Hydraulic Fracturing: Managing expectations “Wat er we going to do?”
A presentation by Sophia Wilson, Salomé Sané, Alec Francis, Paige Wheaton, Stephen Shubert, Stephen Alonze, Moses Keng, and Jamieson Cole
Overview: What is Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking)?
By Jamieson Cole
What is hydraulic Fracturing?
● Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking”, is a technique used in the extraction of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
● The method involves injecting; water, sand and a variety of chemicals into a well under very high pressures. This creates new fissures in the bedrock rock as well as expanding and connecting existing fissures to better increase the reach and flow of fossil fuels into the well.
Where are natural gas deposits globally?
Figure: Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 249-264.
The Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing
● Increased efficiency leads to lower cost for both the industry and the consumer. This can lead decreased reliance in the harmer coal industry.
● Natural gas can hypothetically produce less than 50% of the emissions of coal.
● Supposed economic growth in the extraction area, creating jobs.
The Negatives of Hydraulic Fracturing
● The lowered cost and impact of “fracking” can provide less of an incentive for switch to renewable forms of energy.
● Hydraulic fracturing uses a staggering amount of water and contaminates the water it uses
● The water energy nexus- should Hydraulic Fracturing be allowed to extract this much water when other portions of society are in need?
The Politics of Hydraulic Fracturing
By Sophia Wilson
Outline of the political implications
1) Why benefits often overshadow
harms
2) Regulation as a critical limitation
and reality
3) The power of public opinion
Image: Kurzgesagt. (2031, September 3) . Fracking Explained: Opportunity or Danger? [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA
Why the costs often outweigh the benefits
Lauded Benefits
● National Energy Independence and Security ● A boon for new economic development and job creation,
particularly for nations in the global south ● Acting as a transition fuel while lowering emissions
Image: Wednesday Wit. (ND) Whats up with that? Retreived from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/08/wednesday-wit-cartoon-by-josh/
Hidden Harms: ● The cost of creating infrastructure and
regulation is hard to foresee● The cost of environmental degradation is
often not given equal weight ● Planning for how investment in hydraulic
fracturing might impede a shift to alternative energies is often not discussed
But the ability of nations to realize benefits rests on the efficacy of
regulation!
The importance of regulation
● Regulation and monitoring is needed at every single stage of development from start
to finish or there to minimize impacts to the environment and communities
● Regulation needs to be context specific but who exactly should make that regulation
is unclear
○ Who has jurisdiction over subsurface materials?
○ Who sets baseline requirements? Who should create them? How much
autonomy and responsibility should smaller communities have?
○ What influence does the industry have in policy?
● Even when there is some consensus as to the actor, creating regulation is complex
because of the unique characteristics of drilling sites
Image credit: MediSrpout (ND). Why is the industry making health IT so complicat
The influence of public opinion
● Communities are genuinely concerned about the health and environmental impacts
● Multiple examples worldwide where communities have been adversely affected even with regulations in place
● ‘Not In My Backyard’ movement in the States, protests in Russia, the UK, Romania, Africa, South America and
others
● Strong public opinion in one way or another can influence to the amount of regulation or even if it is permitted
Image: Hoye, S. (2011). Fracking Protesters say drilling jobs are not worth environmental risks. CNN. Retreived from http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/20/philadelphia.fracking.protests/index.html.
An Ongoing and Unresolved Debate
Image credit: The Southern Illinoisan:Malkovich, B. (2014) Both sides of fracking debate plan nex move. The Southern Illinoisan. Retreived from
https://thesouthern.com/news/local/both-sides-of-fracking-debate-plan-next-move/article_5ff3fb25-70e2-5870-88a1-0c53319e9f2a.html
Economic Impacts Hydraulic Fracturing
By Moses Kang
Economic potential of Fracking
U.S. EIA estimated that the 48 shale gas basins around the world in 32 countries, containing almost 70 shale formations.
Estimated that the 48 shale gas basins they assessed had more than 5760 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas.
Economic Benefit of Fracking
1. Lower natural gas prices: $2-3 per thousand cubic feet of gas about 50-66% cheaper than new conventional gas wells.
In US, the largest market benefit is $75 billion ($46-$95 billion) in consumer surplus from lower natural gas prices to residential, commercial, an industrial consumers.
