Hydraulic Fracturing: Development of Specialized Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Domestic natural gas extraction is quickly becoming a point of contention in modern day America. The method used to extract natural gas is known as hydraulic fracturing. As our nation turns towards a greener way to provide energy, natural gas offers an alternative energy source that releases far less carbon during combustion compared to oil and coal. Undoubtedly natural gas extraction provides Americans with jobs and boosts local and national economies, while decreasing our nation’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Initially it is easy to see why people are becoming excited about domestic natural gas, however if you dig deeper you will see that there is a dark side to this industry. There are countless horror stories of people who have leased their land to natural gas companies for financial gain and in return are plagued by the toxic nature of the industry. Among other things, hydraulic fracturing is especially detrimental to water quality. Water is an absolute necessity for all life on earth, and freshwater accounts only for 3% of the total water on earth, most of which is locked up in ice or in underground aquifers (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2013). Therefore, it is important to understand the process of hydraulic fracturing and how it negatively affects our fragile and limited water supply.

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?

Hydraulic fracturing is a decade old method of extracting natural gas from shale deposits using high pressured water, sand and chemicals. Today the process is refined, which allows for the extraction of giant pools of previously elusive natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” is a violent process that starts off by drilling a vertical hole up to a mile deep into the earth. Once the desired depth is reached the pipe takes a 90 degree horizontal turn and extends out several hundred feet. Once the well is drilled, metal pipes are inserted and held in place with cement. As the cement dries a number of charges called sweet packers are set in place to blow holes in the pipe, where a solution is forced through with high pressure. Fracking solutions are comprised of about 93% water, 6% sand, and the remaining 1% a concoction of chemicals. The fracking solutions include a range of harmless chemicals, such as citric acid and salts, to highly poisonous chemicals, such as lead and benzene (Hoffman, 2012, p. 1-5). The typical well uses ten million gallons of water, which means that in each drilling operation there are hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals. Chemicals used in drilling operations vary from site to site but the most common chemical used is methanol, a primary ingredient in antifreeze. Other chemicals include hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel, copper, formaldehyde, naphthalene and hundreds of other toxic substances. All processes throughout fracking operations pose a direct threat by polluting underground aquifers, streams, lakes, and wells used for human and livestock consumption. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Preservation estimates that there is one serious environmental concern for every 150 wells drilled (Abdalla, Drohan, Blunk, & Edson, 2011, 1-9). With hundreds of thousands of wells malfunctioning, there are large cumulative impacts. As environmentalists try to mitigate these impacts, the gas industry responds with expensive propaganda advertisements, public relation campaigns, high level lobbying, and payoff of politicians to ensure the progression of natural gas drilling in the United States.

Hydraulic fracturing produces wastewater by-product that is either managed on-site or off-site through treatment and disposal. Outright direct discharge of fracking wastewater into water systems is illegal in the United States. Shale gas extraction creates two different kinds of wastewater; flowback water and produced water. Flowback water is fracturing fluid injected into a gas well that returns to the surface when drilling pressure is released. Produced water is all wastewater emerging from the well after production begins, much of which is salinized water contained within the shale formation (Hammer & VanBriesen, 2012, p. 1).

Dangers of Hydraulic Fracturing

The high-levels of water and chemicals used in fracking solutions cause a disturbance in the water table and cause salinization, creating an easy passage for chemicals through bedrock into nearby freshwater aquifers. Salinization is the process where water-soluble salts build up in the soil. Soil heavily ridden by salty chemicals, such as those found in fracking solutions, hinder crop growth by limiting the crop’s ability to absorb water into their roots. As water is pumped into the ground at high amounts and high pressure, it raises and disturbs the water table, thus causing an increase in salinization (Gillen & Kiviat, 2012, p. 330-325). The more saline our freshwater supply, the higher the purification cost.

Treatment plants that are not properly suited to purify chemically-laden fracking solutions will require expensive technologies and personnel to properly clean water. Increases in purification costs of water for state municipalities will significantly raise household costs in the form of tax dollars. Grabkowski et al. (2006) projects that household costs for water will rise at an average range of five to twenty four percent over the next eleven years, with some households seeing their costs doubling. A lack of qualified personnel, as well as budget constraints, provide communities with very limited resources for making needed improvements. A lack in improvements will continue to drive costs higher and higher, affecting household rates for years to come (Grabkowski et. al., 2006, p. 5-35).

