Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports
Published in: Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports 1/2015

01-03-2015 | Energy-Water Nexus (A Stillwell, Section Editor)

Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Authors: Yusuke Kuwayama, Sheila Olmstead, Alan Krupnick

Published in: Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports | Issue 1/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The academic literature has lagged both industry and public opinion in measuring and characterizing potential water quantity and quality concerns related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking). However, the science behind fracking’s water impacts experienced its own boom during the 2010s. In this paper, we address this critical emerging environmental and energy issue, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge, with a particular focus on academic journal articles that have been published in the past five years. These studies have generally found that the water quantity impacts of shale gas and tight oil development are, on average, not significantly worse than for their conventional counterparts, though the specific location and timing of withdrawals for energy development matter. On the other hand, recent findings also suggest that the water quality concerns associated with fracking may be more serious than water quantity concerns.
previous article Water for Energy: Inconsistent Assessment Standards and Inability to Judge Properly
next article Energy Intensity of Water End-Uses

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
1.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release, 2014.
2.
King G.E., Hydraulic Fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional oil and gas wells. , in Society of Petroleum Engineers Fracturing Technology Conference 2012, SPE 152596: The Woodlands, Texas. p. 80.
3.
Webster J. Going Global: Tight Oil Production, Leaping out of North America and onto the World Stage. in U.S. Energy Information Administration Energy Conference 2014: Washington, D.C.
4.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Drilling Productivity Report for Key Tight Oil and Shale Gas Regions, 2014, U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington.
5.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries outside the United States, 2013: Washington, D.C.
6.
Veil J, Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, Final Report, A.N.L. U.S. Department of Energy, Editor 2010: Argonne, IL.
7.
Nicot J-P et al. Source and fate of hydraulic fracturing water in the Barnett shale: a historical perspective. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(4):2464–71.
8.
Goodwin S et al. Water intensity assessment of shale gas resources in the Wattenberg field in northeastern Colorado. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(10):5991–5.CrossRef
9.
Gregory KB, Vidic RD, Dzombak DA. Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements. 2011;7(3):181–6.CrossRef
10.
Vengosh A et al. A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(15):8334–48.
11.
Kenny J, et al., Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005, U.S.G. Survey, Editor 2009: Reston, VA.
12.
Jiang M, Hendrickson CT, VanBriesen JM. Life cycle water consumption and wastewater generation impacts of a Marcellus shale gas well. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(3):1911–20.
13.
Gordon, D. and K. Garner, Underestimating Oil and Water Challenges in the Northern Great Plains, 2014, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
14.
North Dakota State Water Commission, Facts about North Dakota Fracking and Water Use, N.D.S.W. Commission, Editor 2014: Bismarck.
15.
Mitchell A, Small M, Casman EA. Surface water withdrawals for Marcellus shale gas development: performance of alternative regulatory approaches in the Upper Ohio River Basin. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(22):12669–78.
16.
Murray KE. State-scale perspective on water use and production associated with oil and gas operations, Oklahoma. US Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(9):4918–25.
17.
Nicot J-P, Scanlon BR. Water use for shale gas production in Texas. US Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(6):3580–6.
18.
Best LC, Lowry CC. Quantifying the potential effects of high-volume water extractions on water resources during natural gas development: Marcellus shale. NY Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies. 2014;1:1–16.
19.
Entrekin S et al. Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ. 2011;9:503–11.
20.
Anderson A., et al., Water/Energy Nexus, 2011, National Petroleum Council
21.
Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Water Use in Deep Shale Gas Exploration, 2012.
22.
Clark CE, Horner RM, Harto CB. Life cycle consumption for shale gas and conventional natural gas. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(20):11829–36.
23.
Goodwin S et al. Life cycle analysis of water use and intensity of oil and gas recovery in Wattenberg field. Colo Oil Gas J. 2012;110(5):48–59.
24.
Grubert EA, Beach FC, Webber ME. Can switching fuels save water? A life cycle quantification of freshwater consumption for Texas coal- and natural gas-fired electricity. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(045801):11.
25.
International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas, 2012: Paris, France.
26.
Laurenzi IJ, Jersey GR. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption of Marcellus shale gas. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(9):4896–903.
27.
McMahon J, Price S. Water and energy interactions. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2011;36:163–91.CrossRef
28.
Mielke E, L.D. Anadon and V. Narayanamurti, Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion 2010, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
29.
Moniz E., H. Jacoby, and A. Meggs, The Future of Natural Gas: An Interdisciplinary MIT study 2011, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
