{"id":2086,"date":"2015-05-30T20:05:52","date_gmt":"2015-05-31T01:05:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/?p=2086"},"modified":"2015-05-30T20:05:52","modified_gmt":"2015-05-31T01:05:52","slug":"fracking-good-or-bad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/smilodonsretreat\/2015\/05\/30\/fracking-good-or-bad\/","title":{"rendered":"Fracking – Good or Bad"},"content":{"rendered":"

A few weeks ago, fellow SINner Avante Garde published an article with claims that fracking is not that bad a thing<\/a>. This was in response to me fussing at the Texas GOP leadership for telling US cities and counties that they could not ban fracking anymore.<\/p>\n

I think we have good and strong evidence<\/a> to put those myths to sleep once and for all, but may be I\u2019m wrong and it would be nice if he could tell me why he thinks what he thinks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, I disagree. I think that the evidence holds that fracking is bad. The article that he links to there is this one:\u00a0 Jackson, R. et al.<\/i> The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resourc.<\/i> 39,<\/b> 327\u2013362 (2014). That link is to the PDF.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To put it mildly, I think that this particular article is incorrect, at best. At worst, it’s a deliberate misrepresentation of the the facts and the references there-in. I do not think that the cited article supports the claim that fracking is not harmful. This is an exceptionally long, detailed, and researched post, so be warned.<\/p>\n

Now, please understand, that this is not intended to be a condemnation of natural gas. While I loathe fossil fuels as only someone who grew up next to a refinery can, I understand that natural gas is better for the environment than coal. That is roughly equivalent to my preference HIV over ebola. Neither is good, but there is certainly one I would prefer catching over the other. I’ve talked a lot about renewables and my preferences should be quite obvious to any frequent reader.<\/p>\n

Fracking, however, is not a fossil fuel. It is a method of obtaining said fossil fuels by what is called hydraulic fracturing. In the most basic sense, a hydraulic fluid with additives is pumped into wells at very high pressure. This cracks the rocks deep in the well, allowing fossil fuels (usually light oil and natural gas) to flow more freely.<\/p>\n

This takes a tremendous amount of water and is the first discussion point in the paper.<\/p>\n

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling require considerable water. A lateral from a single\u00a0well might be drilled 1\u20133 km sideways (see above) and divided into 20 or so \u223c100-m-long stages.\u00a0Across many plays (37), including the Barnett, Marcellus, and Fayetteville Shales, hydraulic fracturing typically requires 8,000 to 80,000 m3 (2 to 20 million gallons) of water for a single well\u00a0(Table 1). An additional 25% of water use is typically associated with drilling, extraction, and\u00a0sand or proppant mining (20); in Table 1 we use a more conservative estimate of 1,900 m3 (500,000 gallons) per well<\/strong> for these processes to account for different practices, such as whether\u00a0air drilling is used. (my emphasis)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In short, a well shaft is drilled. That shaft, which can be kilometers long, is pumped full of fluid (which is water mixed with stuff) at high pressure until the rock breaks. This article seems to accurately report the amount of water used for these operations with the knowledge that, especially for Texas, such reports are frequently not required and are industry reported. But then, inexplicably, the authors only assume one quarter of those values at the low end and less than 2% at the high end. Huh?<\/p>\n

Let give an example. The Barnett Shale in Texas has over 14,000 wells drilled into it. According to the referenced article (20:\u00a0 Nicot, J.-P. P. & Scanlon, B. R. Water use for Shale-gas production in Texas, U.S.Environ. Sci. Technol.<\/i> 46,<\/b> 3580\u20136 (2012).) the Barnett Shale, from 2000 to 2011, had consumed some 38,300,000,000 gallons of water. Which is roughly what is shown in the Table 1 referenced in the quote.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Across Texas, for instance, the amount of water used for hydraulic\u00a0fracturing yearly is \u22641% of total water use (20).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have no idea why this comment is in this article, except to provide some kind of comment for a pro-fracking person to use in a discussion. It’s a meaningless point. IF we could transport trillions of gallons of water all over the state, then, perhaps it would be a valid statistic. However, as the recent weather events of Texas have shown, we can’t move that kind of water.<\/p>\n