Regulation to Diminish Damages

The chemical solutions utilized in hydraulic fracturing causes degradation of water quality of nearby aquifers and wells and a regulation in fracking and wastewater disposal techniques will mitigate damages to freshwater aquifers. The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] recently forced multiple oil companies that practice fracking to reimburse the city they worked in for water infrastructure costs. Despite appeals from the oil companies, federal judges mandated that companies pay their dues (Hoffman, 2012, p. 1-5). Federal support is necessary to combat profit orientated energy companies to pass regulations that can benefit public health. For now, state involvement is a crucial step for formulating regulations on hydraulic fracturing. State Representative Anne Gobi states the following:

“The state continues to put money into protection and… yesterday a $1.6 billion dollar

Environmental Bond Bill was released by my committee which provides additional

funding for the various state agencies who deal directly with water, land, [and] soil

protection and the research and planning that is part of sustainable environmental

policies” (A. Gobi, personal communication, March 18, 2014).

State involvement, such as the Environmental Bond Bill, is a building block in funding the development of specialized wastewater treatment facilities that purify chemically-laden fracking solutions for reuse or reintroduce the treated solutions into water systems.

 

The Opposition

Despite the extensive amount of scientific evidence backing increased regulation of hydraulic fracturing, there are those that disagree. Some argue that the extraction of natural gas  for energy consumption created a prosperous United States economy. As a result, owners of energy-extraction companies and federal lobbyists invest heavily in the natural gas industry expecting large dividends. They view the extraction of natural gas as a profitable venture. Acting on a profit-based mentality, stakeholders and energy companies have little incentive to utilize environmentally safe practices when fracking. These stakeholders and lobbyists are the primary opponents to increased public and private regulation of fracking. Owners of energy companies claim that the explosion of hydraulic fracturing across the United States is the main cause of the recent economic boom after the recession that left many Americans without jobs. They claim that natural gas is a major resource that should be exploited.

Natural gas is our energy

The natural gas energy industry argues that homeland extraction will halt the import of energy from overseas. Industry owners profess that the United States’ natural gas reserves are vast and plentiful. Therefore, stakeholders want to expand extraction of natural gas as much as possible across the United States to boost the economy and remove the government’s dependence on foreign energy sources (Wiseman, 2009, p. 118). This unhindered expansion of fracking has consequences that are overlooked by natural gas stakeholders. Development of hydraulic fracturing in populated areas will have many unintended effects on the quality of water available to the public. Along with degradation of water quality, expansion of fracking sites into federally and state owned lands requires forest clearing resulting in habitat fragmentation of wildlife populations in the area (Gillian & Kiviat, 2012, p. 321).

The Power of Costs and Jobs

Energy companies oppose regulation around fracking sites because they maintain that regulation and reform are not cost effective for their business. They reason that altering the method of hydraulic fracturing only results in higher production and technical costs. In reality, regulation by the federal government does not induce higher costs. Regulation only requires gas companies to reassess fracking locations and the chemicals utilized in the process. Any costs associated with  the movement or transportation of fracking sites could be offset by government tax breaks for companies that choose to adopt the regulations and requirements. Full-scale change unlikely with government bureaucracy convoluting congress. Fracking companies need incentives to adopt changes to their processes (Grabowski, 2006, p. 15-19).

Industrial hydraulic fracturing creates many job opportunities for middle-class workers and provides a boost to the faltering United States’ economy. Opponents to federal regulation claim more oversight cuts down on job opportunities for the working class. They assert that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing will deter its economic profitability, and instead of creating more jobs, will actually decrease the job market. To counter this, one must examine how regulation is performed. Adjustment of hydraulic fracturing methods includes increased site assessment for environmental degradation and impacts on water quality. This requires more people to be hired to provide analyses of whether or not proper disposal or recycling techniques are implemented (Wiseman, 2009, p. 120-130).

