TO FRACK OR NOT TO FRACKPATRICK PARENTEAU

CORNELL LIBRARY AUTHOR’S SERIESOCTOBER 5, 2012

Safe Drinking Water Act ExemptionThe term ‘underground injection’ – means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and (B) excludes – (i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and (ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities. 42 USC § 1421 (d)(1)

“nd Water Treatment• “Flowback,” also known as “produced water,” is the waste fluid that is returned to the surface after hydraulic fracturing

• Produced water contains fracturing fluids and formation waters (typically brines)– These present potentially major health hazards if improperly managed or if there are

accidents, such as surface spills, natural disasters, leaks, etc.– Brines are ubiquitous in flowback because of the marine origins of the shale– Heavy metals and naturally-occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) may also be

present in flowback, posing further potential health risks• Produced water must be properly disposed of to prevent public health problems

– Many municipal wastewater treatment plants have been designated for disposing of flowback, but are not equipped or designed to handle these fluids, particularly because of high Total Dissolved Solids (from brine), NORMs, & other chemicals

– Underground injection is another option for disposal of “produced water,” but may also create longer-term health risks

Water Use• In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that

70 to 140 billion gallons of water are used to fracture 35,000 wells in the United States each year. This is approximately the annual water consumption of 40 to 80 cities each with a population of 50,000. Fracture treatments in coalbed methane wells use from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of water per well, while deeper horizontal shale wells can use anywhere from 2 to 10 million gallons of water to fracture a single well. The extraction of so much water for fracking has raised concerns about the ecological impacts to aquatic resources, as well as dewatering of drinking water aquifers.

Blowouts• When Chesapeake Energy lost

control of a Marcellus Shale gas well in Pennsylvania on April 19, 2011 an emergency response team from Texas was called in to stop the leak. By the time the team arrived more than 13 hours later, brine water and hydraulic fracturing fluids from the well had spewed across nearby fields and into a creek.

Explosions

Wetzel Ohio 2011 Pearsall Texas January 2012

Earthquakes

GREEN COMPLETION

HoustonFebruary 23, 2012

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews

40 CFR Part 63Targets emissions from compressors, oil storage tanks and other oil-and-gas

sector equipment. Would cut 95 percent of smog-forming and toxic emissions from fracking wells. Requires “green completion” by 2014.

Scientist vs. Scientist

Larry Cathles Robert Howarth

Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas with low and high estimates of fugitive methane emissions, conventional natural gas with low and high estimates of fugitive methane emissions, surface-mined coal, deep-mined coal, and diesel oil. A is for a 20-year time horizon, and B is for a 100-year time horizon.Estimates include direct emissions of CO2 during combustion (blue bars), indirect emissions of CO2 necessary to develop and use the energy source (yellow bars), and fugitive emissions of methane, converted to equivalent value of CO2 as described in the text (gray bars).

Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricityN P Myhrvold and K Caldeira, Environmental Research Letters 2012 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014019

• We show that rapid deployment of low-emission energy systems can do little to diminish the climate impacts in the first half of this century. Conservation, wind, solar, nuclear power, and possibly carbon capture and storage appear to be able to achieve substantial climate benefits in the second half of this century; however, natural gas cannot.

• Delaying the rollout of the technologies is not an option however; the risks of environmental harm will be much greater in the second half of the century and beyond if we continue to rely on coal-based technologies.

“Dependence on natural gas is a delaying tactic. I just don’t understand the logic: We will delay building the energy infrastructure that we need to solve the energy-carbon-climate problem, and build CO2 spewing natural gas plants instead, but you should be thankful that these engines of global warming aren’t as bad as what we could have built.”Dr. Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford U

"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if

we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum

[for safety]. The door will be closed forever."