This is important, because shale oil fracturing operations are very localized in space. In spite of the huge number of wells and the vast distances a well can cover horizontally, it’s still a very local phenomenon. For example, that Barnett shale only covers some 48,000 square kilometers. The entire North Texas metro area (Dallas, Fort Worth, Denton) sits on top of this with one of the highest populations in the United States (4th in metro areas).<\/p>\n

The Jackson et. al\u00a0paper fails to mention some of the other stats listed by the Nicot paper they reference. Annual water use for the Barnett shale is about 9% of the water use for the city of Dallas (population 1.3 million).<\/p>\n

Water use for\u00a0shale gas is <1% of statewide water withdrawals; however, local impacts\u00a0vary with water availability and competing demands. Projections of cumulative net water use during the next 50 years in all shale\u00a0plays total \u223c4350 Mm3 [ed. 1,100,000,000,000,000 gallons, that a million billion], peaking at 145 Mm3 in the mid-2020s and decreasing to 23 Mm3 in 2060. Current freshwater use may\u00a0shift to brackish water to reduce competition with other users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, we need to be clear about something here. Every single one of these estimates of water usage, is just that, an estimate. Texas has an unbelievable hodgepodge of environmental agencies, most with little or not enforcement powers, and a deep cultural history of promoting fossil fuel production over all other factors ( Rahm, D. Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy<\/i> 39,<\/b> 2974\u20132981 (2011).<\/span><\/span>\u00a0).<\/p>\n

For example, it is up to the individual counties to monitor and\/or permit water use for fracking purposes.<\/p>\n

Interpretation of the law \u201cdepends on which lawyer you talk to,\u201d said Slate Williams, general manager of the Crockett County Groundwater Conservation District in West Texas. His district does not require a permit for water wells used for fracking. It does ask drillers to report the amount of water they withdraw monthly.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey don\u2019t always do that, but it\u2019s something we ask,\u201d Williams said.<\/p>\n

The confusion among groundwater districts\u00a0stems from a provision in the Texas water code<\/a>that states that a groundwater district cannot require a permit if the well is drilled to supply water for a rig doing \u201cdrilling or exploration operations\u201d for an oil or gas well. (source: Texas Tribune<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, there are counties like Dimmit County, TX, where drillers can use as much water as they want, no reporting required and no questions asked.<\/p>\n

This is by no means unusual.<\/p>\n

States are primarily responsible for regulating fracking activities, as fracking is exempt from most federal laws targeted toward environmental protection, such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, Michigan laws also largely exempt fracking from key water protection statutes, like Michigan\u2019s codification of the Great Lakes Compact.\u00a0 In fact, Michigan\u2019s codification of the Great Lakes Compact under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, Great Lakes Preservation section<\/a>, exempts the oil and gas industry from complying with the requirements of large quantity water withdrawals, including obtaining a water withdrawal permit, stating<\/a> a withdrawal undertaken as part of an oil and gas activity are exempt withdrawals unless they result in a diversion.<\/strong> Considering that fracking has been occurring in Michigan over the past few decades, and deep horizontal well drilling has been in abundance since 2010, Michigan\u2019s laws and regulations are minimum at best. (Vermont Journal of Environmental Law<\/a>, my emphasis)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

OK, that’s a problem. We don’t actually know how much water fracking activities are using. The producers may not even know. Why would they monitor and keep records for something that they aren’t required to (and might be used in a court later)?<\/p>\n

But what about recycling? Surely this water can be recycled and used again or treated and then returned to the environment. Well, many people say that water can be and is being recycled, but I find it exceedingly difficult to verify such claims.<\/p>\n