Reusing Fracking Wastewater

Today’s public wastewater facilities cannot effectively clean the chemicals found in disposed hydraulic fracturing solutions. The EPA states that no national standards exist for the proper disposal of fracking solutions that contain chemicals and undissolved and dissolved solids (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, p. 1). Although some of the fracking wastewater is reused and recycled, a majority is sent to improperly equipped water treatment facilities. As a result, fracking solutions are not properly cleaned and recycled for re-admittance into the water system, and untreated water mixes in with rivers and lakes. In 2011, the EPA developed standards for wastewater discharges produced by natural gas extraction and since then the scope has been narrowed to shale gas extraction exclusively (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, p. 2). Wastewater from fracking contains many total dissolved solids [TDS] and most of these are chloride based. Public water treatment facilities are not designed to handle the dissolved solids found in fracking solutions. An increase in the technology found in wastewater treatment plants will allow TDS to be removed from wastewater before readmittance into the water system.

Analysis of On-Site Recycling/Reuse and Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Hydraulic fracturing sites in the Marcellus Shale gas region are forced to perform on-site recycling or disposal of wastewater by-product because off-site disposal is not available to them. The drilling sites are not located near suitable off-site disposal or treatment facilities. While on-site recycling/reuse can reduce the amount of fresh-water consumption, performing on-site recycling has significant negatives that could be addressed at a suitable off-site facility. The on-site conversion process can have significant costs that companies cannot maintain. The practice is energy-intensive, and also generates concentrated residual by-products (Hammer & VanBriesen, p. 3).

    Specifically in the Marcellus Shale region, many hydraulic fracturing sites send wastewater to publicly owned treatment works [POTWs] to reuse the water or dispose of it into deep injection wells. Fracking causes a disruption of the water table, resulting in salinated wastewater, which means this water by-product is filled with salts. No POTWs are designed to remove dissolved solids such as the salt-filled fracking wastewater. As a result, most salts that enter these publicly owned treatment works are discharged directly into the receiving water bodies near the facilities (Hammer & VanBriesen, p. 4) . Along with salts, organics and heavy metals found in most fracking wastewater by-product disrupt the treatment process because the POTWs are not designed to handle these materials.

Changing Water Table

Regulation will force companies to reuse treated wastewater in their hydraulic fracturing solutions, which will mitigate the intensity of a changing water table. The EPA estimates that fracking consumes 100 to 140 billion gallons of water per year, equal to the water use of over five million people. Regulation will allow for oil companies to use treated wastewater as their source for high-pressure drilling, which will greatly reduce the problem of freshwater availability. A decrease in the water supply due to fracking greatly decreases the water table which allows chemicals to easily seep into the wells of private homeowners and freshwater aquifers. A study by Kassotis et al. (2013) suggests that natural gas extraction may result in higher amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals [EDC’s] in surface and groundwater. In 2005, EDC’s were banned from commercial use by the Safe Water Drinking Act and Clean Water act, with an exemption for hydraulic fracturing use. EDC’s are highly toxic chemicals that pose a large threat to human health, causing a wide variety of illness such as diseases and cancer. Proper regulation will reduce the amount of EDC’s found in our freshwater supply and these unattended chemicals will no longer be a threat to human health if they are no longer used (Kasotis et al., 2013, 1-10). When using treated wastewater in fracking solutions, freshwater is not displaced from the water table, which decreases the potential for chemical seepage into aquifers and wells. A failed regulation in banning EDC’s can be counteracted with a regulation to force oil companies to use treated wastewater in their fracking solutions. If EDC’s and other harmful chemicals see a continued use in fracking solutions, they are less likely to seep into freshwater aquifers and private wells when the water table is unchanged.

Spray-Disposal

Hydraulic fracturing solutions are being improperly disposed of when they are sprayed into the air and come down as chemically-laden precipitation. Spraying wastewater into the air allows natural gas companies to dispose their solutions quicker and cheaper than using wastewater treatment facilities. Galbraith and Henry (2013) state that these solutions contain mineral salts, arsenic, mercury, thallium, chromium and radioactive materials. Coincidentally, residents in surrounding errors have been plagued with numerous debilitating neurological diseases (Galbraith & Henry, 2013, p. A21A).

