Fracking? (Hydraulic Fracturing)

[muon2]

The problems with hydraulic fracturing don't look large by themselves, but when all is added together, it's a horribly inefficient and harmful industry:

1. Requires 400 tanker trucks per each fracture.
2. Requires 1-8 million gallons of water per fracture.
3. 40,000 gallons are used per fracture.
4. Up to 600 chemicals, including toxins and carcinogens such as lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde are used in fracturing.
5. A well can only be fracked 18 times.
6. 72 trillion gallons of water are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
7. 360 billion gallons of chemicals are needed to run current fracturing facilities.
8. During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.
9. On average, methane concentrations are 17 times higher in drinking water wells near fracturing sites than wells that are not near them.
10. The previously mentioned 1,000 cases of water contamination include sensory, respiratory, and neurological damages.
11. Only 30-50% of the fluid produced from the fracture is even recovered, making it very inefficient.
12. The rest is left to evaporate, where it sends volatile organic compounds, acid rain, and ground level ozone into the atmosphere.

This reads like a mix of older facts, and primarily from states that are largely unregulated for fracking. I have done a bit of study in this area and here are some points to consider.

Water Use: The volume of water used in fracking (250 billion gallons in 2012) is still much less than that used in the production of coal (1000-3000 billion gallons annually).  However, it's still a large number, but new technologies like water recycling can dramatically reduce the volume. In some areas nitrogen gas is now being used instead of water for fracking and then water usage drops even more.

Wastewater: This can be a huge problem when it is unregulated and sits in open ponds near wells. Better state regulations require enclosed above-ground tanks for the waste water, which also decreases the volatile emissions of chemicals from the wastewater. Trucks are used when disposal is required far from the well, but in many areas wastewater is disposed by deep injection wells used in other industries including carbon sequestration.

Groundwater Contamination: This occurs both from the aforementioned storage ponds and by well leaks both from old unsealed wells and casing leaks in new wells. Much of this can be addressed through a strict permit process that identifies existing wells and seals them and requires best practice well casings. Both of these are also in industry's long term interest as they lead to less loss of extracted hydrocarbons. The permit process also needs to require substantial setbacks from drinking water supplies and groundwater monitoring around the well site.

Chemicals: The biggest problem occurs when there is no disclosure of the fracking chemicals which invites the use of highly suspect compounds. Not all of those chemicals are necessary for fracking but some companies use them for cost or convenience. States with disclosure requirements find that the industry will avoid the toxic additives and typically use a mix of compounds one could find in household cleaning supplies and cosmetics. The amount of those chemicals used in fracking water is about the same as dipping your thumb in some makeup and swirling it in a cup of water. That's why Gov Hickenlooper disclosed that he drank fracking water during Senate testimony early this year.

State regulations are not uniform, but IL has implemented all of the items I've mentioned.

[muon2]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

Yeah!  Who cares if millions of people lose safe drinking water!  Who cares if cities are on the hook for billions of dollars in treatment plants through no fault of their own!  Caring about that is "thick-headed"!  Give me a f[inks]ing break.

I don't know that I could support a complete, permanent ban, because it is better than coal even when you take all the hidden costs into account (because the hidden costs of coal are just that disgusting), but I definitely support moratoriums, and local bans in areas where the water supply is sensitive and/or helps hydrate large numbers of people, e.g. the Catskills.

On the whole question of water tables and aquifers, I don't know how to make up my mind on this.  I don't understand the science and the only people with an opinion on the science seem to be breathless environmental crusaders or the fracking industry itself. 

I think the solution is that we repeal the Bush era exemption for fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Maybe we ought to require an EPA permit to frack within certain areas of the country, akin to an NPDES permit that you need for discharging wastewater above ground.

The geologic formations of interest to fracking are hard shale and impervious to water, that's why the pressured fluid is needed to crack the rock release the hydrocarbons. Aquifers are in porous strata that can hold water, so they are by necessity distinct from the carbon shales. Contamination of the aquifer doesn't happen directly from the shale, but happens either from groundwater contamination that percolates into an aquifer or from contamination when a well that goes through an aquifer leaks. That's why I noted that two of the most important regulations involve containing surface fluids and securing well casings through aquifers. Your idea for NPDES permits for fracking wastewater is one that could push the type of regulation that I suggest.

[muon2]

They do a lot of that stuff around here and ever since then, I've gotta say, I stopped drinking the water when it began to have an odd coloration to it.

PA is probably the least regulated state in the US when it comes to fracking. It's why so many of the stories about fracking problems come from there.

[muon2]

The movement to ban fracking is literally as thick-headed as the movement to ban nuclear power plants.

Try telling that to the people whose water supplies have been contaminated because of it.  Come to PA and you'll find a few. 

Then why not just regulate it to prevent water contamination?

In IL we did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

It's difficult to see the harm in waiting until hydraulic fracturing is better understood and more effective regulations have been implemented before drilling, particularly in more populated areas. It's not as if the oil and gas formations are going anywhere.

But how long to wait? In IL we studied the issue for two years and brought in environmental experts to identify where things went wrong in other states. We used data from other states that spanned more than a decade. The technology is decades old and quite well documented. I don't see how any more studies would reveal anything that we didn't have available this year.

[muon2]

Why? As long as its properly regulated, then it should, theoretically, be fine.

It seems to be entirely unregulated.

That depends entirely on the state.

[muon2]

I'm wondering just how any leftist can support this practice.

Leftists helped negotiate the fracking bill in IL early this year. Though some preferred a ban, many realized that a total ban was politically unlikely, and by being at the table they could craft the strongest set of protections in the US.

[muon2]

The most dangerous aspect of hydraulic fracking is the possibility to induce earthquakes - directly, as fracking is intended to crack up underground hard shales, and indirectly, because through these cracks, water can enter into surrounding layers of anhydrite, and cause the material to swell. The risk is systematic, as anhydrite is a typical component of salt domes, which are the formations where you typically find oil and gas deposits (shallow seas->organic material sinks down->evaporation covers the material with layers of salt->pressure converts the organic material into oil/gas->salt-dome cover prevents oil diffusion->exploitable oil/gas concentration).
It's pretty difficult and/or expensive, however, to prove a direct relation between fracking and earthquakes, which means, should your house be damaged by an earthquake, you might run into problems claiming compensation from the nearby fracking operator.

Alternatively to hydraulic fracking, pressurised CO² may be used (to my knowledge, it is already being used on some oilfields in Western Texas). Pressurised CO² leaves the risk of directly-induced seismic activity, but eliminates the indirect risk of water-induced swelling of covering layers. The CO² increases oil viscosity, thereby reducing or even eliminating the need for additional solvents that may potentially contaminate underground water. Furthermore, most of the CO² remains underground, so the technology is (at least temporarily) reducing atmospheric CO² concentration.

For the a/m reasons, I am against hydraulic fracking, while CO² fracking should be researched further, eventually even be encouraged.

Salt domes are not always associated with oil. In the US, only the Gulf oil is in an area of salt domes. The oil and gas is in tiny pockets within hard shale put down as a a bed of clay on the ocean floor.

In areas like the Midwest, the earthquake risk is not with the hydraulic fracking, but with the deep injection wells used for wastewater disposal. However, deep high-pressure injection wells are not unique to fracking, as they are used for municipal waste, other types of mining, and even carbon sequestration as a technique to address carbon pollution.

You are correct that gas fracking is an emerging technology whether with CO2 or nitrogen. Gas by itself has some technical problems, but nitrogen has been used to make a foam that is low water (50-95% N2) and works well as a water substitute for fracking. Liquified propane gas (LPG) is also being used in certain formations instead of water.