Hydraulic FracturingJana Rolland, Morgan Hamilton, Josh Medicoff, Morgan Teske, Ari

Getzlaf, Renne Baldwin, Kihan Yoon-Henderson, and Lucas Vianna

● 1947: First experimental hydraulic fracturing treatment

in the USA took place in Kansas

● 1980s-early 90s: Mitchell Energy and Development

Corporation successfully combines horizontal drilling

with hydraulic fracturing

● The combination has resulted in a rapid expansion of

the industry, or a “shale gas revolution"

1. Vertical wellbore is created

2. Once reaching a depth of

2500-3000 meters (~6000 feet),

the drill turns and extends

horizontally for ~1.5 km

3. When complete, perforating

guns create hole through the

well wall and into the shale

Process typically takes 4-5 months.

To create fractures, water

combined with proppants and

solvents are pumped through

the well at 5000 psi.

The process may be repeated as

many as 20 times in a single

well in order to access large

amounts of shale gas.

Major Arguments Pro:

● Abundance of supply

● Lower natural gas prices

● Cleaner environmental

footprint

● Economic development

opportunities

Anti:

● Technological sophistication

● Environmental degradation

(and related public health

concerns)

● Increased seismicity

● Unclear profitability

Economics Of Unconventional Natural Gas

BC Unconventional Monthly Raw Gas Production

Retrieved from:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/clean-fossil-fuels/natural-gas/shale-and-tight-resources-canada/british-

columbias-shale-and-tight-resources/17692

Increased Supply = Decreased Price

● Individual household: ~ $300 decrease

● Industry: cheaper production of

petrochemicals and agrochemicals

● Price decrease to industry felt by consumers

Monthly Average Natural Gas Spot Prices in Canada

Retrieved from: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/natural-gas-facts/20067

Job Creation In North Dakota in Relation to Fracked Oil

Retrieved from: https://www-annualreviews-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/10.1146/annurev-resource-100814-125023

Hydraulic Fracking, Environment, and Climate Change

The “bridge fuel.”

Josh Medicoff

Greenhouse Gas Emissions● Upon combustion, less

CO2

● Methane v. carbon dioxide

● 60% increase in US will displace coal and oil

● Methane, a problematic greenhouse gas

● Substantial fugitive emissions ○ Flowback period ○ Drill out ○ Venting/leaks

● 3.6%-7.9% CH4 emitted into atmosphere

Climate Change ● Downstream emissions lower than

oil and coal

● Danger of methane emissions ○ Short term ○ Long term

● Difficulty of tracking fugitive emissions ○ 1.5x - 5x higher than reported○ Tech innovation?

Fracturing site at Jonah field, Wyoming, USA,

Air Quality ● Lower downstream

emissions of ○ SO2; NOx; mercury

● Reduction in toxic coal ash

● Fewer secondary pollutants

● Upstream air quality

● Production of infrastructure worsens air quality

● Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emitted post-completion○ Benzene, toluene ○ Radiation

Induced Seismicity

The product is less CO2 emitting, but the structural conditions of

creating this product are worse.

● Earthquakes generated by reducing effective stress of a fault zone and releasing energy

● In fracturing, occurs by: ○ Hydraulic fracturing itself (less

intense) ○ Wastewater disposal (more

intense)

● Measures to reduce seismicity exist

Oklahoma, USA. Red -> seismic events, black -> wastewater volume. Scanlon et al.

Hydraulic Fracturing Water Use

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2016

Water Footprint

● Gas: 390,000 to 6.27 million gallons per well

● Oil: 70,000 to 2 million gallons of water per

well

● Since 2000 hydraulic fracturing has increased

use in oil/gas production from 2% to 50%

● Increase in water use per well rose by up to

770%

● Increase in production requires an increase in

water usage - predicted to significantly

increase w/ time

Distribution?

Source: Kondash, Lauer, Vengosh, 2018

Source: Piemonte, 2016

Wastewater ○ Previously injected hydraulic fluid

■ Proprietary chemical mix

■ Surfactants, biocides and even toxic

substances like volatile organic

compounds and carcinogens

○ Produced water = briny water that has long

been underground and comes up during

operation of the well

■ Salts, toxic elements, organic matter,

and naturally occurring radioactive

material Source: Canada’s Oil and Natural Gas Producers, 2017

Public Health Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing

Public Health Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing● Water contamination health

risks

● Non-contamination health risks

● Water scarcity considerations

● Governmental regulation and

risk avoidance potential

Rocky View Weekly (2013)

http://www.frackingcanada.ca/fracking-calgary/

Public Health Risk Via Water Contamination● How is the water

contaminated?