Centralized Wastewater Treatment Facilities

    Instead of performing on-site recycling/reuse or sending wastewater to POTWs, fracking companies should send their wastewater to nearby centralized wastewater treatment facilities. These centralized wastewater facilities will be designed to handle the contaminants and organic chemicals present in fracking wastewater (Hammer & VanBriesen, 2012, p. 7). These government-funded facilities will be located centrally to surrounding hydraulic fracturing sites to minimize transportation costs. If there is any extra cost to move the wastewater, it can be offset by tax breaks as an incentive for companies to utilize the centralized wastewater facilities. Relying on similar processes to POTWs, centralized treatment includes precipitation and coagulation techniques to remove dissolved solids (Hammer & VanBriesen, 2012, p. 6).

Regulate Today, Cleaner Water Tomorrow

Federal regulation and oversight of hydraulic fracturing industries in the United States will counteract the negative effects that come with unregulated natural gas extraction. Without regulation of hydraulic fracturing, solutions are pumped into the ground that contain highly toxic chemicals, such as EDC’s, which seep into freshwater aquifers and private wells through the cracks in the earth. Along with contamination of drinking water, hydraulic fracturing solutions are not properly cleaned and recycled without regulation. Wealthy stakeholders in fracking industries will expand drilling across the United States unless the federal and state governments intervene to establish specific fracking sites that are environmentally feasible. Regulation will monitor chemical usage found in fracking solutions that are detrimental to surrounding freshwater systems, and oil companies will find easier access to wastewater treatment facilities. When combined, regulations will allow for a cleaner and healthier way to practice hydraulic fracturing.

References

 

Abdalla, C. W., Drohan, J. R., Blunk, K. S., & Edson, J. (2011). Marcellus shale wastewater

issues in Pennslyvania — current and emerging treatment and disposal technologies.

Penn State Extension, 1-9. Retrieved from:

http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/PDFs/marcell

us_wastewater_fact_sheet[1].pdf

 

Carden, A. (2012, January 23). Dimock, PA residents share hydrofracking horror stories. The

Legislative Gazzette. Retrieved from:

http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-c-2012-01-23-81240.113122-Dimock-Pa-res

idents-share-hydrofracking-horror-stories.html

 

Galbraith, K., & Henry, T. (2013, March 28). As fracking proliferates, so do waste water wells.

New York Times, pp. A21A.

 

Gillen, J. L., & Kiviat, E. (2012). Environmental reviews and case studies:

Hydraulic fracturing threats to species with restricted geographic ranges in the eastern

United States. Environmental Practice, 14(4), 320-331.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1466046612000361

 

Grabowski, R., Pappano, S., Crouse, R., … Silva, S. (2006). The cost of clean and safe

water: sustaining our water infrastructure. New England Interstate Water Pollution

Control Commission. 5-35. Retrieved from:

https://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/costofcleanwater.pdf

 

Hammer, R., & VanBriesen, J. (2012). In fracking’s wake: new rules are needed to protect our

health and environment from contaminated wastewater. NRDC: Document. D:

12-05-A. Retrieved from:

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/Fracking-Wastewater-FullReport.pdf

 

Hoffman, J. (2012). Potential health and environmental effects of hydrofracking in the Williston

Basin, Montana. 1-5. Retrieved from:

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html

 

Kassotis, C. D., Tillitt, D. E., Davis, J. W., Hormann, A. M., & Nagel, S. C. (2013). Estrogen

and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and

ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology, 155(3), 1-10.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/en.2013-1697

 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013). Where is all of earth’s water?

Retrieved from: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/wherewater.html

 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Ensuring the safe disposal of

wastewater, stormwater, and other wastes from hydraulic fracturing activities. Natural

gas extraction – hydraulic fracturing. Retrieved from: http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

 

Wiseman, H. (2009). Untested waters: the rise of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production

and the need to revisit regulation. Fordham Environmental Law Review, 20, 115-197.

Retrieved from: http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/frdmev20&div=6&g_sent=1&collecti

on=journals#120

 

Zeller, T. (2010, July 23). EPA considers risks of gas extraction. The New York Times, p. 1-2.

Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/energy-environment/24gas.html?th&emc

=th&_r=1&