Dear Shale Protestor,

So what exactly is the risk that shale development poses to drinking water?

The short answer is there is none. 

The longer, but more accurate answer is: there is no risk to drinking water if the wells are properly constructed, if the water used to drill and fracture is properly sourced when it is put into the ground, and if the water that flows back and is produced is properly treated when it comes out of the ground.

So let's examine the conditional statements one at a time in order.

1. Well Construction

Regulations exist for every step of this process.  They vary by state.  In states with a history of oil and gas development, well construction regulations are well defined, no pun intended, and have been for a long time.  In states with less history of oil and gas development, regulations are being rewritten to make sure that they provide the necessary protection.  New York, for example, if it goes forward with high volume hydraulic fracturing, will require two strings of casing cemented through the aquifer.

2. Source Water (Water Going Into the Ground)

Sourcing water for well fluids has been the subject of much scrutiny.  I had the pleasure of speaking with John Veil, head of Veil Environmental Engineering and former Manager of the Water Policy Program in the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory, who just last week made a presentation on this topic at the Society of Produced Water’s January conference in Houston, TX.  His estimates show that expected aquifer use for shale development is minimal compared to existing large users like electric power generation, irrigation, livestock and drinking water supply.  As industry works to recycle drilling and fracture fluids, there will be less demand for water and less potential for stress on the aquifer.

So that leaves the one concern that my East Coast friend voiced, which is legitimate in my opinion.  Where does all that water go when it comes back out of the ground?  This is really two questions:  Where does the flowback water go?  Where does the produced water go?

3. Flowback Water (Initial Water Coming Out of the Ground)

Flowback water is handled in three ways.  It is recycled, injected underground or treated and disposed of by a treatment plant. Recycling is a great option and companies are innovating constantly to do more of it. Underground injection is also a useful option, especially in the early going because it is highly regulated (beyond reproach) and readily available, although expensive. 

Option 3: treating and disposing of flowback using publically owned treatment works (POTWs) has not worked very well.  Pennsylvania tried it, but the public outcry was enormous.  POTWs are designed to take in wastewater and separate it into solids, which are sold as fertilizer or landfilled, and clean water, which is discharged into surface water via a federal permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - NPDES - permit). 

Even though POTWs are designed to treat all kinds of things mixed into water like solvents, pesticides, paint, grease (such as food oil from restaurants), lead, copper, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), benzene  and PERC (a dry cleaning fluid), the public is not convinced that they can handle flowback water.  The New York Times ran a series of articles, written by Ian Urbina, which called this practice into question, and that is when all the shouting started, common sense shut down and shale development took a black eye.

OK, so take option 3 off the table.  Pennsylvania effectively has because they banned flowback treatment at 15 POTWs.  It’s too bad because it was a source of income for the POTWs and cost savings for the ratepayers, but in a way, I agree with my friend.  The risks are too high, especially the risk of endless controversy.

That leaves just one unanswered question.  What happens to the water associated with the production of hydrocarbons which is unavoidable, produced water?

4. Produced Water (Water Coming Out of the Ground Over the Lifetime of the Well)

My last blog pointed out that oil and gas companies are highly skilled at processing produced water and using it in ways that have negligible environmental impact.  They have to be because many of them are really produced water companies, handling 10 barrels of water for every barrel of hydrocarbon in aggregate in the United States (individual company figures will vary widely). 

But here’s the real point I want to make.  For physical reasons, most hydraulically fractured shale wells will produce very little water and are expected to produce very little water over the life of the well.  Basically the gas molecules, which are very small, will flow, but the water molecules, which are large, will be blocked. 

All that nasty water which produced water companies -- I mean the oil and gas industry -- process every day could be a relic of the past … if we develop the shale.   That’s a game changer.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York, New York

Dear Shale Protestor,

A good friend of mine, a smart guy who has always lived on the East Coast, vehemently opposes hydraulic fracturing.  He summarizes his concern like this – “If the water is laced with chemicals when it’s injected into the ground and it comes back polluted, then what?  The short term benefits of shale development are not worth the possibility of polluting drinking water.”

I say, where has he been? 

