Risks of contamination by toxic chemicals strongly drive public fear of the hydraulic fracturing operations (commonly known as fracking) used to capture natural gas and oil from shale. The public fears known chemicals (such as acids and biocides that are toxic) as well as the unknown chemicals hidden behind claims of confidential business information.
These fears, together with a wider array of concerns about the environmental and community impacts of shale energy operations, translate into the potential loss of companies’ social license to operate. There's a possibility that these concerns could also lead to increased numbers of bans and moratoria both in the United States and around the globe.
Oil and gas producers have made sizeable strides in disclosing many of the chemicals. But three major questions remain substantially unaddressed:
- First, and most importantly, do producers have systems in place to evaluate whether they are using more toxic chemicals than necessary?
- Second, what are producers doing to encourage their suppliers to provide safer alternatives?
- Third, what tools can suppliers use to develop and market safer alternatives?
The economic benefits from smarter management of chemicals include lower costs when fewer chemicals are used, reduced environmental damage and litigation risk from operating errors and accidents. Another potential benefit: reduced delay on projects that might arise from community opposition.
The oil and gas industry understandably downplays the hazards from fracturing chemicals. It stresses they are a very small percentage of the fluids going down the bore hole — approximately 1 percent or less— and these chemicals are commonly found in household products. This rationale ignores scale and life cycle.
Millions of gallons of fluid (mainly water) are used for fracturing, so for a single well thousands of gallons of chemicals will be hauled to the job site and stored on location -- then pumped down the hole. For example, a fracturing operation using three million gallons of water would likely use 15,000 - 30,000 gallons of chemicals. Multiply this by thousands of wells drilled in major shale plays and you'll get the picture. Some of these fluids will return to the surface and require storage, treatment and disposal. The greatest contamination risks appear to stem from spills on the surface and from poorly constructed wells.
Here’s a five-part prescription the energy industry should follow to lower fracking’s chemical impact and address community concerns with more meaningful public disclosure.
1. Develop a chemical reduction program. Relatively few shale energy producers publicly describe their programs for reducing and eliminating worrisome chemicals. For example, Encana has established a Responsible Products Program. Through its Responsible Product Assessment Tool that taps government toxicity databases, Encana assesses chemicals and decides whether to eliminate them or reduce their risks. Encana prohibits the use of any hydraulic fracturing fluid products containing diesel, 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE) or benzene and has determined that none of its fracturing products contain arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead or mercury.
Next Page: Chesapeake Energy's Green Frac program
While the reduction in
While the reduction in chemical use will help reduce pollution of ground water from chemicals, it is the stuff that is in the rock, the salts and heavy metals that get stirred up by fracking that should be a bigger concern.
Another concern is that according to their own industry sources 6% of all fracking wells leak methane into the air when they are new. Since methane is 200 times worse that CO2 for global warming, any benefit from burning gas instead of oil or coal is dwarfed by the damage of the leaking methane. As wells get used they will leak more than the initial 6%. In addition they vent the wells at the beginning to get rid of impurities letting vast amounts of gas into the atmosphere.
Fracking is an environmental nightmare doing far more harm than good.
Here in PA we already have an environmental legacy from coal mining, now we can add the damage of fracking. In our state more than 75% of homes and businesses use well water, pollute that and where will we get our water?
I cannot resist responding to
I cannot resist responding to A. Berg who sees nothing "green" about fracking. Does he see any benefits in using natural gas over other fossil fuels? Has he any idea how we will fuel our economy until alternatives are available on a cost-effective basis. Has he any idea how our economy will stay competitive in the world if we don't rely on cost-effective sources?
I think his mind is boggled, so he has not taken time to look at our economy and our energy situation in a realistic way.
I do see many wrong things
I do see many wrong things with your comment Mr or Mrs Hansen. Our economy is fueled energy sources;but cheaper to extract does not make it a good excuse. If you ever get the chance watch the documentary "gas land " and than tell me that you truly believe that the risks out weigh the benefits. It is easy to say" go ahead, let them drill its for the good of the nation". But to have your water catch on fire because there is large quantities of methane gas or see a cocktail of chemicals, ranging from arsenic to stone solvents , run out of your kitchen tap water is a whole different story. What you are supporting is harming your own people. Perhaps since its out of sight you can keep it out of mind right.
PS: The pumping of toxic chemicals deep in to earth where it sips into drinking water is in no way environmentally friendly.
No good deed goes unpunished.
No good deed goes unpunished.
As proven by the past few years of activism, and the comments here from A. Berg, there is little value for most companies to be more thorough in reporting. Those who believe it is inherently very bad for the environment regardless of actual results or statistical risk assessment will always find another reason to protest fracking. It would be my guess that many organizations know they will have to devote a lot of resources (energy and money) to legal actions in response to any more details they provide. That is the basis for local and federal regulations. It isn't that many don't want to be up front, it's the real costs they will be subjected to that they can only justify when they have no other choice. There may be a few bad players out there, but not most.
It's also my guess that they have their hands full (and attorneys busy) with the existing fabricated claims of groundwater contamination that are not fully supported by science. Note that 'fully' supported is a reference to the fact that no conclusion is indisputably supported by science. Surely it isn't an unintended consequence that those who oppose ANY use of extracted fuels (the anti-carbon lobby) see such costs as one way to force their viewpoint.
Responsible corporations typically balance their public responsibility with the reality of how their actions will be 'rewarded' by activists.
There's nothing Green or
There's nothing Green or Sustainable about fracking. I'm sorry, but I don't really see what this article is doing at GreenBiz. The issues with fracking practices are huge (not to mention that its 'old technology' they're trying to push) and this article simply feels like a PR attempt to try and reduce the public's adversion to it.
Are they still exempt from Clean Air and Clean Water Acts(or similar non-US regulations)? Are they finally willing to more readily accept responsibility and accountability when surrounding groundwater is contaminated (or other environment, animal or human health issues start popping up) instead of spending millions or billions on lawyers trying to avoid being held accountable at all costs?
It continuous to boggle my mind that anybody still thinks its a good idea to invest in such risky, non-sustainable 20th century technologies when the alternatives are all around us. And even more so, why we as citizens accept that new licences are given out. Personally, I would be all for a ban of these practices. That should stimulate investments being made in actual renewable and sustainable forms of energy.