadrilla aim to develop around 1,500 wells over a 50 square mile area between the North of Blackpool and Preston. It is important to state that Cuadrilla is not the only company investing in the hydraulic fracturing industry; in 2014 expect to hear more from energy companies ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, IGas Eneregy, Dart Energy and Eden Energy.
Saturday, 11 January 2014
Fracking: Does the Carbon Budget Balance?
If you have been following fracking in the news and through on-line media, you will have noticed that there is great disparity and confusion surrounding the potential impacts of shale-gas on carbon emissions. There are polar opinions on the subject...and what makes it more complicated is that its not only the combustion of the shale gas, its also the fugitive emissions of methane- which has a net greenhouse effect 25 times greater than carbon dioxide. Phew..But don't worry, I've tried to clear up some of the confusion!
In the opening pages McKay states that the carbon footprint of shale gas, from both extraction and usage, is estimated to be in the range of 200-253g of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of chemical energy. This makes shale gas comparable to that of Conventional Gas which is 199-207g CO2e /kWh and less than the UK's imported Liquefied Natural Gas, which lies in the range of 233-270g CO2e/kWh and typically comes from Qatar. This means that fracking should have no detrimental impact on the UK's current legally binding climate targets.
Furthermore, McKay also highlights that shale gas has a significantly lower carbon footprint than Coal, when used for electricity generation; this is what is often described as the 'transition from dirty Coal to clean Gas' in the media. The figures (relating to electricity generation) speak for themselves: Shale-Gas has a range of 423-535g CO2e/kWh, almost half of the amount allocated to coal (837-1130g CO2e/kWh).Check out the report for some easy -to -read graphs that show this clearly. Below is a summary graph, taken from an article in the Guardian, available at : (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/09/fracking-shale-gas-ed-davey-climate-change/print).
Image URL: (http://static.guim.co.uk/sysimages/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/9/1378736805327/GHG_EMISSIONS_WEB.png)
Regarding the issue of fugitive emissions during extraction, McKay describes that with the correct management and monitoring, this can be largely mitigated and kept at low levels. This assumption is based only upon engineering calculations and, unbelievably, there has been no published study of that has measured fugitive emissions. However, as McKay points out, currently there is little knowledge of the greenhouse emissions that are associated with shale-gas exploration, pre-production, production, processing and post-production; at some point these figures must be incorporated into the carbon budget.
In a speech at The Royal Society, Ed Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, is quoted as saying:
"Gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, is part of the answer to climate
change, as a bridge in our transition to a green future, especially in
our move away from coal, with the right safeguards in place the
net effect on national emission from UK shale gas production will be
relatively small when compared to the use of other sources of gas."
But even with the dodgy-sounding title of 'a slightly higher carbon-footprint than conventional gas,' fracking is still contributing to a high-carbon future for the UK. Does it really make sense to exploit another innately limited fossil fuel resource? Should the focus be shifted onto low-carbon renewable energy projects? Will fracking even be a viable option if the UK enters in an international agreement on a UN climate deal, scheduled to take place in Paris, 2015?
Balancing the Negatives and Positives
By now I've learnt that if there's one thing can be unanimously agreed upon in the woolly world of fracking, its that nothing can be agreed upon! From methane contamination to water-resource exploitation to the economic implications, every subject in the ever expanding fracking debate is subject to intense controversy. This includes, rightly and often wrongly, intense media coverage that can often include a peppering of bias from both anti-fracking campaigners and energy companies alike. The contention surrounding many of the issues in the fracking debate is continued into the scientific community as well, with many studies showing different conclusions and results that have provided the platform for the widespread and ever expanding fracking boom. In the same breath many scientific papers have condemned fracking, due to the potential environmental implications, with a particular nod to biodiversity threats.
With reference to my previous post on the newly confirmed future of fracking in the UK, it is now more apparent than ever that shale gas is likely to become a major player in global economies. The UK, and many other countries - e.g. Australia, China, Argentina- are following in the footsteps of the USA. Many people would say 'and why not?!?' With news of energy bills for US citizens slashed by a third and increased economic upturn, it appears as if everyone is winning. Furthermore, as it currently, stands the environmental cost of fracking to the US seems to be largely contained to isolated portions of the country and is often associated with human error and failures in operational management. But still, the potential for environmental damage has caused significant concerns for other countries, including France and Germany, have opted out of the 'in vogue' unconventional energy resource.
The great disparities between national opinion on hydraulic fracturing is clearly displayed in this excerpt taken from the coalition contract under the New (2017) German Government under Chancellor Angela Merkel says it all:
'According to available studies on its environmental relevance, the fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production - particularly in shale gas production - is a technology with enormous potential risks. The effects on humans, nature and the environment are scientifically not yet sufficiently clarified. Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us.
We reject the use of environmentally toxic substances in the application of fracking technology for exploration and extraction of unconventional natural gas deposits. A request for approval can only be decided upon when the necessary data basis for evaluation exists and is clarified beyond doubt that any adverse change in water quality can be ruled out (precautionary principle of the Water Resources Act). The disposal of flowback from fracking operations with the use environmentally toxic chemicals in injection wells is currently not justifiable due to lack of knowledge of the risks involved.'