● Effects of Contamination

● Instances of

Contamination

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/environmental-impacts-water/

Public Health Risk from Other Fracking Implications● Fracking site dangers

● Air pollution

● Noise pollution

Komerek & Cseh, 2017

https://wvutoday.wvu.edu/stories/2016/12/22/noise-pollution-from-oil-and-gas-development-may-harm-human-health

Governmental Regulation of Public Health Risks● Regulation considerations

● Examples:

○ US

○ China

○ France

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2187718/chinese-demonstrators-rage-sichuan-government-and-blame-fracking

Political Aspects of FrackingRenne Baldwin

https://upfront.scholastic.com/issues/2016-17/022017/the-fight-over-fracking.html

https://thenarwhal.ca/what-is-fracking-in-canada/

Moratoriums aren’t as strong as they look

Indigenous sovereignty is not respected.

https://www.cgai.ca/first_nations_lng_canada_and_the_politics_of_anti_pipeline_protests

The United States exports more natural gas than it imports.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38152

“Together… we could be supplying friends and

allies… giving th

em an alternative to the kind of

oil they might buy th

at has strings attached,

whether it's Russian oil, o

r Saudi oil, or Iranian

oil or anyone else's.”

“Canada’s energy program can

compliment the US.”

- Christopher Sands

Case Study: Hydraulic Fracturing in British Columbia

& Treaty 8 territory

Background information ● BC produces 25% of all natural gas in

Canada, and Canada ranks 4th globally in

natural gas production

● In 2011, production of unconventional gas

surpassed conventional natural gas

production in the province

● Currently 85% of natural gas production in

BC is from unconventional gas sources

Source: BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, 2019

Conventional versus unconventional gas production in BC

Source: BCOGC, 2016 as reproduced in BC Ministry of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, 2019

Development of Hydraulic Fracturing in B.C.● Hydraulic fracking “boom” in Northeastern

B.C. beginning in the mid 2000s

● Rapid sale of petroleum and gas tenures by

the Province to industry

● 4 major shale gas “plays” in the Province:

○ The Horn River Basin

○ The Liard Basin

○ The Cordova Embayment

○ The Montney Formation

● These four major shale gas plays are located

within Treaty 8 territory

Source: BCOGC, 2018

Petroleum and natural gas

tenures on Fort Nelson First

Nation Territory, 2006

versus 2013

Source: Garvie, Lowe, & Shaw, 2015

Treaty 8 First Nations and Hydraulic Fracturing● The BC Oil and Gas Commission is

responsible for ensuring First Nations

rights are being respected

● Consultation takes place during the

permitting process on a permit by

permit basis

● BCOGC consultation has been

critiqued for:

○ Lack of a landscape view of the

cumulative effects of fracking

○ Not taking concerns raised by

Treaty 8 First Nations seriously

when making development

decisions

The Fort Nelson First Nation● Traditional territories contain 3 out of the 4

major shale gas plays (Horn River, Liard, &

Cordova)

● Experienced a rapid expansion of the

fracking industry

● Has expressed concerns over habitat

fragmentation, water acquisition and

contamination by the industry, air pollution,

community exposure to toxic substances,

threats to wildlife, and increased seismic

activity due to fracking Screenshot from Fort Nelson First Nation website - the

nation has many independent projects researching and

monitoring the effects of fracking on their territories

Fort Nelson First Nation, Fracking & Concerns over WaterWater acquisition:

● Concerns over withdrawals

○ Once water is contaminated,

cannot re-enter the system

○ Wastewater stored in deep

injection wells

● Successfully got Province to cancel

water license granted to natural gas

company Nexen

Water contamination:

● Lands Department has initiated extensive

water monitoring projects

● Community members no longer feel safe

drinking the water, or ingesting the animals

that drink the water => a threat to

traditional foodways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6of6SAvFSvg

Blueberry River First Nation Cumulative Impacts Trial

“The territory that we live in, and that we, our parents and grandparents

have always relied upon is now so developed, it is becoming unrecognizable

to us. We have almost nothing left to pass on to our future generations.”

- Blueberry River First Nation statement re: cumulative impacts trial

Case Study

Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania

The Marcellus Shale● Located beneath Ohio, West Virginia,

Pennsylvania and New York.

Location of all hydraulic fracturing/ horizontal

drilling wells in PA (2014).

Source: Beleche and Cintina (2018)

● Northeastern PA has the highest

production potential for natural gas due

to the thickness of the Marcellus Shale at

this location.

● In PA, gas production from this

shale represents nearly 40% of total

hydraulic fracturing gas production

in the US.

● Estimates suggest the Marcellus Shale

holds about 410.3 trillion cubic feet of

natural gas.

Social Implications

● A significant increase in EIM has been observed within

the specific counties that fracking has occurred in.

Early Infant Mortality

Risk Ratio of EIM

Source: Bubsy and Mangano (2017)

● Evidence was found which supports the

contamination of drinking water by radioactive

material, including radium as a cause of the

increased risk.

● Babies born 4 years after fracking expansion

(2007-2010) in counties with most wells were

28% more likely to die in the first month than

babies born in those counties in the 4 years

before fracking began (2003-2006).

Jobs and Capital● Hydraulic Fracturing has created roughly

245,000 new direct and indirect jobs in PA.

Source: Sica and Huber (2017)

● 88% of the wells are owned by publicly

traded companies that distribute profits

through a global network of investors.

● While there are some marginal local

economic benefits (job creation), a

significant amount of wealth and profits

flows elsewhere and often out of the country.

● Fracking associated with lower unemployment,

higher labor force participation and employment

when comparing Pennsylvania to the state of New

York.

Conclusion