Economic Cost of Fracking
1. Lower natural gas prices result negative economic implications on traditional gas producers
Significant repercussions on traditional exporters of LNG
North America output of low-priced share gas had placed $160 billion worth of natural gas investments by major companies at risk in Australia
Economic Benefit of Fracking
2. Creating positive externalities: shale gas industry provides employment, jobs, infrastructure, revenue and taxes
Other indirect economics benefits: higher incomes and landowner royalties also occur.
Economic Cost of Fracking2. Negative externalities:I. Lower water quality: shale gas production generates waste from drilling muds, flowback and produce brines that all requires proper treatment and disposal. Estimate damages of about $1 billion on private drinking wells.
II. Natural habitat Fragmentation: The loss due to wildlife habitat fragmentation is substantial $4.114 billion in 13 of the 14 states, with a range of $3.5 billion to $4.45 billion.
III. Air Pollution: health damages cost $27.2 billion ($12.5–$41.95 billion).
Economic Benefit of Fracking
3. Cleaner energy source than Coal: replacing coal with natural gas in power plants, for example, reduces the plants’ greenhouse emissions by up to 50%
Benefits resulting from the switch by some electric utilities from coal to natural gas ($13.25 billion, range $3.9-$21.9 billion).
Economic Cost of Fracking
3. Cleaner energy source compare to other energy?
- Over a 20 year time period, the greenhouse-gas footprint of shale gas is worse than that for coal or oil due to leakage of methane in the pipeline
Economic Cost of Fracking
4. UncertaintyShale gas fractures peak within a matter of 30-40 months. Most of the shale gas wells in fact exhibit decline rate of 60-80% in the first year of operation.
Rapid rate of depletion, in some sites, production costs exceed current gas prices.
Case Study: Hydraulic Fracturing in Colorado
By Stephen Alonzi
ContextNational:
● Average national O&G salary (excluding retail station jobs) of $101,181, over 90% higher than national average● Highest rates of fracking in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, California and Colorado.
Oil and Gas in Colorado:● 232,900 Jobs (7% of the states total jobs)● $31.38 Billion in the state economy● 20 Billion Gallons of water used resulting in 3 billion gallons of wastewater between 2005 and 2015. ● Wells are dispersed over 105,000 acres throughout the state.● 6th largest producer of Natural Gas in the US with 90% of new wells utilizing fracking. Between 2005 and 2015
Colorado had the second highest number of new fracking style wells dug, just below texas.● In smaller towns, Coalbed Methane (a type of fracking) can be responsible for up to 43% of county property tax
income while state laws allow for exemptions meaning only 5 of the 30 counties producing O&G pay state taxes.● The state is more politically and economically diversified than Texas or North Dakota, thus a hit to the fracking
industry would be relatively less harmful.
Sources: Environment America, API, Ballotpedia.org
Current Regulations
Federal Regulations - EPA and DOE
● Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Energy Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
● Trump rolling back Obama era fracking bans on public land - deregulation● “Let the states regulate” argument - no baseline?
State Regulations: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission -
● Required to publish chemical composition of fracking fluids - http://fracfocus.org/ ● However, “Trade secrets” are protected and only required to publish general chemical
information without specific concentrations.● Limits to how much water may be used and at what pressure● Setbacks of 500 feet from any building, 1000 feet from large residential buildings,
schools, and child care centers, 350 feet from designated recreational areas.
Proposition 112
“Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a statewide minimum distance requirement for new oil and gas development, and, in connection
therewith, changing existing distance requirements to require that any new oil and gas development be located at least 2,500 feet from any structure intended for human
occupancy and any other area designated by the measure, the state, or a local government and authorizing the state or a local government to increase the minimum
distance requirement?”
Reasons the proposition Failed:
● Vulnerable areas include, but are not limited to: playgrounds, permanent sports fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, public and community drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, and perennial or intermittent streams and creeks.
● The proposition was designed to eliminate fracking rather than more strictly regulate it.