In the United States, oil and gas companies produce more water than oil and gas.  For every barrel of oil they recover, they must produce 10 barrels of water.  Oil and gas is a byproduct of water production.  Not the other way around.  In other words, when oil and gas is produced, it brings a lot of water with it.  In the United States, oil and gas producers process approximately 2 billion gallons of water every day. That is the roughly double the amount of water New York City treats every day. 

Produced water quality varies widely.  Some is so clean that it can be drunk right from the well.  Think I’m kidding?  Water produced from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is that clean. 

But that’s not the point.  Most produced water is not clean.  In fact it is seriously nasty stuff. Nobody would drink it.  It may contain any number of naturally occuring chemicals in any combination and concentration, including: salt (produced water is often referred to as brine), a variety of carbonate and sulfate scales, metals (zinc, lead, iron, manganese and barium are common), NORMs - naturally occurring radioactive material  like radium-226 and radium-228, and finely dispersed hydrocarbons. 

Produced water discharge is regulated by state because water usage issues vary by state.  For example, arid states in the West view produced water as beneficial, while temperate states in the East view produced water as waste.  In general, though, if produced water cannot be treated to pass a toxicity test -- requirements vary by state, but one test several states use is the survival rate of fish living in treated, produced water for up to 96 hours -- then it has to be injected underground. 

When produced water is injected underground, which most of it is, it never mixes with surface water. It is either injected back into the reservoir it came from, which serves to maintain pressure and increase oil recovery, or it is injected into disposal wells.  In either case, it is not discharged to surface and mixed with drinking water.

So here is my point.  In the United States, the oil and gas industry is really a produced water industry.  The industry is highly experienced and skilled at handling billions of gallons of produced water every day without polluting drinking water. Produced water is naturally nastier than fracturing fluid -- which although we may not know the precise formulation, yet, is basically water, sand and pool chemicals -- so why is there so much fear about oil and gas development polluting drinking water?

Till next time, 

Energy Mom
New York, New York

Dear Shale Protestor,

My apartment smells like a gasoline station. The fuel oil truck is making a delivery. Cold winter temperatures mean that the fumes released during the delivery accumulate at ground level near my apartment on the second floor. Cold winter temperatures also mean that my apartment building burns more fuel oil.  When it’s really cold, my building gets one tanker truck load every two weeks.

My building burns Number 6 fuel oil, also known as bunker fuel or resid or just plain old refinery bottoms.  Number 6 is what is left over after the more valuable cuts, like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, are refined out of crude oil. New York State burns 20% of the fuel oil that is used residentially in the United States, more than any other State in the country. The entire Northeast -- including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut -- burn 85% of the fuel oil used in the United States. This is a legacy system left over from the 1950s when America consumed domestic oil and prices were controlled by the government.

My building, which was built in 1907, originally burned coal.  Like many other buildings here in New York City, my building is a “pre-war," desirable because the design is classic and the construction is sturdy.  It has 55 apartments that are all heated with steam radiators.  The steam comes from a boiler, which was converted to fuel oil sometime after World War II.  Advances in catalytic cracking technology, which enabled the manufacture of high octane aviation fuel essential to the Allies war effort, fostered surging demand for gasoline after the war.

It was an efficient system when it was built. Fuel oil was essentially a waste stream leftover from refining gasoline. Burning it in ship boilers at sea, in electric utilities or in buildings seemed like a good way to get rid of it. Refiners priced it right, too, at only a few cents per gallon. But it’s not cheap or efficient anymore. Today crude oil costs $100/barrel and most of it is imported from other countries, including OPEC. In the winter a week’s worth of fuel oil costs my building $7500, which goes up or down depending on the latest foreign flare up.

My building is a good candidate for conversion to natural gas. However, that’s not going to happen easily or quickly despite abundant, cheap natural gas in the Northeast. New York City does not have enough capacity in the neighborhood natural gas distribution system to convert building heat from fuel oil to natural gas, and the grassroots support for such a system may never materialize. Shale protestors are making such a fuss about high volume hydraulic fracturing that many people are just avoiding natural gas altogether.

So here we sit. My building burns foreign oil because of a 50-year-old legacy system, which may never change because protestors think that oil and gas development will pollute water and ruin small towns. The last time the fumes were so overpowering in my apartment, the fill connection had a leak. The building never figured out how much leaked, or exactly where it went, but I guess it doesn’t matter because I get my water from the Catskills. It smells like the oil line is leaking again. 

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom
New York, New York