This is an excerpt from my 2021 book Sensible
Decarbonization. Here I recount the risk assessment history of fracking (which
now refers to the modern practice of combining long horizontal drilling and
high-volume hydraulic fracturing with high rates of water and sand pumped into
many frac stages) according to the National Research Council’s process for risk
assessment.
After this I
recount the path of fracking as a successful technology, as an overall
environmental benefit over much previous oil & gas development, and as a
successful means to decrease air and water pollution and carbon emissions by
replacing coal.
Risk Assessment History of Fracking and Fracking’s Path as a
Successful Technology
Let’s see what happens when we put
fracking through the National Research Council’s 1983 four-step process for risk
assessment: hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and
risk characterization. The water that goes in, the make-up
water, is typically 99.5% water with 0.5% additives, most benign but some
toxic in more concentrated amounts. Gels, corrosion inhibitors,
surfactants/detergents, and bactericides are common additives. The water that
comes back out later has more formation water, which has toxicity due to salts,
dissolved solids, some heavy metals, and some radioactivity. The radioactivity
is generally not concerning according to most analyses and does vary according
to rock formation. Examining the risk of water contamination, we can identify
that the main hazard is spills. High-volume hydraulic fracturing yields much more
wastewater to be managed than conventional oil and gas development. Thus, there
will be more opportunity for spills. Other potential hazards like water moving
from geological zones far below aquifers into those freshwater aquifers was
found to be extremely rare to non-existent, despite activists’ frequent claims
to the contrary. A dose-response assessment reveals that the frack makeup
water, the water that goes into a well to be fracked, could be dangerous but
the chemicals used are so diluted that it is not likely to be very dangerous at
all. The flowback water gets more dangerous because the saltwater in formations
in and near to the gas-bearing zones is more toxic as is the addition of fine
pulverized rock material with heavy metals and radioactivity. As noted, the
produced water from the formations is more toxic than the water with chemicals
that goes in. Thus, depending on which water spills, we know its general
toxicity.[1] Exposure assessment is
where we determine if exposure to humans or animals is likely. With spills
there are also threats to plant life, groundwater, surface water, and to a
lesser extent, soils. We know that water will filter through the ground, some
contaminants will biodegrade, but others will remain. Through time the
contaminants will be diluted more and more and become less dangerous. Thus, near
spills there is risk of exposure and this needs to be monitored. If the spill
entered surface water or groundwater without filtration through soil then the
effects on the water could be more potent, resulting in a contamination plume
that might need to be monitored depending on size of spill and size of water
body. A few spills have resulted in fish kills. After water testing data is
analyzed one can characterize the risk.
Doing the same for air pollution from well
pads one can identify the main hazard as multiple diesel engines that run powerful
pumps and other equipment, trucks, the drilling rig, and diesel generators for
electricity. During the hydraulic fracturing jobs for a pad that take a few
weeks the diesel pollution is the highest. Mostly in oil areas there is the
added pollution from flowing back oil with the flowback water that may add air
pollution during that time period of several to many weeks. The main hazard,
diesel exhaust, can be mitigated by fracking with natural gas which has less
than half of the air pollution and far less of some of the more dangerous
pollutants. Electrical fracking can mitigate even further. One of the early
rules for fracking was the implementation of so-called “green completions,” now
standard, which served to mitigate air pollution during the process, although
they are not really “green” just greener than before. Dose-response assessment for
this air pollution is dependent on many factors including where one is relative
to the site, air flow patterns, time of year, whether one is outside, etc. Studies
have shown that air pollution exposure from fracking sites is usually pretty
minimal. It is also temporary, although with multi-well pads there may be
fracking operations going on for weeks, and if one includes drilling, for
months. Thus, according to the studies the risk can be characterized as
possible but minimal in most cases and probable in a few. One can make a fair
argument that better air monitoring should occur. With air monitoring
technology being fairly cheap these days as well as portable and movable it is
not too hard to implement. Most studies show very minimal air pollution
exposure. A recent study notes that increased radioactivity of airborne
particles downwind of unconventional shale well pads is common and measurable.
