Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 20, 2014
How to Save Water on Fracking
Among the environmental worries posed by hydraulic fracturing, including the release of methane into the air and contamination of groundwater, one has recently escalated: the concern that the enormous quantities of water used in fracking will leave parts of the country parched.
In 2012, fracking consumed some 50 billion gallons of water — water that many communities can ill afford to spare. New practices can make fracking somewhat less thirsty, however. States should see that drilling companies are encouraged to use them.
Each fracking site needs 2 to 4 million gallons of water, to create sufficient pressure to fracture oil- and gas-containing rocks deep underground. When fresh water is used, it may be diverted from other users, including farms, manufacturing plants and households. There’s not always enough to go around; 55 percent of the wells fracked since 2011 are in drought areas.
One way to minimize fracking’s drain on fresh water is to substitute, as much as possible, water that’s already been used to frack other wells. After fracking, 10 percent to 50 percent of the water flows back up through the oil or gas well and is typically disposed of through injection into deep wells, a practice that has been linked with minor but troubling earthquakes. If it is instead cleaned of chemical additives as well as metals and minerals from deep underground, it can be reused. Frackers can also use brackish water from aquifers or municipal and industrial wastewater. Some are even beginning to frack not with great quantities of water but with a foam that contains nitrogen, carbon dioxide and relatively small quantities of water. Some of these options even make fracking cheaper.
Regulators need to ensure these alternative practices are consistently adopted. Pennsylvania has the right approach. Before withdrawing water in that state, drillers must win approval for a water-use plan that discloses how much water a well will use, from where and what effect that will have on local sources. To be approved, these plans must include wastewater recycling.
Other states — including Kentucky, which exempts frackers altogether from its water-withdrawal rules, and Texas, which allows unlimited withdrawals from groundwater — should follow Pennsylvania’s lead.
By making approval for fracking contingent on responsible water practices, states can drive even greater innovation — perhaps to the point where frackers come to operate without using any water at all. Gasfrac, a Canadian company, has been using liquefied petroleum gas in gel form to fracture shale, which so far is relatively expensive. But as the technology improves — and water grows harder to come by — operators may find it to be the most attractive strategy.
6 Comments on "How to Save Water on Fracking"
DC on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:09 pm
Bloomberg idiots-I get an even better idea-stop fraking altogether. I predict 100% water savings-and much else besides.
rockman on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 7:23 pm
More water has been used to keep the golf courses green in drought stricken CA during the last year than was used to frac all the wells in not drought stricken PA. And more fresh water was released into the Pacific Ocean to prevent the smelt fish from potential extinction than used to frac all the Eagle Ford wells in Texas last. There’s lots of water even in CA. The only question is how it gets used.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 12:21 am
@Rock – water comparison
As is often the case the proportionality of the augments and issues often seem distorted and unbalanced. Rock shows us our folly with damning water use here but it is ok there. Both here and there being good and bad depending on the view. Golf course water or Frack water both pollute and waste and both provide a desired economic return.
I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of fracking. My view is are we going to choose a quick end to BAU or slower end to BAU. I do not know which will work. I have said elsewhere on this discussion board as a chaos affects a system it bifurcates to a new level. That resulting outcome is far from certain. Simple put either action has a potential to be more beneficial than the other. Society get back to the classic case of taking the unknown pills. One might think from a NPV view, maintaining a “known BAU” i.e. our current reality would bring a better outcome. Yet, there is the opportunity cost to delaying the end of BAU because a quick end will have a more beneficial outcome. I know N/R and GregT like this route. In the end BAU will decide being self-organizing complex. If it is our human nature for suicide we can do that too with WMD use. To frack or not to frack comes down to two fundamentally different routes one slow decent one fast decent and one NPV focused the other opportunity cost of not ending BAU quickly. This whole discussion is gibberish if one seeing human exceptionalism and our ever expanding growth. If I am getting myself to deep and complicated here it is because these issues are very important at this point in history. In fact they are a matter of life or death. The must not be treated lightly. The act of fracking or not fracking means curtailing or maintaining a supply of vital energy to the system. It is the loss of energy that will bifurcate our BAU system at some point. If one thinks we have non-fatal options with energy at this point I think they are naïve. Everything is pointing to a supply issue, quality/price issue, and pollution issue to a vital input to our global system. So, if you vote energy constraint you are voting for a quicker ending. If you like “drill baby drill” you want a gentle decent. Can either route be proven to be the best route to succeed? It also comes down to Net present happiness or belief in something better later after all the hell breaks loose.
GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 4:57 am
Davy,
“So, if you vote energy constraint you are voting for a quicker ending. If you like “drill baby drill” you want a gentle decent.”
I think that the most important question here is; To what ends? Energy constraints result in a quicker ending, but with a much better chance of long term survival. Drill, baby, drill, it certainly appears, will ultimately end with a planetary extinction event.
I am sure that somewhere in between there is a middle ground, but if we keep on the drill, baby, drill game plan, and we continue to use the energy as we are, with little, or no plans for the future, I maintain that we are committing planetary genocide.
The Universe on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 12:28 pm
@ rockman
Those two can’t be compared.
Water sprayed upon golf courses remains in the hydrologic cycle while water injected deep into the crust gets sent out of it.
Golf uses water. Fracking destroys it.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 5:19 pm
@GregT I do not have an answer. A linear answer to a nonlinear problem is beyond my old feeble mind. I think you are right it is like so many arguments somewhere in the middle. That is like throwing a dart at a barn for the thinking but then needing to throw blindfolded at the dart board. I hope we and so many more can narrow down where that path is between the mentioned parameters.
@universe I feel Golf in a perfect world is great for society. Golf today is one of the more destructive social activities of our time. The golf water use is phenomenal in summation and often significant locally. The amount of fertilizers and chemicals that get into the hydrologic cycle are very worrisome. “So” in this respect yes I agree with @Rock you can compare the two especially considering the significantly lower footprint of fracking and the significantly higher benefit to our support system.