Whether we like it or not, fracking is here in the UK for the foreseeable future. And whether greedy politicians want to hear it or not, unless there is rigorous management of fracking operations there could be large scale negative and damaging environmental impacts. The risks associated with fracking, including methane groundwater contamination, come primarily from poor borehole maintenance, this is obvious in the case of the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania, USA (http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/991/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13202-013-0083-9.pdf?auth66=1389643114_d49a8af15ff03fc1f81f7ad7b2798461&ext=.pdf). There is a clear necessity for improvements in the management and monitoring of hydraulic fracturing operations. The ideal monitoring methodology requires inexpensive, continuous and passive technologies that will ensure borehole integrity. This will include technologies at the forefront geoengineering, including 4D Vertical Seismic Profiling and Cross Well Imaging, allowing critical and appropriate site-specific monitoring (http://www.fondriest.com/news/a-glance-at-the-monitoring-tech-beneath-hydraulic-fracturing-operations.htm)
If the standards set in place by David Cameron's Conservative Government can be fulfilled, there are still impacts on a local scale to be considered, including increased traffic, habitat fragmentation and localised freshwater pollution. After Michael Fallon, MP and Minister of State for Energy was quoted as saying this: 'We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’ about countryside dwellers neighbouring fracking sites... who is going to want fracking in their back garden???? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23565258)
With reference to my previous post on the newly confirmed future of fracking in the UK, it is now more apparent than ever that shale gas is likely to become a major player in global economies. The UK, and many other countries - e.g. Australia, China, Argentina- are following in the footsteps of the USA. Many people would say 'and why not?!?' With news of energy bills for US citizens slashed by a third and increased economic upturn, it appears as if everyone is winning. Furthermore, as it currently, stands the environmental cost of fracking to the US seems to be largely contained to isolated portions of the country and is often associated with human error and failures in operational management. But still, the potential for environmental damage has caused significant concerns for other countries, including France and Germany, have opted out of the 'in vogue' unconventional energy resource.
The great disparities between national opinion on hydraulic fracturing is clearly displayed in this excerpt taken from the coalition contract under the New (2017) German Government under Chancellor Angela Merkel says it all:
'According to available studies on its environmental relevance, the fracking technology in unconventional natural gas production - particularly in shale gas production - is a technology with enormous potential risks. The effects on humans, nature and the environment are scientifically not yet sufficiently clarified. Drinking water and health have absolute priority for us.
We reject the use of environmentally toxic substances in the application of fracking technology for exploration and extraction of unconventional natural gas deposits. A request for approval can only be decided upon when the necessary data basis for evaluation exists and is clarified beyond doubt that any adverse change in water quality can be ruled out (precautionary principle of the Water Resources Act). The disposal of flowback from fracking operations with the use environmentally toxic chemicals in injection wells is currently not justifiable due to lack of knowledge of the risks involved.'
Whether we like it or not, fracking is here in the UK for the foreseeable future. And whether greedy politicians want to hear it or not, unless there is rigorous management of fracking operations there could be large scale negative and damaging environmental impacts. The risks associated with fracking, including methane groundwater contamination, come primarily from poor borehole maintenance, this is obvious in the case of the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania, USA (http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/991/art%253A10.1007%252Fs13202-013-0083-9.pdf?auth66=1389643114_d49a8af15ff03fc1f81f7ad7b2798461&ext=.pdf). There is a clear necessity for improvements in the management and monitoring of hydraulic fracturing operations. The ideal monitoring methodology requires inexpensive, continuous and passive technologies that will ensure borehole integrity. This will include technologies at the forefront geoengineering, including 4D Vertical Seismic Profiling and Cross Well Imaging, allowing critical and appropriate site-specific monitoring (http://www.fondriest.com/news/a-glance-at-the-monitoring-tech-beneath-hydraulic-fracturing-operations.htm)
If the standards set in place by David Cameron's Conservative Government can be fulfilled, there are still impacts on a local scale to be considered, including increased traffic, habitat fragmentation and localised freshwater pollution. After Michael Fallon, MP and Minister of State for Energy was quoted as saying this: 'We are going to see how thick their rectory walls are, whether they like the flaring at the end of the drive!’ about countryside dwellers neighbouring fracking sites... who is going to want fracking in their back garden???? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23565258)
Thursday, 2 January 2014
2014: Fracking Set to Reach New Heights in the UK
Well bloggers, a happy new year to you all! It is set to be a very happy new year for pro-frackers as Michael Fallon - the minister of state for Energy- announces that fracking is officially set to hit the UK; this follows the 14 month moratorium on fracking after 2 minor earthquakes occurred at the Caudrilla Resources fracking operation in Lancashire.
