Evaluating the Environmental Implications of Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale Gas Reservoirs

Abstract

Exploration, drilling and production of shale gas plays such as the Barnett, Fayetteville, and Haynesville have transformed the unconventional gas industry. These and other existing and developing plays have had unimaginable economic impacts to many regions, created tens of thousands of jobs, and have generated royalty payments to a variety of state and local governments as well as many individuals. At the core of shale gas development are two key technologies: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Techniques used to hydraulically fracture horizontal wells completed in shale reservoirs often require larger volumes of fracturing fluid than might be common for conventional, vertical well stimulations. The rapid development of shale gas across the country has created concerns on issues such as the use of infrastructure and environmental impacts. Specifically, the common practice of hydraulic fracturing of these shales has attracted critical interest regarding risks potentially posed to groundwater and surface water. This paper will present a summary and evaluation of the environmental implications of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs, with examples from multiple basins.

Fracturing Fluid Effects on Young's Modulus and Embedment in the Niobrara Formation

“…The success of shale plays can be linked directly to the success of Barnett Shale that was first developed in 1980's. As the Barnett Shale play has matured, producers have been extrapolating the lessons learned in the Barnett to the other shale formations present across the U.S and Canada (Arthur et al, 2009). Although the Barnett Shale has been the role model and the facilitator in discovering and producing from other shale plays, the uniqueness and heterogeneous nature of shale plays cannot be disregarded.…”

Specific ion effects in polysaccharide dispersions

“…These include the accidental release of fracturing fluids, leaks of hydrocarbons, the uptake of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), the introduction of foreign bacterial strains to the sub-surface, and induced micro-seismicity (Arthur, Bohm, Coughlin, Layne, & Cornue, 2009;Holloway & Rudd, 2013, Chapter 11;Osborn, Vengosh, Warner, & Jackson, 2011;Vengosh, Jackson, Warner, Darrah, & Kondash, 2014). To limit some of these risks, we focus on "greener" formulations, which employ biocompatible and non-toxic ingredients.…”

Shale gas policy in the United Kingdom: An argumentative discourse analysis

“…One coalition formed of (for example) policy actors in DECC, and evident in industry and consultancy organisation interviews, principally adopt what could be terms a pragmatic position regarding shale gas development. These actors universally adopted the language of "bridges" and "pathways", geographic metaphors that imply visible and coherent transition management, allowing continued economic dependence on fossil fuels, whilst reducing GHG emissions when compared to coal or oil (Arthur et al, 2009;DECC, 2009); an issues which remains controversial, with concerns that the language of bridge fuels belies the carbon intensity of these gas sources (Stephenson et al, 2012). Nevertheless it is the relative transience of shale gas as part of the "energy mix" (Cameron, 2013), that has become the dominant storyline.…”