Quashing frack-fights with fools

From the American Chemical Society

How to avoid water wars between ‘fracking’ industry and residents

The shale gas boom has transformed the energy landscape in the U.S., but in some drier locations, it could cause conflict among the energy industry, residents and agricultural interests over already-scarce water resources, say researchers. They add that degraded water quality is a potential risk unless there are adequate safeguards. The feature article appears in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Meagan S. Mauter and colleagues point out that a major criticism of extracting shale gas through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is that it requires tremendous amounts of water — 2.5 to 5 million gallons — to develop a single well. Water, along with chemicals and sand, is injected under high pressure into wells to create cracks, or fractures, in shale and release stored gas. In some water-rich places, such as Pennsylvania, this is not a significant problem. But in other locations, including some rural counties in arid south Texas, this level of water use competes with residential and agricultural needs and depletes groundwater resources. These and other types of region-specific scenarios are similar to what other states and countries could encounter when or if they also develop shale gas reserves. Mauter’s team looked at what practices could help maintain a balance between fracking and environmental and residential needs.

The researchers say that there are ways to minimize the industry’s water footprint. One method is to use brackish water that is not fit for drinking or agricultural use but can be suitable for fracking. The other method is to recycle the waste water. “Leadership from both industry and the U.S. government may be needed to assure that economic benefits of shale gas development are realized without significant regional impairment of water resource quantity and quality,” the authors conclude.

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. With more than 161,000 members, ACS is the world’s largest scientific society and a global leader in providing access to chemistry-related research through its multiple databases, peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Its main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

To automatically receive news releases from the American Chemical Society, contact newsroom@acs.org.

Follow us: Twitter | Facebook

###
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hunter
April 24, 2014 7:55 am

The headline does not seem to match the article. Water use management is extremely important for the future of fracking. This article does not seem to be foolish.

Alan the Brit
April 24, 2014 7:57 am

Funny, I thought most of the water & chemicals were recovered anyway, according to some pro-fracking websites! Have I got this wrong?

Chris4692
April 24, 2014 8:01 am

I work with water and waste water, so perhaps my perspective is skewed, but 5,000,000 gallons per well does not seem to be a “tremendous” amount of water, or an amount that is unmanageable.

erfiebob
April 24, 2014 8:05 am

When I went on a tour of Halliburton facility, they were very proud of the fact that they recycle as much of their frack water as possible. I think the petroleum industry may be ahead of the American Chemical Society on this one.

wws
April 24, 2014 8:08 am

In water-poor counties, such as where much of the Eagle Ford Shale is being drilled, it is a lot of water, relatively speaking. And it would be a great shame to deplete fresh water reservoirs which take a significant number of years to recharge.
However, there are typically deeper water zones available in these areas which have salinity levels that make them non-potable. The frack companies prefer not to use them because it’s easier to calibrate the mixture when you start with pure fresh water, but it can be done.
In essence, this is an engineering and cost problem, but not a supply problem. It can be dealt with while still protecting relatively scarce fresh water resources.

Just an engineer
April 24, 2014 8:12 am
SadButMadLad
April 24, 2014 8:28 am

5m gallons of water in a dry county might seem a lot, but when taken in context of agricultural and residantal use it isn’t a lot. Even in the dry counties its agriculture that strains the use of water, not fracking. There are more farms and they use way more water than the wells.

April 24, 2014 8:54 am

An interesting article on solar energy vs fracking gas electrical generation cross over points.
April 6, 2013, based upon a Chase
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/Fracking-Could-Be-the-Key-to-a-Renewable-Energy-Future
This has a couple of graphs that are worth keeping on hand.
Solar energy cost (by region of the country) vs time (out to 2020) and competition with natural gas prices.
Also some illustration of the issues of electrical demand and sources over the course of a day under three scenarios.

So if all of these estimates are correct, solar production in the southwest could become competitive with $7/MMBtu gas around 2018, five years from now. If we use the Citi estimate that long term natural gas prices will be closer to $5/MMBtu, then it would be closer to 2021 (just off the chart) before solar can compete. And again, all of this is only for the dark red areas in the insolation map above. Other areas of the country will have to wait much longer—perhaps 15-17 years—for regional solar power production to be competitive with natural gas.
….
Since, at large penetration levels, the requirement for ‘peaking power’ rises as renewable penetration increases, gas-fired power is not only compatible with renewables, it is in many ways essential for its large-scale adoption. This makes the relationship between renewables and gas-fired power symbiotic; they each assist the other to gain a larger slice of the electricity market.