30.
Scanlon B.R. R.C. Reedy, and J.-P. Nicot, Comparison of Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing for Unconventional Oil and Gas versus Conventional Oil. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014. Article ASAP.
31.
World Economic Forum and Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Energy Vision Update 2009: Thirsty Energy: Water and Energy in the 21st Century, 2008: Geneva, Switzerland.
32.
Mantell M.E., Deep Shale Natural Gas and Water Use, Part Two: Abundant, Affordable, and Still Water Efficient, 2010, Chesapeake Energy Corporation: Oklahoma City, OK.
33.
Olmstead SM et al. Shale Gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;110(13):4962–7.CrossRef
34.
Papoulias DM, Velasco AL. Histopathological analysis of fish from Acorn Fork Creek, Kentucky exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid releases. Southeast Nat. 2013;12(4):92–111.
35.
Vidic, R.D., et al., Impact of Shale Gas Development on Regional Water Quality. Science, 2013. 340(6134).
36.
Barbot E et al. Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(6):2562–9.CrossRef
37.
Haluszczak LO, Rose AW, Kump LR. Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus Gas wells in Pennsylvania. USA Appl Geochem. 2013;28:55–61.CrossRef
38.
Pennsylvania State University and College of Agricultural Sciences, Shaping Proposed Changes to Pennsylvania's Total Dissolved Solids Standard: A Guide to the Proposal and the Commenting Process, 2010, 2010: University Park, PA.
39.
Glazer YR et al. Potential for using energy from flared gas for on-site hydraulic fracturing wastewater treatment in Texas. Environ Sci Techno Lett. 2014;1:300–4.
40.
Horton S. Disposal of hydrofracking waste fluid by injection into subsurface aquifers triggers earthquake swarm in central Arkansas with potential for damaging earthquake. Seismol Res Lett. 2012;83(2):250–60.CrossRef
41.
Frolich C. Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett shale. Texas Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(35):13934–8.CrossRef
42.
Lutz BD, Lewis AN, Doyle MW. Generation, transport, and disposal of wastewater associated with Marcellus shale gas development. Water Resour Res. 2013;49(2):647–56.
43.
Zhang T et al. Co-precipitation of radium with barium and stronium sulfate and its impact on the fate of radium during treatment of produced water from unconventional gas extraction. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(8):4596–603.
44.
Ferrar KJ et al. Assessment of effluent contaminants from three facilities discharching Marcellus shale wastewater to surface waters in Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(7):3472–81.
45.
Wilson JM, Briesen JMV. Source water changes and energy extraction activities in the Monongahela River, 2009-2012. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(21):12575–82.
46.
Weltman-Fahs M, Taylor JM. Hydraulic fracturing and brook trout habitat in the Marcellus shale region: potential impacts and research needs. Fisheries. 2014;38(1):4–15.CrossRef
47.
Warner NR et al. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci Technol. 2013;47(20):11849–57.
48.
Jr., G.A.B..., et al., Hydrualic “fracking”: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern? Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 2014. 33(8): p. 1679–1689.
49.
Krupnick, A., H. Gordon, and S. Olmstead, Pathways to Dialogue: What the Experts Say about the Environmental Risks of Shale Gas Development. RFF Report Resources for the Future: Washington, DC.
50.
Engelder T, Cathles LM, Bryndzia LT. The fate of residual treatment water in gas shale. J Unconv Oil Gas Resour. 2014;7:33–48.
51.
Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, 2009: U.S. Department of Energy.
52.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming, 2011: Ada, OK.
53.
Wright, P., et al., Groundwater-quality and Quality-control Data for Two Monitoring Wells near Pavillion, Wyoming, April and May 2012, 2012, U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA.
54.
Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta's Energy Reserves 2010 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2011-2020, 2010, Energy Resources Conservation Board: Calgary, Alberta.
55.
Fontenot BE et al. An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett shale formation. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(17):10032–40.
56.
Darrah TH et al. Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett shales. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(39):14076–81.
57.
Jackson RB et al. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(28):11250–5.
58.
Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR. Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(20):8172–6.
59.
Warner NR et al. Geochemical and isotopic variations in shallow groundwater in areas of the Fayetteville shale development. North-Central Arkansas Appl Geochem. 2013;35:207–20.CrossRef
60.
Glassman D., et al., The Water-Energy Nexus: Adding Water to the Energy Agenda, 2011, World Policy Institute and EBG Capital.
61.
62.
Grubert E. and S. Kitasei, How Energy Choices Affect Fresh Water Supplies: A Comparison of U.S. Coal and Natural Gas, 2010, World Watch Institute: Washington, DC.
63.
Pate R., et al., Overview of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the Emerging Energy Demands on Water Resources, 2007, Sandia National Labroatories: Albuquerque, NM.
64.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Inderdependency of Energy and Water, December 2006, 2006: Washington, DC.
65.
Wu M., et al., Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline, 2009, Argonne National Laboratory: Lemont, IL.
Metadata
Title
Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
Authors
Yusuke Kuwayama
Sheila Olmstead
Alan Krupnick
Publication date
01-03-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2196-3010
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-014-0023-4