Research shows residual hydraulic fracturing water no risk to groundwater

3
12
Guernsey County well rig

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Hydraulic fracturing, fracking or hydrofracturing, raises many concerns about potential environmental impacts, especially water contamination.

Currently, data show the majority of water injected into wells stays underground, triggering fears it might find its way into groundwater.

Help allay fears

New research by a team of scientists should help allay those fears.

In a paper published in the current issue of the Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, Terry Engelder, professor of geosciences, Penn State; Lawrence Cathles, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences, Cornell University; and Taras Bryndzia, geologist, Shell International Exploration and Production Inc., report injected water which remains underground is sequestered in the rock formation and therefore does not pose a serious risk to water supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling technique commonly used to extract gas from previously inaccessible ‘tight’ gas reserves, including gas trapped in shale formations such as the Marcellus.

During this technique, between 1.2 and 5 million gallons of water mixed with sand and chemical additives are injected at high pressure into each well to fracture the rock and release the gas.

Typically less than half of the injected water returns to the surface as ‘flowback’ or, later, production brine, and in many cases recovery is less than 30 percent.

In addition to the chemical additives, flowback water contains natural components of the gas shale including salt, some metals and radionuclides and could impair water quality if released without proper treatment.

While flowback water can be managed and treated at the surface, the fate of the water left in place, called residual treatment water or RTW, was previously uncertain.

Some have suggested RTW may be able to flow upward along natural pathways, mainly fractures and faults, and contaminate overlying groundwater.

Others have proposed natural leakage of the Marcellus is occurring without human assistance through high-permeability fractures connecting the Marcellus directly to the water table and that hydraulic fracturing could worsen this situation.

Contamination not likely

The researchers report ground water contamination is not likely because contaminant delivery rate would be too small even if leakage were possible, but more importantly, upward migration of RTW is not plausible due to capillary and osmotic forces that propel RTW into, not out of, the shale.

Their study indicates RTW will be stably retained within the shale formation due to multiphase capillary phenomena.

“Capillary forces and coupled diffusion–osmosis processes are the reasons the brines and the RTW are not free to escape from gas shale,” said Engelder.

“The most direct evidence of these forces is the observation that more than half the treatment waters are not recovered. Introducing treatment water causes gas shale to act like a sponge based on the principles of imbibition.

“Imbibition into gas shale is made possible by the high capillary suction that a fine-grained, water-wet shale matrix can exert on water. As water is wicked into gas shale, the natural gas in the shale is pushed out. The capillary forces that suck the RTW into the gas shale keep it there.”

Estimating imbibition is complicated, but simple experiments conducted by the researchers show water can be readily imbibed into gas shale in quantities fully capable of sequestering RTW.

Series of experiments

The researchers demonstrated this process in a series of experiments on cuttings recovered from the Union Springs Member of the Marcellus gas shale in Pennsylvania and on core plugs of Haynesville gas shale from northwest Louisiana.

“The hydraulic fracturing fluid consists mostly of very low-salinity surface water, while the shale contains high concentrations of water soluble inorganic cations and anions,” said Engelder.

“During hydraulic fracturing water is lost to the formation while inorganic cations and anions are transferred from the formation to the hydraulic fracture. Diffusion osmosis assists the rapid imbibition of water by the shale and diffusion of ions into the treatment water causing the high salinities observed in flowback fluids. The point to be emphasized here is this osmotic pressure pushes the hydraulic fracture fluids into the shale matrix, expelling gas and cations to make high-salinity flowback in the process.”

The researchers believe in addition to there not being enough water in the shale to contaminate groundwater, the most important point of their work is multiphase capillary phenomena must be considered in cases where a non-aqueous fluid is present in the subsurface pore space.

Vadose zone

The vadose zone, the area from the surface to the groundwater, and oil and gas migration cannot be understood using single-phase, porous-media flow methods, and any policy insights or prescriptions based on single-phase considerations will be fatally flawed, they argue.

“The practical implication is hydrofracture fluids will be locked into the same ‘permeability jail’ that sequestered overpressured gas for over 200 million years,” said Engelder.

“If one wants to dispose of fracking waters, one could probably not choose a safer way to do so than to inject them into a gas shale.”

The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America and Penn State’s Appalachian Basin Black Shale Group, an industrial affiliates group, supported this research.

STAY INFORMED. SIGN UP!

Up-to-date agriculture news in your inbox!

3 COMMENTS

  1. Wonderful! A group of scientists with direct financial ties to the gas industry are here to tell us something that very few people are concerned about is not a concern. Great! Now, can they speak about the fugitive methane releases during the entire process? Can they speak to the issues with disposing of the extremely dangerous and poisonous flowback water that does return to the surface? The stuff that is spilled and actually dumped when no one is looking because it can’t possibly be that bad for you, right? This whole article is an effort to take a subject of little concern, make it sound as though they have done much research and found it to be of little concern. Tackle the real issues and quit blowing smoke up our behinds!

  2. Very interesting!

    I wonder now though how to see the ground water contamination claims I have seen against fracking. What are the reasons or how did the contamination come about if not caused by the flow back or the materials leftnin the ground? Could it be a containment issue from the storage ponds and containers on site?

    Definitly food for thought and looking forward to reading more about the research as it progresses.

  3. What a bunch of malarkey. Big business has yet found another to destroy the planet in the name of fossil fuels. Disturbing the fault lines and injecting poisonous chemicals into our ground water. This has to stop. Makes me so angry for the child’s future.

LEAVE A REPLY

We are glad you have chosen to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated according to our comment policy.

Receive emails as this discussion progresses.