Cheap solar power is a wonderful idea, but we’re not quite there yet. And even once we are in 5-15 years, we still won’t have a global power grid or a method of storing unused power for non-peak hours. The logical step at this point in time is to embrace natural gas produced by fracking as the medium to long-term companion to renewable energy, helping to bring us closer to U.S. energy independence.

geek49203
April 24, 2014 9:07 am
Geologist Down The Pub Sez
April 24, 2014 9:10 am

Solar power using polycrystalline silicon PV sounds wonderful for CO2 emissions, until you take into account the CO2 emitted in the production of the original silicon, and the service life of the PV cells. Then the balance becomes very unfavorable. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, silicon cells are not the way to go.

Speed
April 24, 2014 9:26 am

Texas is a little ahead of the American Chemical Society …
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
NEWS RELEASE – MARCH 26, 2013

Railroad Commission Today Adopts New Recycling Rules to Help Enhance Water Conservation By Oil & Gas Operators
AUSTIN– The Railroad Commission today adopted new rules to encourage Texas operators to continue their efforts at conserving water used in the hydraulic fracturing process for oil and gas wells, even though hydraulic fracturing and total mining use accounts for less than 1 percent of statewide water use, with irrigation, municipalities and manufacturing making up state’s top three water consumers.
Major changes adopted to the Commission’s water recycling rules include eliminating the need for a Commission recycling permit if operators are recycling fluid on their own leases or transferring their fluids to another operator’s lease for recycling. The changes adopted by the Commission today also clearly identify recycling permit application requirements and reflect existing standard field conditions for recycling permits.
Chairman Barry Smitherman said, “By removing regulatory hurdles, these new amendments will help foster the recycling efforts by oil and gas operators who continue to examine ways to reduce freshwater use when hydraulically fracturing well.”
Commissioner David Porter said, “Water use has been a major concern examined by my Eagle Ford Shale Task Force, and I commend our staff for working to streamline our rules to encourage more recycling.”
Commissioner Christi Craddick said, “Just as our operators have used technology to bring us into this modern day boom of oil production, they are also using technology to reduce their fresh water use. The changes adopted today will assist in those efforts.”
The rule amendment also establishes five categories of commercial recycling permits to reflect industry practices in the field:
•On-lease Commercial Solid Oil and Gas Waste Recycling
•Off-lease or Centralized Commercial Solid Oil and Gas Waste Recycling
•Stationary Commercial Solid Oil and Gas Waste Recycling
•Off-lease Commercial Recycling of Fluid; and
•Stationary Commercial Recycling of Fluid
The changes to the rule also establish a tiered approach for the reuse of treated fluid, including both authorized reuse of treated fluids in oil and gas operations and provisions for reusing the fluid for other non-oilfield related uses.

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/pressreleases/2013/032613.php

Neil Jordan
April 24, 2014 9:31 am

How much is five million gallons? It is in the eye of the beholder. That is about 15 acre-feet, a rounding error for some flood control projects. At $10 per acre-foot for raw water, that is pocket change (http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1419&context=jcwre)
At $582 per acre foot, that is less than $9,000 (http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/news/press_releases/2014-04/Budget_Rates_Adopted.pdf)
Five million gallons is also about 6,700 ccf (hundred cubic feet) and according to my water billing rate, that is about $6,100 for more than ten years worth of water. From an activist point of view, 5 million gallons is 19 million liters or more than 133 million Canadian gills. Conversion to miner’s inches or Zanja-hours is left to the student.