● Opposition to the proposition spent approximately 19 times more on campaigning than proponents did.
● Appeals to the potential loss of jobs and crippling of the economy tended to win out over the appeals to the environment and health.
● 44.88% in favor 55.12% opposed despite this being a majority liberal state.
Source: Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Who is willing to pay for increased regulation?
ECONOMIC IDENTITY, PRICE AND POLICY: WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FRACKING REGULATION IN COLORADO - Adam Mayer
● This study surveyed people all over the state and found that the more expensive that a proposition would be to them personally (in the form of increased taxes) the less likely they were to willingly pay it.
● Other data collected such as gender, education, income, race, and political affiliation were collected and measured to find any correlation. The main correlations were found to be income and political affiliation.
“...those who had the most ability to pay were the least willing to pay. One possible explanation for this surprising finding is that higher-income individuals may be relatively insulated from the potential deleterious impacts of fracking and see less reason to regulate.”
“ Political identity also has a powerful impact on whether or not a respondent endorses increased inspections.”
COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPACTS
Paige Wheaton32487150
PHYSIOLOGICAL ● 632 chemicals known to be
used during natural gas extraction, many of which affect the skin, eyes, nervous, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems
● Increased levels of carcinogens
● Increased levels of air and water pollution
Paige Wheaton32487150
PSYCHOLOGICAL
● Increased levels of worry, anxiety, stress, and depression about lifestyle, health, safety, and financial security.
● Fears about their health and that of their children due to the long-term impacts of fracking.
● Increased sense of powerlessness, fear, betrayal, guilt, anger, stress, anxiety, and sleep disturbances.
● Noise pollution can lead to psychological distress, and poor academic performance in children.
Paige Wheaton32487150
COMMUNITY● Increased rates of visits to healthcare
professionals and hospitalization, of which stresses already under-resources local healthcare systems.
● Increased chemical exposure and water contamination many neuro related symptoms of which are extremely harmful to children.
● Impacts the mood, energy, and behaviour of the community.
● Significant increase in stress.● Burdens are disproportionately carried by
underprivileged and under resources populations.
● Those closest to the sites were least likely to reap benefits from fracking activities.
Paige Wheaton32487150
WORKERS
● Heavily experience short-term health impacts due to air and water contaminants.
● Their mental health is often compromised as the community displays hostility and social isolation towards workers.
● Workers often move away from their family and their support systems,
● How do these health impacts from fracking compare to those of coal?
Paige Wheaton32487150
Case Study: Marcellus Shale Formation in Pennsylvania
By Stephen Schubert
History of PA & the Marcellus
- Historically a coal mining region- 19th/20th century mining of shale gas
exhausted possible resources- After the start of the 21st century, New
Technology:- (Hydraulic fracturing)
- Allows for previously uneconomical deposits to find new value
- Gold Rush begins!
http://www.coalmininghistorypa.org/historicalpictures/contents.html
Case Study: Evaluating Community Health
- Academic Significance: region is a focus of scholarship and statistics in the industry
- How can we measure social effects of this rapid development of fracking?
- Economic opportunity- Water & air quality- Health & human services- Crime- Education
- Focus Groups & Community Perception
Industrial Boom,Business Opportunity
- PA, like other regions, harvested many of the economic benefits from this industrial boom.
- Studies indicate PA counties with the highest drilling experienced:
- increased business activity, - increased employment, - and increased wages
- Not on-site industrial jobs, but increased economic activity.- Brought money & opportunity to lacking towns
Health & Human Services
- Problems with rapid population influx - Counties nearest high level fracking well, increased demand on health
service providers. Incl. mental and behavioral services- Increased # of police responded calls - Increased # of DUI arrests- Increased traffic violations
- Education:- Enrollment unchanged - Performance & drop-out rate unchanged - Focus group indicates: industry opportunities affect post-secondary aspiration
- Largest Community Concern: Water Management !