Figures published by the British Geological Survey (www.bgs.ac.uk/) reveal that in the north of England alone, approximately 40 trillion cubic meters of shale gas is trapped in deep geological formations. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change) have stated that 100,000 square kilometres of land are available for fracking operations and could lead to the production of up to 2,880 wells. The DECC have stated that if only 10% of UK shale gas reserves are tapped, the nation could be fully powered for the next 50 years. There are other benefits of fracking, including the creation of up to 32,000 jobs and a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the transition is made from 'dirty coal' to cleaner natural gas. This is evident in the US, where carbon emissions have dropped to the lowest levels witnessed for nearly 2 decades as they have come to rely on natural gas.
Watch this video of Conservative MP, Daniel Byles discussing the future of fracking in the UK.
The advantages of fracking are no more evident than in the USA- which has taken the title of the largest producer of natural gas in the world- largely due to the fracking boom. The exponential increase in fracking has yielded huge profits and seen falling gas prices for US residents, who pay on average 1/3 of the price for gas than UK residents. The Office of Budget Responsibility (budgetresponsibility.org.uk) recently announced that the average UK fuel bill is a staggering £1,353 and is also set to rise by £100 per annum... perhaps UK based fracking could finally herald some good news for bill-payers. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/uk-fracking-shale-gas)
Fracking has also led to further economic advantages in the US, including the creation of 2,100,000 jobs and increased industrial production due to the availability of cheaper fuel. So could the UK have similar success? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25420552)
But what about the plethora of environmental concerns that has so far plagued the advancement of fracking operations in the UK?? Including: induced seismic activity, reduced species diversity and depletion of water resources, amongst many others (these potential environmental concerns have been widely explored during my previous blog posts- so visit my other posts for more information).
Well, simply put, it has been widely accepted that the threat of such environmental concerns is outweighed by the potential economic benefits. Many environmental concerns are being played down, even the Royal Academy of Engineering (www.raeng.org.uk/) has 'concluded that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with the fracking technique can be effectively managed.'
However, just one more point: Michael Fallon declined to answer if he would be happy for fracking to place in his home town...hmmmmm, very interesting!
Figures published by the British Geological Survey (www.bgs.ac.uk/) reveal that in the north of England alone, approximately 40 trillion cubic meters of shale gas is trapped in deep geological formations. Indeed, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-of-energy-climate-change) have stated that 100,000 square kilometres of land are available for fracking operations and could lead to the production of up to 2,880 wells. The DECC have stated that if only 10% of UK shale gas reserves are tapped, the nation could be fully powered for the next 50 years. There are other benefits of fracking, including the creation of up to 32,000 jobs and a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases as the transition is made from 'dirty coal' to cleaner natural gas. This is evident in the US, where carbon emissions have dropped to the lowest levels witnessed for nearly 2 decades as they have come to rely on natural gas.
Watch this video of Conservative MP, Daniel Byles discussing the future of fracking in the UK.
The advantages of fracking are no more evident than in the USA- which has taken the title of the largest producer of natural gas in the world- largely due to the fracking boom. The exponential increase in fracking has yielded huge profits and seen falling gas prices for US residents, who pay on average 1/3 of the price for gas than UK residents. The Office of Budget Responsibility (budgetresponsibility.org.uk) recently announced that the average UK fuel bill is a staggering £1,353 and is also set to rise by £100 per annum... perhaps UK based fracking could finally herald some good news for bill-payers. (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/uk-fracking-shale-gas)
Fracking has also led to further economic advantages in the US, including the creation of 2,100,000 jobs and increased industrial production due to the availability of cheaper fuel. So could the UK have similar success? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25420552)
But what about the plethora of environmental concerns that has so far plagued the advancement of fracking operations in the UK?? Including: induced seismic activity, reduced species diversity and depletion of water resources, amongst many others (these potential environmental concerns have been widely explored during my previous blog posts- so visit my other posts for more information).
Well, simply put, it has been widely accepted that the threat of such environmental concerns is outweighed by the potential economic benefits. Many environmental concerns are being played down, even the Royal Academy of Engineering (www.raeng.org.uk/) has 'concluded that the health, safety and environmental risks associated with the fracking technique can be effectively managed.'
However, just one more point: Michael Fallon declined to answer if he would be happy for fracking to place in his home town...hmmmmm, very interesting!
Saturday, 14 December 2013
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).
- 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!
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
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.
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
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Monday, 9 December 2013
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
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
This has many positive potential outcomes:
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)
Marshall concludes with:
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.
Image showing location of shale gas reserves in the UK
Image has been adapted from The Times,
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.
Friday, 29 November 2013
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.
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:
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?
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:
- Fresh water reserves can be left untouched, for use in agricultural and commercial applications.
- Can remove ~1400 trucks off the road; reducing congestion and reducing associated carbon footprint
- Can replace the use of disposal wells and associated atmospheric pollution
- Using brine-water actually increases productivity as it prevents clay molecules from swelling
- 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
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
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
- The development of less-water intensive techniques and technological advances
- Recycling of flow-back water and improving the yield of flow back waters.
Monday, 25 November 2013
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)
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)
Sunday, 17 November 2013
Contradiction and Contention: Fracking Fluid Migration
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.
Saturday, 16 November 2013
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/)
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
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/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)