The increases were measured at a 7% increase from background for being up to
20km downwind of 100 wells. In some places one can be downwind of up to 600
wells, according to the paper, so theoretically there could be a 40% increase. They
note that the biggest increases were seen in the Marcellus and Utica field of Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and Ohio. It is known that the Marcellus has considerably higher
radioactivity due to more uranium and thorium than the Utica. We know that
building in places where black organic-rich shale is close to the surface is
associated with increased radon gas levels in buildings. We know that shale
wastewater and drill cuttings have naturally occurring radioactive material
(NORM) that when broken up and brought to the surface are then known as
technically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM). Potential
sources for the increased airborne radioactivity include fugitive methane,
management, storage, discharge , and disposal of flowback and produced water, accidental
spills, utilization of produced water for things like dust control or road
salting for ice control, and the handling, transport, management, and disposal
of drill cuttings. It is also likely that the airborne particle levels change,
dropping through time if fewer or no more wells are drilled upwind. Conventional
oil and gas wells also likely increase airborne particle radioactivity, though much
less as they are not typically drilled in shales. The study went from
2000-2017. Fracking took off heavily around 2007-2012 but since about 2012
wastewater management, cuttings management, and fugitive methane management has
improved quite a bit. Bottom line is that the levels of increase are pretty low
and probably not a reason for concern unless one is exposed for many years, one
is very close to multiple wells, and possibly for those with compromised
health. Headlines make it sound more concerning than it is.[2]
The successful development of fracking is
a story of innovation where innovators used high commodity prices to take risks
and try new things. American natural gas supply and to a lesser extent oil
supply was dwindling and it looked like we would have to import more of both
and become more energy dependent. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and
Qatar were ready to sell us oil and gas. LNG import terminals were built. There
was some success with high-volume slickwater fracking of shale by George
Mitchell and company in Texas. There was some success with new horizontal
drilling by Devon and other companies. Once those two technologies were
combined more supply was unlocked. Other innovations like longer horizontals, walking
rigs, closer-spaced frack stages, multi-well pads, targeting and geosteering
innovations, higher pump rates and more sand per frack stage, diamond bits, and
oil-based drilling mud added further to the success. CEOs took risks and reaped
rewards.[3] [4]
We can also look at fracking as a successful
technology that was put through much environmental scrutiny. If we look at it
through Andrew McAfee’s idea of technological
progress and capitalism, checked by public awareness and responsive government,
we can see that that is exactly what occurred.[5]
Fracking was a groundbreaking technology combined with other groundbreaking
technologies like horizontal drilling and multi-well pads. As technological
progress it allowed the industry to extract far more gas and oil per well at
overall less cost than conventional oil and gas technology. That is why most US
oil and gas is now obtained through fracking. The high cost of natural gas and
oil due to high demand and low supply at the time fracking began to mature was
the result of capitalism. So, too was the new supply that was unlocked due to
the process. Public awareness, much of it negative in the beginning, led to
increased scrutiny and criticism of the industry, some of which was warranted.
This especially happened in areas less familiar with oil and gas development
such as northeastern Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York state. The
public awareness spurred government response from the federal, state, and local
levels. New laws and regulations were enacted. The process is certainly safer
now than it was in the beginning. It is a success story at the technological
level but also from a regulatory perspective. The role of public awareness is
significant. It was needed to spur the industry toward better environmental
protection. In a 1993 interview the first EPA administrator beginning in 1970,
William Ruckelshaus, talked about the importance of public awareness in leading
the EPA to be founded but also the EPA as a government response to that
awareness.[6] Of
course, it was easier to rouse public awareness in the 1960’s with burning
rivers and smog-choked cities. The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act were
both successful policies and continue to be successful. In recent times public
awareness is sometimes presented with different versions of facts than those
supported by the science. Public awareness can overestimate or underestimate risks,
but it is not hard to notice that it most often by far leads to overestimated
risks. Why? Because it is most often by far rooted in opposition against technologies
and industries that pollute, in opposition to potential harm. But as is often
the case, success in opposing those technologies and industries might lead to
more harms elsewhere. The US leads decarbonization because of fracking. We have
decarbonized more than Europe with far less public spending and while seeing
electricity prices fall and remain stable rather than rise as they have in
Europe.
While the oil and gas sector continues to
innovate, it has been dealing for years now with operating in a lower commodity
price environment that is probably here to stay. The innovations in the oil and
gas industry were developed in a high commodity price environment and refined further
when prices dropped in order to stay profitable. No big improvements seem to be
on the horizon, but small incremental improvements still occur. Companies are
forced to focus on core plays and core areas, their most profitable assets.
This can be seen in drilling rig counts which show that the Permian Basin is
the most profitable oil play and the Marcellus and Haynesville are the most
profitable gas plays since almost all of the rigs still drilling in summer 2020
were in those areas.
[1]
Ziemkiewicz, Paul, September 2015. Water
and Shale Gas. Presented at 2nd Environmental Considerations in
Energy Production Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[2] Li, L., Blomberg, A.J., Spengler, J.D. et
al. Unconventional oil and gas development and ambient particle
radioactivity. Nat Commun 11, 5002 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18226
[3] Zuckerman, Gregory, 2014.The Frackers: The Outrageous
Inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters. Portfolio/Penguin.
[4] Gold, Russell, 2014. The Boom: How Fracking Ignited
the American Energy Revolution and Changed the World. Simon & Schuster.
[5]
MacAfee, Andrew, Oct. 1, 2019. More From
Less: The surprising story of how we learned to prosper using fewer resources –
and what happens. Simon and Schuster UK.
[6]
William D. Ruckelshaus: Oral History Interview. January 1993. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/william-d-ruckelshaus-oral-history-interview.html
National
Research Council (US) Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of
Risks to Public Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US);
1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216628/
No comments:
Post a Comment