1

Self-Debate on Hydraulic Fracture Techniques for Natural Gas Extraction

Garrett Lewis Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi

1.

Introduction
Fossil fuels have driven the world the economy by increasing industrialization,

transportation, and technology to levels never before seen in human history. Dependence and demand continues to climb while the underground reserves slowly diminish. In the last decade, technology has made it possible to extract natural gas and oil from reserves once thought to be inaccessible. The practice, known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has caused a surge in natural gas production while at the same time prompting environmental concerns. This paper weighs the benefits and concerns of fracking and draws conclusions based on the research.

2.

Background of Hydraulic Fracturing

To understand how natural gas is extracted, the process of natural gas formation

must be fully understood. Most of the natural gas reserves found within the Earth have formed over millions of years as organic matter decays, sinks, & settles on continental shelves or ocean basins. Over time, the mud sediment at the bottom hardens and becomes shale. When time, heat, & pressure are applied to the organic matter undergoing anaerobic decomposition fossil fuel deposits are formed. Natural gas is held above the shale at depths of up to 2000-3000m or roughly 1-2 miles beneath the Earths surface. Natural gas has been extracted using traditional wells since the 1840s. These vertical wells drill into the Earth and puncture an area of trapped gas which is then extracted and used for fuel. The concept of fracturing shale to stimulate lackluster wells is also something thats been used since the 1940s. The fracturing allows for otherwise

3 unrecoverable natural gas to be extracted. Although fracking isnt a new concept, the techniques and the technology used have changed dramatically in under a decade. The boom in United States natural gas production has its roots in the Barrett Shale deposits in Texas. Not only was it the site of the first gas well in 1983, but also the first use of horizontal drilling in 1991 (Robbins, 2013). The biggest breakthrough came in 1998 when an independent gas producer named George Mitchell experimented with different methods of extraction with varying degrees of success. Eventually he discovered the right combination of horizontal drilling, proppants, additives, & pressure to maximize productivity (Merrill 2013). The methods were quickly replicated and implemented across the country leading to a significant increase in production. The Barrett Shale underneath Dallas-Fort Worth is the largest staging ground for shale gas extraction in the world (Nicot, 2012). Hydraulic fracturing can be divided into two phases: the drilling phase and the fracking phase. First, a well is dug to a depth of approximately 2000m. The pipe is made of steel and surrounded by cement to prevent any gases from escaping. Once the pipe reaches a depth of 2000m the pipe is turned 90 and positioned into a seam and essentially threaded into the shale. The horizontal drilling continues for an additional 3000m.

Figure 1. Depiction of the process used to break the shale and expose natural gas (Howarth et al, 2011).

5 At the desired location, a perforation gun discharges small explosive charges similar to explosives used in anti-armor ammunition (The Graphic, 2012). Next comes the fracking phase of the operation which maximizes the amount of natural gas recovered. The well is injected with a slurry of about 95% water, 4.5% sand, and .5% additives and upwards 3 to 7 million gallons of water (Schmidt, 2013) are injected into the well at very high pressures. As the pressure builds, the shale fractures causing wide fissures to open and expose more natural gas. The additive fluid lubricates the well and often contains proppants such as sand or ceramic which are used to keep the fissures from closing once they are cracked open. The fracturing of the shale increases the amount of gas produced by a factor of 5 when compared to conventional wells (Robbins, 2013). The waste water is then pumped out of the well and sealed providing natural gas for an estimated 20-30 years. Natural gas pipelines are extensive across the United States with an estimated 1.5 million miles connecting the wells (Weinhold, 2012). The growth of domestic natural gas production has increased drastically from 2% in the year 2000 to 23% in 2010. Natural gas is expected to account for 49% of the U.S. energy needs by the year 2035 (Fry, 2012).

3.

Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing

Hydraulic fracturing increases production and brings many benefits to an

industrialized nation that is struggling to meet energy demand with coal and oil. The biggest benefits of natural gas are economic and environmental by both sustaining the economy and reducing the amount of pollution generated from burning coal. Natural gas

6 is also safer than nuclear power and does not pose a significant long-term risk such as storing spent nuclear fuel rods. a. Energy Independence The technique of hydraulic fracture has shifted the United States from an importer of natural gas to a potential exporter. The U.S. is unique in that the government does not own all of the mineral rights of property owners nor own all of the pipelines. The expansive pipe network connects thousands of wells and can provide the fuel across the county. In 2003, it was thought 38 trillion cubic feet of shale were recoverable in the U.S. but recent estimates have placed the number as high as 1,000 trillion cubic feet; a number that continues to fluctuate as new wells are built and extraction techniques are maximized (Medlock, 2011). By not importing gas from foreign nations, the U.S. is less dependent on any energy crisis that could develop overseas in politically unstable countries. b. Clean Energy By some estimates, replacing coal power plants with natural gas could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% which would drastically reduce the impact of CO2. Natural gas is known as a clean fuel because it produces less pollutants and carbon dioxide when compared to coal and oil. Although natural gas does produce methane its eventually removed from the atmosphere by oxidation forming carbon dioxide and other hydroxyl radicals. Its thought that natural gas can bridge the gap between our demand for energy and eventual technology that will enable us to develop better renewable energy.

7 c. Economic Benefits The economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing are immense. The direct economic value of the gas industry is US$385 billion and accounts for 3 million jobs (Howarth et al, 2011). A pause in production could cause an already unstable economy with a high unemployment rate to become even more vulnerable. In many instances, the individual land owners and citizens have benefited the most from the new drilling techniques. For example, in North Dakota: the unemployment rate is less than half of the national average, oil rig workers can make $70,000 in five months, and land owners in the Bakken Shale are paid $1 million up front and $500,000 annually for 2 decades (Merrill 2013). Aside from individuals profiting from the shale gas growth, corporations are posting huge profits, too. Investment firm Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts (hereafter KKR) invested $312 million in East Resources which operated numerous wells in the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachia. Just 10 months later, KKR sold their stake to Royal Dutch Shell for $4.7 billion; a return-on-investment of 371% (Touryalai, 2012). The money stays in the U.S. instead of going overseas further growing the economy. The abundance of natural gas makes it affordable and sustainable in the shortterm. Oil and coal prices continue to climb on the global market as developing countries consume more and more of the limited resources but domestic natural gas prices have remained low and even stabilized around $2.50 per million BTU because of the increased supply (Schnoor, 2012).

4.

Concerns of Hydraulic Fracturing

The controversy surrounding natural gas fracking is partly because the methods

and techniques used by large corporations are largely unregulated on a governmental level. The shale gas growth has taken place so suddenly that the industry has very little oversight. Fracking consequences run the gamut from toxic waste water, polluted aquifers, and even earthquakes. a. Waste Water Pollution One of the main objections to fracking is the effect it may have on the water supply. The water injected inside the well is later withdrawn and contains numerous contaminants both from elements already in the soil as well as additives to enhance production. Chemical elements such as barium, strontium, bromides, benzene, methane, and radon are all found in the wastewater. There is currently no commonly agreed upon location to treat the waste water. In New York & Pennsylvania, the waste water was initially treated at sewage plants that were neither designed nor created to treat radioactive elements. This led to brominated hydrocarbons which made their way into the drinking water after the chlorination process (Howarth et al, 2011). The propriety fluid injected into the well also contains chemicals such as: naphthalene, formaldehyde, and other volatile organic compounds (Schmidt, 2013). The problem isnt just with treating the wastewater but also with each individual gas well. When the well is in operation, the fluid continues to slowly leak out and stored in on-site ponds or pits. The potential for human error or other unforeseen circumstances could cause the water to seep into the ground water.

9 Perhaps the greatest threat to the drinking water as it relates to fracking is the 2005 Clean Water Act which exempts environmental regulation for hydraulic fracturing because the natural gas is extracted from below the water table (Manuel, 2010). The wastewater has indeed already found its way into the ground water system in some areas because of poor cementing practices which failed to secure the pipe in place (Jewell 2013). b. Induced Seismicity The high pressure exerted by the water into the shale can cause preexisting fault lines within the Earth to become active again with numerous earthquakes reported in the vicinity of injection sites. Perhaps the biggest example of an anthropogenic earthquake was from the 1960s when a 3,671m hole was used to deposit military waste fluid at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado (Hsieh, 1981). The Denver Earthquakes generated a magnitude 5.3 earthquake which caused extensive damage in the area. While no earthquakes of this magnitude have been recorded due to fracking, there have been numerous earthquakes in Arkansas, Ohio, & Oklahoma. The largest known fracking earthquake occurred in the Horn River Basin in Canada where a magnitude 3.8 occurred (Davies, 2013). c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions With the global push for renewable energy and lower CO2 emissions, many have argued that natural gas extraction is a step backwards. The largest by product of natural gas is methane. Despite a shorter residence time in the atmosphere, methane is 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas when compared to carbon dioxide (Weinhold, 2012).

