In
May of this year, the International Energy Agency issued a report that made an
economic case for the adoption of safer drilling practices in gas production
facilitated by hydraulic fracturing, i.e., fracking. Could safer practices
actually be cheaper in the long run? The agency’s argument is based on limiting
chances of water or air pollution, while producing transparency that solicits
public confidence.
In this context, what does safer actually mean? One major concern is treating
flowback water from fracking operations, which involves the consideration of
several factors. Is it safe for the environment? Is it safe for the well’s
productivity? Is it safe for the operators?
Currently, the most common way of dealing with flowback water is to dispose of
it in drywells, which requires hauling it long distances – upward of 200 miles
round trip. Not only has this approach proven to cause earthquake tremors in
Ohio and elsewhere, it also results in an unsafe depletion of aquifer water,
especially in arid areas – a strain on the environment.
Another common option is to pass the flowback water through bag filters in
order to capture large solids, and then re-inject it into the next fracking
operation. Unfortunately, this simplistic method does not remove colloidal
solids, lubricants, chemicals, calcium, magnesium or dissolved metals, which is
unsafe for the wellbeing of the well.
A third approach is to oxidize the flowback water by injecting ozone into it
before re-injecting the water. Though this results in the appearance of clear
water, and arguably inoculates some of the harmful chemicals and bacteria, as
in the previous method, none of the suspended solids and chemicals are
physically removed prior to injection. Therefore, there is the risk of clogging
fracking crevices, resulting in diminished well capacity. Further, there has
been at least one fatality as a result of operator overexposure to ozone, a
known toxic substance that is unsafe for human contact.
With the environmental, productivity and operator safety concerns troubling
these common approaches to handling flowback water, many energy companies are
looking toward more innovative methods of wastewater treatment. For example,
Ecologix’s Integrated Treatment System, designed specifically for the oil and
gas industry, eliminates both dependence on injection wells and off-site processing
plants, and is able to remove and neutralize harmful contaminants in wastewater
at the well site itself.
Any movement toward safer and more environmentally friendly practices also will
have a positive effect on the sustained growth of the industry. Often, the
mainstream media paints players in the oil and gas industry as environmentally
irresponsible, socially unconscious, and cash-driven, going as far as they can
to pillage and plunder the earth, while maintaining licensure. This negative
press ultimately shapes the general public’s outlook on the industry, and acts
as a catalyst to the adoption of industry-stifling government
regulations.
Many of the major concerns of these negative media campaigns (strained water
resources, surface water pollution, ground water contamination, earthquakes)
can be mitigated by better wastewater practices such as treating flowback water
and recycling it through an extended series of wells directly. Changing the
public image of the industry can provide it with a much-needed social and legal
license to maintain natural gas exploration and production well into the
future.
ND
