Substantial water pollution risks from hydraulic fracturing: research

Aug 06, 2012

Stony Brook University scientists have found that the disposal of contaminated wastewater from hydraulic fracturing – commonly known as “fracking” – wells producing natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region poses substantial potential risks of river and other water pollution that suggests additional regulation to reduce the potential of drinking water contamination.

In a paper titled “ Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale,” which appears in the August 2012 issue of the journal Risk Analysis, published by the Society for Risk Analysis, Stony Brook doctoral student Daniel Rozell, P.E., and Sheldon Reaven, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Technology and Society and the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, found that “Even in a best case scenario, an individual well would potentially release at least 200 m3 of contaminated fluids.”

Fracking involves pumping fluids underground into shale formations to release pockets of natural gas, which are then pumped to the surface. The Marcellus Shale region covers approximately 124,000 square kilometers from New York to West Virginia and is being intensely developed.

The researchers found that disposal of the large amounts of fracking well wastewater presents risks from salts and radioactive materials that are “several orders of magnitude larger” than for other potential water pollution pathways examined in the new study. Other water pollution pathways studied include a tanker truck spilling its contents while transporting fluids used in the drilling process going to or from a well site; a well casing failing and leaking fluids to groundwater; fracturing fluids traveling through underground fractures into drinking water; and drilling site spills at the surface caused by improper handling of fluids or leaks from storage tanks and retention ponds.

The disposal of used hydraulic fracturing fluids through industrial wastewater treatment facilities can lead to elevated pollution levels in rivers and streams because many treatment facilities “are not designed to handle hydraulic fracturing wastewater containing high concentrations of salts or radioactivity two or three orders of magnitude in excess of federal drinking water standards,” according to the researchers. The wastewater disposal risks dwarf the other water risks, although the authors say “a rare, but serious retention pond failure could generate a very large contaminated water discharge to local waters.”
In trying to understand the likelihood and consequences of water contamination in the Marcellus Shale region from fracking operations, Rozell and Reaven use an analytical approach called “probability bounds analysis” that is suitable “when data are sparse and parameters highly uncertain.” The analysis delineates best case/worse case scenarios that risk managers can use “to determine if a desirable or undesirable outcome resulting from a decision is even possible,” and to assess “whether the current state of knowledge is appropriate for making a decision,” according to the authors.

The authors found that “Any drilling or fracturing fluid is suspect for the purposes of this study” because “even a benign fluid is contaminated once it comes into contact with the Marcellus Shale.” They suggest that “regulators should explore the option of mandating alternative fracturing methods to reduce the wastewater usage and contamination from shale gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale.” These would include various alternatives such as nitrogen-based or liquefied petroleum gas fracturing methods that would substantially reduce the amount of wastewater generated.

The authors concluded that “future research efforts should be focused primarily on wastewater disposal and specifically on the efficacy of contaminant removal by industrial and municipal treatment facilities.”

Explore further: Five anthropogenic factors that will radically alter northern forests in 50 years

More information: Paper online: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01757.x/full

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Duke study offers 7 safeguards for hydraulic fracturing

Nov 17, 2011

A new report by Duke University researchers offers several health and environmental measures for North Carolina lawmakers to consider as they debate legalizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.

Fracking risks, fact or fiction?

Feb 17, 2012

A Simon Fraser University researcher known for his expertise on naturally occurring hazards will participate Friday in a shake down of the truth about a new form of human-induced earthquakes.

Recommended for you

New research on Earth's carbon budget

7 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eachus
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
Ah, wonderful. A totally useless analysis because the "scientists" involved knew the conclusion they were expected to find.
Most of the Marcellus shale fracking is going on in Pennsylvania, due to a hostile regulatory environment in New York and elsewhere. There were a few issues there with wastewater ponds early on. But Pennsylvania has tens of thousands of (usually shallower) oil wells, where enhanced production techniques are marginal. But with "free" wastewater from the frackers, they can start production again.

The only "problem" now is that as frackers get better at their trade, the amount of leftover water has dropped to zero during production. In fact, some fracker were storing fracking water to reinsert. (See holding ponds above.) As for getting the fracking water to the (oil) wells, existing pipelines (small and short) are often used, then used for the oil.

Could there be a collision involving a truck carrying fracking water? Sure, but as bad as an oil tank truck?
Chris_Salmon
3.5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
I'm not a statistician or risk analyst, but I usually understand most research papers on oilfield activities pretty well. This one, I read it (only once and not with extra rigor, so far) honestly I don't get what the goal of the model they're making exactly is. Nor do I see anything I recognize as a useful conclusion, or actionable information. In the conclusion section of the paper, I don't see anything really useful. And I don't even know what this means: "Even in a best-case scenario, an individual well would potentially release at least 200 m3 of contaminated fluids."

Huh? They're saying every well is going to release 200 cubic meters of contaminated fluids? Or it "would potentially" - what does "would potentially" mean in this context? What exactly do they mean by "an individual well?" All of them, one of them, some of them, what are they trying to say?

Wastewater disposal is the biggest problem? Everyone already knows that, so .. again what was the goal of this?
Chris_Salmon
not rated yet Aug 12, 2012
Wait, I'm starting to get it now. PhysOrg, could you remove my post above? Thank you.

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.