Water Quality & Management
- Large Quantities of water used (up to 4 million gallons per frack in Marcellus)
- Additives in Marcellus wells include: - Friction reducers, scale inhibitors, & biocides- Man of these are not regulated by the US Safe Water Drinking Act - Public concern and risk of leakage
- Evidence for water pollution:- Methane levels increased in Marcellus area wells both avg. and max. - Methane levels higher when within 1 km of active Marcellus gas well.- Explosion hazards & health hazards as this allows for bacteria growth, etc. - BUT: statistics cannot confidently conclude this is directly from fracking- Area has sources of naturally occurring methane unrelated to fracking- Pre-drillingn data is unavailable or uncomparable
What we do know:- Community perception affected. (Focus Groups)- Property value: difference in price for pipe-dependent vs well-dependent
homes.
Fracking: Environmental Impacts
By Alec Francis
Water Usage and Contamination
- Fracking is highly water-intensive
-However water usage varies widely (shale gas is most water-intensive)
- Concerns related to leakage, groundwater contamination
- Flowback is an inevitable part of fracking process, but treatment and disposal are difficult
- Flowback has high salinity, contains chemical additives
Image Credit: Atkin, E. (2014). Scientists: Fracking wastewater poses threat to drinking water. Piedimont Earth First, Received from https://piedmontecodefense.wordpress.com/tag/water-contamination/
Air Pollution
- Significant GHG emissions associated with well operation- Methane leakages and emissions- difficult to quantify - some estimate that
these may outweigh potential reductions in emissions from switching to natural gas
- However, uncertainties are large, more research needed- Localized effects on air quality:
- Ozone, nitrous oxides- High intensity of gas emissions
- However, natural gas is cleaner burning than oil and coal; it produces less pollutants, particulates and mercury emissions
Image credit: Rice, D. (2014, December 14). Is fracking polluting the air? USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/16/fracking-air-pollution-health-nrdc/20451639/
Earthquakes?
- Fears have been voiced linking fracking to
earthquakes.
- Seismic events do result from fracking in some
situations; these are rarely above magnitude 2 and
hardly ever destructive.
- There is potential for destructive seismic events
triggered by fracking where underlying seismic
instability or faults exist.
- Again, this is an area that requires further research.
Image credit: Jervis, R. (2017, November 7). Oklahoma Earthquake reignites concerns that fracking wells may be the cause. USA Today. Received from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/07/oklahoma-earthquake-fracking-well/93447830/
Local Effects
● Habitat loss/fragmentation due to deforestation, development of
fracking pads.
● Changes in local climate due to land use changes.
● Effects on watersheds, groundwater depletion.
● Changes in ecological niches associated with the above
● High local levels of air pollution.
Image Credit: Bateman, C. (2010, June 21). A Colossal Fracking Mess. Vanity Fair. Received from https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006
The Future of Hydraulic Fracturing
By Salomè Sanè
Hydraulic fracturing: what’s next?
1. The debate regarding the future of fracking2. Expansion of hydraulic fracturing: a mostly ‘American story’3. Bans on fracking and climate change commitments 4. What about Canada?5. What’s next?
Salomé Sané31753156
A “fractious debate”
● Backup power to renewable energy
● Impacts on direction and intensity
of transition to a sustainable future
● Future → very different trends
around the world
Salomé Sané31753156
Expansion - a mostly ‘American story’
● About 665 trillion ft3 of shale gas
reserves found in the US
● 573 trillion ft3 in Canada
● 1.7 → up to 3 million jobs in the
fracking industry by 2020
● Offset dependence on imported
oil
Salomé Sané31753156
Bans on fracking - climate change commitments
● Fracking seen as incompatible with
GHG reduction targets
● “Short-term bridge” for a lower-carbon
future (Linnit et al., 2010)
● Delay in transition to renewables
● European bans and moratoriums
Salomé Sané31753156
What about Canada?
● 1st country after the US to initiate large-scale
fracking development
● 8% of total oil Canadian output
● Huge potential
● Exploitation in Alberta, Manitoba, BC,
Saskatchewan
● Moratoriums in Nova Scotia & New Brunswick
Salomé Sané31753156
What’s next?
● Future tied to oil & gas prices
● Competition with US production
● Uncertainty about Chinese investment - huge
potential
● Lack of consultation with First Nations in
Canada
● Happening too fast, too recklessly?
Salomé Sané31753156