As of mid-2014, the Dallas Morning News reports<\/a> that<\/p>\n

But estimates are that in places like the Eagle Ford and Permian Basin, 10 percent to 20 percent of the water being used now comes from recycling. And that number is expected to at least double over the next decade, said Marcus Gay, a water analyst at research firm IHS who has since left the company.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One former oil.gas consultant started a recycling business, seeing the trend. He said that, now, water might be 20%, but 2 years ago, it was zero. Further, it doesn’t make economic sense for most companies to recycle, not when they can inject the wastewater into deep wells (see a brief discussion on earthquakes below). If water is plentiful in the area, then there’s no economic sense in recycling the water. It’s only when water becomes scarce that it begins to make sense to recycle it. Once it becomes scarce for the drillers, then the non-fossil fuel users of that water are already hurting.<\/p>\n

Parts of the Eagle Ford shale (south of San Antonio Texas) are reporting the aquifer has dropped 70 feet in a year. Sure, some is due to agriculture. But some is also due to fracking and oil\/gas extraction. And that water, unless heavily treated cannot be reintroduced to the environment (see the discussion on toxic chemicals below). That water is now, for all intents and purposes, gone from our water cycle.<\/p>\n

Fracking can be accomplished without water<\/a>… although some technologies (to me) represent more a problem than using water. For example, propane fracking. Putting a lot of highly compressed, flammable material in a bore hole seems to be fraught with peril and letting the propane gas back out of the hole… But there are some other technologies. But so far, the watchword is “slowly<\/a>” and in a very conservative industry<\/a>, it will take lots of time (at billions of gallons of water per year). And there are fewer regulations on these technologies than for water-based fracking (which says a lot).<\/p>\n

I’m not dismissing these out of hand. Of course, if water was the only issue (it’s not), then I would say go for it. But, at this point, why invest so much energy in a system that we don’t really need anymore and still isn’t going to fix global warming.<\/p>\n

I will also admit that there are some benefits to natural gas. For example, natural gas power plants don’t use water. So, that’s more water available for other uses (like getting the natural gas). But then, solar and wind also don’t require water.<\/p>\n

Going back to the Vermont Law statement. Read the first sentence again. Frackng activities are exempt from “most federal laws” for environmental protection.<\/p>\n

The EPA<\/a> says much the same thing.<\/p>\n

While the SDWA [ed. Safe Drinking Water Act] specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from UIC [ed. Underground Injection Control] regulation under SDWA \u00a7 1421 (d)(1), the use of diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing is still regulated by the UIC program. Any service company that performs hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel must receive prior authorization through the applicable UIC program.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It’s interesting that diesel fuel is specifically mentioned here. Since the industry has assured us that diesel fuel is not used in fracking and that the chemicals (many\u00a0of which are “trade secrets” and have not been disclosed to anyone<\/a>). But diesel fuel is definitely not to be used without a permit (key phrase there).<\/p>\n

Between 2005 and 2009, 12 of the 14 companies used 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel or fluids containing diesel fuel.[14]<\/a>\u00a0 BJ Services used the most diesel fuel and fluids containing diesel, more than 11.5 million gallons, followed by Halliburton, which used 7.2 million gallons.\u00a0 Four other companies, RPC (4.3 million gallons), Sanjel (3.6 million gallons), Weatherford (2.1 million gallons), and Key Energy Services (1.6 million gallons), used more than one million gallons of diesel fuel and fluids containing diesel.<\/p>\n

These 12 companies injected these diesel-containing fluids in 19 states.\u00a0 Diesel-containing fluids were used most frequently in Texas, which accounted for half of the total volume injected, 16 million gallons.\u00a0 The companies injected at least one million gallons of diesel-containing fluids in Oklahoma (3.3 million gallons), North Dakota (3.1 million gallons), Louisiana (2.9 million gallons), Wyoming (2.9 million gallons), and Colorado (1.3 million gallons).<\/p>\n

Tables 1 and 2, which are attached to this letter, list the companies that reported using diesel-containing fluids and the states in which they injected them.<\/p>\n

Diesel fuel was a significant component of the diesel-containing fluids these companies injected.\u00a0 The companies used 10.2 million gallons of straight diesel fuel and 21.8 million gallons of products containing at least 30% diesel fuel. (US House Committee on Energy and Commerce open letter to the EPA<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s investigate some of the reports of what these fracking chemicals can do:<\/p>\n