This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

[IOP] A community website from IOP Publishing

environmentalresearchweb blog

Burning the midnight gas

Satellite image showing dots of light from flared natural gas in North Dakota

The light from natural gas flares burning in North Dakota’s Bakken oil field can be seen from space. (Courtesy: NASA Earth Observatory)

By Margaret Harris in Chicago

The environmental risks of shale-gas production are real, but the things people worry about most aren’t necessarily the ones that cause the most damage. That was the message of this morning’s AAAS symposium on “Hydraulic Fracturing: Science, Technology, Myths and Challenges”, which featured talks on the social implications of hydraulic fracturing as well as the risks of water and air contamination.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, involves drilling a well and filling it with a high-pressure mixture of water and other chemicals. These high pressures cause nearby rock formations to fracture, releasing trapped oil and gas. According to the first speaker, energy consultant David Alleman, fracking and horizontal drilling have “revolutionized the energy picture in the US”: a few years ago, the country imported 60% of the oil it consumed, but today the figure is just 30%.

The fracking revolution has, however, generated costs as well as benefits. As one of the later speakers, Michael Webber, put it, “Shale production has environmental risks, and most of them are water-related.” Fracking consumes, on average, 5–10 litres of water for every litre of oil produced – about twice as much as conventional oil production – and the water that returns to the surface during the “flowback” stage of well production is often contaminated with natural radiation from deep rock formations, as well as added chemicals. In Webber’s view, the risks associated with this returned water are greater than the risks of groundwater contamination during the fracking stage, even though most public attention has focused on the latter.

Treating and reusing the fracking fluid would, of course, reduce both the amount of waste generated and the overall amount of water required – a big deal in the US, where many intensively fracked regions are currently experiencing severe drought. The treatment process would be energy-intensive, Webber acknowledged, but some well-heads have more energy than they can handle: fully one-third of North Dakota’s fracked gas is flared off at the well-heads because it can’t be transported cheaply, and light from the flames can be seen from space (see photo above). If instead that gas were used to power regional water treatment centres, air and water pollution would both drop. The bottom line, Webber concluded, is that constraints on water and energy are coupled – you need water to get energy, but it also takes energy to clean up the water afterwards.

• This blog post first appeared at physicsworld.com

This entry was posted in AAAS Meeting 2014 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author 

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text