10 Currently several governments offer incentives to develop or use renewable energy. If energy prices within natural gas remain low, it could be more cost effective to delay or postpone renewable energy and continue dependence and reliance on fossil fuels.

5.

Conclusion & Recommendations

This researcher believes there can be a balance between developing natural gas

reserves and keeping toxic element exposure to a minimum. The first step in that direction was the recent EPA decision to phase in new regulations that target air emissions from new fracking sites. Companies have until January 2015 to make the changes that are aimed at reducing methane and other gases that escape from gas wells (Weinhold, 2012). More regulation is also needed as the technology and the risk evolve. There is no doubt an emotive response of the unknown has driven some of the criticism of fracking (Slovic, 1987); however, it seems the industry is barreling forward faster than the regulations can be written and implemented. In the few cases where ground water has been contaminated, laws should be written and applied to prevent a spillage from happening again. Furthermore, facilities should be better designed and equipped to deal with the problem of the waste water treatment. Currently, about 70% of the waste water is reused (Schmidt, 2013) the number should be mandated higher to limit exposure but also to allow for conservation in areas like Texas that occasionally experience regional drought. Geological considerations should be made when considering potential locations to develop natural gas wells. Although the earthquakes generated from fracking appear to be

11 minimal, there are currently no guidelines available that detail which locations are off limits. Since rich shale deposits exist in Arkansas, would it be irresponsible to inject water in the vicinity of the New Madrid fault? If not, would a corporation be liable if an earthquake causes damage to life or property? These are questions that need to be resolved if natural gas fracturing is going to continue. The issue of chemical additives also needs to be resolved since the general public is exposed to at least some risk of contamination. Currently, the substances injected into the well are known by only the corporations and protected under propriety laws similar to how nutritional supplements are exempt from the FDA. For an accurate risk assessment picture the actual chemicals injected into the ground must be known. In the opinion of the researcher, natural gas is both an economic and environmental benefit if proper regulation limits the risk to reasonable levels

12 References Davies, R.J., Foulger, G.R., Mathias, S., Newport, L., Moss, J., Hustoft, S. 2013: Hydraulic fractures: How far can they go? Marine and Petroleum Geology. 43, 519-521. Davies, R.J. 2013: Induced Seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 45, 171-185. Fry, M., Hoeinghaus, D. J., Ponette-Gonzlez, A. G., Thompson, R. La Point,T. W. 2012: Fracking vs faucets: Balancing energy needs and water sustainability at urban frontiers Environmental Science & Technology.. 46 Issue 14, 7444-7445. Nicot, J.P., Scanlon, B.R. 2011: Water use for shale-gas production in Texas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 3580-3586. Hsieh, P. A. 1981: A reservoir analysis of the Denver earthquakes; a case of induced seismicity. Journal of Geophysical Research. 86, Issue B2, 903-920. Howarth, R.W., Ingraffea, A., Engelder, T. 2011: Should fracking stop? Nature. 477; 7364, 271-275. Jewell, S. 2011: Stuck between a rock. The Chemical Engineer. 842, 26-28. Manuel, J. 2010: EPA tackles fracking. Environmental health perspectives, May 2010, 118. Medlock III, K. B. 2011: Impact of shale gas development on global gas markets. Natural Gas & Electricity. 27 Issue 9, 22-28. Merrill, T. 2013: Four questions about fracking. W. Case Western Reserve Law Review. 63 Issue 4, 971-993. Robbins, K. 2013: Awakening the slumbering giant: How horizontal drilling technology

13 brought the endangered species act to bear on hydraulic fracturing. Case Western Reserve Law Review. 63 Issue 4, 1143-1166. Schmidt, C.W. 2013: Estimating waste water impacts from fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives. 121, 117. Schnoor, J.L. 2012: Shale gas and hydrofracturing Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 4686 Slovic, P. 1987: Perception of risk. Science. 236, 280-285. The Graphic: Fracking. Diagram. Engineering & Technology. 6, Issue 12, 10. Touryalai, H.2012: Fueling the fracking boom. Forbes. 190, Issue 7, 103. Weinhold, B. 2012: The future of fracking: New rules target air emissions for cleaner natural gas production. Environmental health perspectives. 7, 272-279.