Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas and Conventional Natural Gas

Clark, Corrie E.; Horner, R. Malcolm W.; Harto, Christopher B.

doi:10.1021/es4013855

Cited by 198 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in comparison with some other fuels,t he water footprint of shale gas is lower (see Table 4). [84,[102][103][104] Similarly,w hen the water intensity per net energy recovered is considered, shale gas outperforms other fuels shown in Table 4. [105] Nevertheless,i na bsolute terms,t he quantity of water requiredf or hydraulic fracturing is large (3000-21 000m 3 ), constituting8 6% of direct water required for shale gas extraction and 56 %o ft he overall consumptioni nt he life cycle of shale gas.…”

Section: Waterusementioning

confidence: 96%

Shale Gas: A Review of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of the shale gas industry in the US has raised expectations that other nations could boost domestic gas production, leading to lower energy prices and improved energy security. However, the degree to which the US experience is transferable to other countries is uncertain. Furthermore, sustainability implications of shale gas development remain largely unknown. In an attempt to find out if and how shale gas could be exploited in a sustainable way, this paper reviews the economic, environmental, and social aspects of shale gas. These include costs, energy security, employment, water and land pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, earthquakes, and public perception. The literature suggests that it is possible to develop shale gas in a sustainable way, but its future will depend on the industry being able to address the environmental concerns, the political will to see the industry through to maturity, and public support, with the latter most likely being the biggest determinant.

show abstract

Section: Waterusementioning

confidence: 96%

Shale Gas: A Review of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Very few studies explore also other impacts: the water life cycle of shale gas extraction is analysed by Clark et al (2013b) and Jiang et al (2014) in the USA and Tagliaferri et al (2015) in the UK. The latter was a preliminary study by the same authors of this paper that however was very limited in scope as it did not consider different procedures for shale gas production nor the comparison with the gas grid mix.…”

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Shale Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Few authors have critically reviewed the potential risks that shale gas operation and mainly flowback disposal pose to the water source (Vengosh et al 2014) and water life cycle, hence analysing different key parameters such as flowback ratio, flowback recycled fraction, the amount of water used according to different shale plays (Clark et al 2013c;Jiang et al 2014) and wastewater composition (Maguire-Boyle and Barron 2014).…”

Section: Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shale gas: a life-cycle perspective for UK production

Tagliaferri

Clift

Lettieri

et al. 2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Following the boom of shale gas production in the USA and the decrease in the US gas prices, increasing interest in shale gas is developing in many countries holding shale reserves and exploration is already taking place in some EU countries, including the UK. Any commercial development of shale gas in Europe requires a broad environmental assessment, recognizing the different European conditions and legislations. Methods This study focuses on the UK situation and estimates the environmental impacts of shale gas using lifecycle assessment (LCA); the burdens of shale gas production in the UK are compared with the burdens of the current UK natural gas mix. The main focus is on the analysis of water impacts, but a broad range of other impact categories are also considered. A sensitivity analysis is performed on the most environmentally criticized operations in shale gas production, including flowback disposal and emission control, by considering a range of possible process options.Results and discussion Improper waste water management and direct disposal or spills of waste water to river can lead to high water and human ecotoxicity. Mining of the sand and withdrawal of the water used in fracking fluids determine the main impacts on water use and degradation. However, the water degradation of the conventional natural gas supply to the UK is shown to be even higher than that of shale gas. For the global warming potential (GWP), the handling methods of the emissions associated with the hydraulic fracturing influence the results only when emissions are vented. Finally, the estimated ultimate recovery of the well has the greatest impact on the results as well as the flowback ratio and flowback disposal method. Conclusions This paper provides insights to better understand the future development of shale gas in the UK. Adequate waste water management and emission handling significantly reduce the environmental impacts of shale gas production. Policy makers should consider that shale gas at the same time increases the water consumption and decreases the water degradation when compared with the gas mix supply. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of shale gas should be considered according to the low productivity that force the drilling and exploitation of a high number of wells.

show abstract

“…Figure 2 illustrates that, on average, shale gas and tight oil are more water-intensive than conventional gas but less-water intensive than conventional oil. Specifically, the minimum water intensity estimate in the literature for shale gas is less than 1 gal/MMBtu (gallons per million British thermal units of energy), and the maximum estimate is 28 gal/MMBtu, with an average across estimates of 5 gal/MMBtu [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. The minimum water intensity estimate in the literature for tight oil is 1.6 gal/MMBtu, while the maximum estimate is 21.7 gal/MMBtu, with an average across estimates of 8.2 gal/MMBtu [20,21,30].…”

Section: Impacts Of Hydraulic Fracturing On Water Quantity and Scarcitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Kuwayama

Olmstead

Krupnick

2015

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The academic literature has lagged both industry and public opinion in measuring and characterizing potential water quantity and quality concerns related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking). However, the science behind fracking's water impacts experienced its own boom during the 2010s. In this paper, we address this critical emerging environmental and energy issue, providing an overview of the current state of knowledge, with a particular focus on academic journal articles that have been published in the past five years. These studies have generally found that the water quantity impacts of shale gas and tight oil development are, on average, not significantly worse than for their conventional counterparts, though the specific location and timing of withdrawals for energy development matter. On the other hand, recent findings also suggest that the water quality concerns associated with fracking may be more serious than water quantity concerns.

show abstract

Life Cycle Water Consumption for Shale Gas and Conventional Natural Gas

Cited by 198 publications

References 19 publications

Shale Gas: A Review of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability

Shale Gas: A Review of the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability

Shale gas: a life-cycle perspective for UK production

Water Quality and Quantity Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About