The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Do you know where North America’s largest shale-gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations are? Texas, Wyoming or Pennsylvania? No. It’s Canada’s Horn River Shale Formation, located in northeastern British Columbia. Performing that frack job is oil and gas production giant Apache Corporation, which lauded its own immense size and scale: “When all was said and done, the completions team performed 274 successful fracs on the 16-well pad, using 50,000 tons of sand and 980,000 cubic meters of water.” (That’s over 250 million gallons of water.)
But Apache representatives were sedate during an October 2011 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water and Power. During the hearing, Apache executive Dr. Cal Cooper showed greater interest in the more typical fracking operations that take place in the U.S.—ones that are much smaller than in the Canadian super-frack job.
What explains Apache’s change in tune before the U.S. Senate panel? In a word: water.
Water, the Essential Ingredient
Water is the main ingredient in fracking fluid, comprising more than 99 percent of the total with the remainder a mix of undisclosed, proprietary chemicals. The quantity of water required for a typical frack job is around 4.5 million gallons, of which a substantial amount—approximately 10 to 40 percent—“flows back” to the surface as toxic wastewater. That’s right, 4.5 million gallons are pumped into the ground and up to a million gallons of toxic water flow back up (or the amount of contaminated water equal to the annual water use of up to seven households).
With so much water involved in fracking, it makes sense that the American public is apprehensive. National polls show that ensuring adequate supplies of clean freshwater is an overwhelming environmental concern. No wonder the oil and gas industry is sensitive about fracking’s water use and have sought to downplay the importance of water by essentially saying, “Don’t worry, it’s not really that much.” But such niceties don’t satisfy critics, so industry has to find ways to justify its heavy water use.
One of the industry’s most common strategies is to emphasize how fracking water use is some fraction of the one percent slice of the “mining, oil and gas” industries’ compared to dominant American water withdrawers like thermoelectric power plants, agriculture and public water supplies. Another common justification is what gas giant Chesapeake Energy does by taking the 4.5 million gallon figure and comparing it to other water use examples. For example, drawing comparisons to the amount of water needed to supply New York City for seven minutes or irrigate 7.5 acres of corn in a season.
But such standard comparisons between fracking and other water uses must be drying up because Apache’s Cooper offered a new, more sophisticated line of argument in his testimony:
…[I]t seems especially pertinent for this committee to consider the water budget of energy from shale gas compared with other sources…Natural gas, from both shale gas and conventional reservoirs requires less water per MMBtu of energy generated from combustion than any other common fuel. (PDF)
Hmm. Water requirements per heat energy unit (MMBtu)? Fuel-type comparisons? Cooper’s favorable argument for shale gas is compelling because in such a life cycle analysis—where the entire process is assessed from extraction to power plant combustion—water requirements are lower in comparison to certain fuel types. In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a “bridge fuel”—the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it’s cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process. However, substantial debate exists about its presumed life cycle environmental benefits. Cooper conveniently avoids real and legitimate water resource impacts associated with fracking, as summarized in the list below:
- Quality over quantity. In other words, if water is contaminated by the fracking process, then it is either taken out of use or costs money, energy and even more water to remediate the situation. Externalities anyone?
- Glaring omissions [p. 12]. The analysis conveniently leaves off low to no-water renewable electricity technologies, like solar PV and wind.
- Cumulative impacts. The number of gas wells is expected to increase over time. More wells mean more water.
- Recycling is not a panacea. This is mainly because the waste that accumulates in recycled fracking wastewater is never eliminated but concentrated, and ultimately requires disposal. Plus, recycling wastewater requires—guess what?—more water, and more energy.
- Water is consumed. Much of the water used for drilling or fracking is taken out of the water cycle entirely.
- The nature of water. Even as part of the global water cycle, water is experienced locally and is site-specific.
The local dimension of water undermines industry’s water use claims
Cooper openly acknowledges that “[w]ater is a local resource and withdrawal must be managed on a local basis to ensure that the ecological health of riparian systems and the needs of other major users are met.” He notes the historically severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma, where oil and gas companies had to adjust their fracking methods because of decreased water availability and competition with other users, like farmers. This is a constant concern throughout arid western states with active shale gas plays, like Colorado and Wyoming.
If a well site has inadequate water resources, a fairly common problem, water has to be transported via tanker trucks to fill impoundments over the course of hundreds or thousands of visits. Finally, there is the thorny issue of toxic fracking wastewater and its storage, reuse and disposal.
Local differences can explain, in part, the differences between how Apache represented itself regarding the Canadian super-frack operations versus the restrained tone of Dr. Cooper’s testimony before the Senate panel. The Horn River Shale is located in a remote section of British Columbia, far from any population centers. Additionally, the enormous volume of water used for the super-fracking was done with brackish water unsuitable for drinking, and wasn’t a direct draw on freshwater supplies.
On the other hand, fracking in the U.S., especially in the Marcellus Shale region, tends to occur in more densely populated areas where it can come into conflict with local water uses like drinking and irrigation. As fracking spurs the proliferation of natural gas wells around the U.S., water-related issues will continue to impact water quantity and quality for both ground and surface water. These local impacts are where the true fault lines lie in the struggle over fracking.
The debate over whether the millions of gallons used for a frack job is outsized might be appropriate within a larger discussion of national water use. But the discussion about water resource impacts of fracking must be a local one. In changing the unit of analysis from the water needed for drilling and fracking at the well site to a more general “water for fuel-type,” Cooper’s argument bypasses localized impacts, where they are felt most intensely and where water use is amplified. Wherever you go, 4.5 million gallons is a lot of water, particularly if in your backyard. That’s a fact that doesn’t change no matter how the industry attempts to minimize it.
For more information, click here.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A new multiyear study found that people living or working within 2,000 feet, or nearly half a mile, of a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drill site may be at a heightened risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals, according to research released Thursday by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
The crowd appears to attack a protestor in a video shared on Twitter by ITV journalist Mahatir Pasha. VOA News / Youtube screenshot
Some London commuters had a violent reaction Thursday morning when Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to disrupt train service during rush hour.
By Kristen Fischer
Though the science has shown sugary drinks are not healthy for children, fruit drinks and similar beverages accounted for more than half of all children's drink sales in 2018, according to a new report.
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.
By Karin Kirk
Greenland had quite the summer. It rose from peaceful obscurity to global headliner as ice melted so swiftly and massively that many were left grasping for adjectives. Then, Greenland's profile was further boosted, albeit not to its delight, when President Trump expressed interest in buying it, only to be summarily dismissed by the Danish prime minister.
During that time I happened to be in East Greenland, both as an observer of the stark effects of climate change and as a witness to local dialogue about presidential real estate aspirations, polar bear migrations and Greenland's sudden emergence as a trending topic.