PRD
April 24, 2014 9:56 am

Another contextual comparison can be the domed potable water storage tanks used by municipalities. They are known as “ground storage tanks”. Many of them are between 3 and 5 million gallons. Elevated tanks are about a half million.
The City of Dallas, Texas has the capacity to treat, for potable use, around 600,000,000 gallons per day across about a dozen facilities. I, once upon a time, worked at a treatment facility that was rated at 50,000,000 gpd. Relatively speaking, it was a “large” facility compared to the myriad little municipal facilities that treat less than 100,000 gpd.
50,000,000/1440 = 34,722 gallons per minute
5,000,000/1440 = 3,472 gallons per minute used to frac a well if it takes 24 hours to do it. That’s a hell of a lot of reverse osmosis membranes, and thousands of horsepower to develop the pressure to treat the wastewater. Even the BW (brackish water) and SW membranes designed for that sort of treatment have a very short lifespan in that environment.
A one inch rain falling on an acre will yield 43,560 gallons.

tadchem
April 24, 2014 10:01 am

For perspective, 5,000,000 gallons is about 25,000 cubic yards.
Imagine a pool the size of one football field and 15 feet deep.
Imagine the runoff from a square mile of urban jungle (rooftops, sidewalks, streets) of 7.3 mm (0.28 inch) of rain.

Taphonomic
April 24, 2014 10:12 am

“2.5 to 5 million gallons — to develop a single well”
Okay, compare that to water usage at the recently opened Ivanpah Solar Plant. Estimates are 100 acre-feet/year to keep the heliostats clean. An acre-foot of water is ~326,000 gallons. So every year 32,600,000 gallons are needed to be pumped from wells in this desert environment. It will be interesting to see how accurate these estimates are. Who knows, it may take more water to clean off the birds that crash into the mirrors after being scorched by flight through the concentrated solar flux.

April 24, 2014 10:26 am

Actually PRD there are around 27,000 gallons in 1 acre-inch.

Lyle
April 24, 2014 10:28 am

So, in a few years when ocean levels start to recede and the question is asked:
Where did the water go?
The answer:
We Fracked it!

brantc
April 24, 2014 10:29 am

And why do we need fracking??? Its not just one well its the hundreds of wells drawing from the aquifer… The idea that the oil companies leave everything nice and shiny is not supported by their actions…
https://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos

April 24, 2014 10:44 am

brantc: “And why do we need fracking???”
To get at the oil and natural gas.

inMAGICn
April 24, 2014 10:52 am

Neil Jordan,
Can we get furlongs per fortnight in there somewhere?

wsbriggs
April 24, 2014 11:00 am

brantc says:
April 24, 2014 at 10:29 am
If you really want to impress people with the progress made in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, you should point them to the paper on the reactor from Japan which has run in excess of 880 hours, generating ~108 MJ of energy. Pointers to pages of YouTube videos aren’t helpful.
http://lenr-canr.org/index/DownloadOnly/DownloadOnly.php
2014-3-27 Yoshino, H., E. Igari, and T. Mizuno, Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles (PowerPoint slides), in The 2014 Cold Fusion [LANR] Colloquium at MIT. 2014: MIT.

CRS, DrPH
April 24, 2014 11:00 am

Don’t worry, it is in the economic interest of oil & gas developers to minimize costs and conserve resources. I’ve worked in this field for 25+ years.
At the Pinedale Anticline in WY, we treated produced waters to a very high degree in merchant wastewater treatment plants. There are recoverable hydrocarbons in them thar waters, and we want it.
Also, new fracking technologies using substances besides water are gaining ground. Propane is being used, and compressed carbon dioxide will be ideal. There is a disconnect between major utility carbon dioxide generators and the shale plays, which tend to be remote. However, rest assured, all technical barriers will be surmounted. I’ve always said that the value of fossil fuel carbon dioxide is vast, and eventually this will be a resource that folks will fight to have access to.
See this article about waterless fracking: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512656/skipping-the-water-in-fracking/

kenw
April 24, 2014 11:21 am

Speed says:
April 24, 2014 at 9:26 am
Texas is a little ahead of the American Chemical Society …
yes, ’cause sometimes we need less regulation….what a concept!

April 24, 2014 12:23 pm

Lyle says:
April 24, 2014 at 10:28 am
So, in a few years when ocean levels start to recede and the question is asked:
Where did the water go?
The answer:
We Fracked it!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nope. Magma swallowed it. (see previous thread) 😊

April 24, 2014 1:09 pm

Brackish and recycled water will eventually be the solution. And on top of that, they both have the trait of being green.

1 2 3