*UPDATE IV* Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use: Get the Facts

UPDATE IV (12:18 pm ET, 7/16/2013): This week, Nuverra Environmental Solutions Inc., a drilling services company, signed on with Halliburton to increase reuse and recycling of wastewater in hydraulic fracturing operations in the Bakken Shale – a growing trend in shale development across the United States. Reuters reports:

“‘It is a paradigm shift,’ Halliburton’s strategic business manager of water solutions, Walter Dale, said. Until recently, many companies considered recycling too expensive or worried that using anything other than freshwater would reduce well output. But oil and gas companies are increasingly treating and reusing flowback water from wells, which unlike freshwater is very high in salt, with good results.”

As Reuters also highlights, recycling and reuse of water is only increasing in hydraulic fracturing operations across the United States. The result is reducing the industry’s water-use footprint, while also maintaining strong production results. In turn, this also saves producers money at the well head, which can translate into reduced energy prices for consumers.

UPDATE III (5:30 pm ET, 3/18/2013): An article in the Jamestown Sun looks at water usage by the oil and natural gas industry in North Dakota – a state that is redefining North American energy output and experiencing an unemployment rate of just 3.2 percent because of it. As the article points out, while the water use may appear large from a total volume standpoint (5.4 billion gallons), it actually represents a mere fraction of the state’s overall water use. According to the article:

“For example, North Dakota used 37.9 billion gallons of water in 2011 for irrigation, a wet year when less irrigation was needed, [Mike Hove, water resource manager with the State Water Commission] said. Typical daily water use of a Midwestern city with 50,000 people is 10 million gallons, [Beth Kurz, senior research manager] said.”

That means oil and natural gas development — in the second largest oil producing state in the country – uses about 87 percent less water than irrigation. As Beth Kurz of the University of North Dakota describes it, “really this is not such a high volume use of water for a very important benefit…What you get out of that water usage brings a lot of benefits to the state and to the country.’”

UPDATE II (3:22 pm ET, 3/7/2013): Not only does hydraulic fracturing use less water than numerous other industrial processes, oil and natural gas companies are also continuing to reduce their water-use footprint. That’s great news for the environment, consumers, and industry alike. This week, Bloomberg reported that Halliburton Co., one of the largest providers of hydraulic fracturing services across the globe, is using more recycled water and sea water, which means reduced consumption of freshwater. As E&E News (sub req’d) also highlighted:

“Halliburton believes the system can revolutionize the way operators are developing the United States’ booming shale oil and gas reserves, and the company is eager to market and sell its wares. …‘We’ve changed the formulations,’ {Walter Dale, a business manager for water solutions at Halliburton} added. ‘It significantly changes the price point, and we hope it will drive further recycling in the industry to less freshwater use.’”

According to Bloomberg, Halliburton’s goal is for industry is to use an average of 25 percent less freshwater in hydraulic fracturing by the end of 2014.

UPDATE (5:00 pm ET, 12/19/2012): A recent post by Hart Energy takes another look at hydraulic fracturing and water use in response to a  report by Accenture Consulting on the role of water in shale developments across the globe.  Author of the report Melissa Stark notes that “the perception of fracing as a water hog is likely to prompt changes for the shale industry and cost operators.” Yet as we’ve asked before, does hydraulic fracturing really require that much? As Hart Energy highlights, almost all industries—be it energy and manufacturing or agriculture and irrigation—require the use of water. Take Coca-Cola for instance: the company used 81.6 billion gallons of water to produce 34.3 gallons of beverages in 2009.  That’s over 2,000 hydraulic fracturing jobs. And as Accenture’s report highlights, water use in many areas isn’t quite deserving of the negative hype. In Pennsylvania, “state annual consumption totals about 3.6 trillion gallons. The shale gas industry uses less than 0.2% of that for hydraulic fracturing.” Meanwhile, advances in industry are promoting the use of less water and in many cases 100 percent reuse.  Good news for the environment, good news for American energy.

Original post, October 8, 2012

Given that large portions of our nation are facing serious drought conditions, there are justifiable concerns about our water supply. Some groups interested in blocking oil and gas development have preyed on these concerns, claiming hydraulic fracturing uses extraordinarily large volumes of water and, by extension, will cause water shortages all across the country. Unfortunately for the public, the whole truth about industries’ water usage – who uses water, how much they use, and where they use it – is not commonly discussed, which is exactly what opponents of development want.

To fully understand this issue, it’s important to analyze real-world data relating to water consumption.

For example, let’s look at Pennsylvania: Power plants in the state use 6.43 billion gallons of water every day. As a state well-known for its farms, the Commonwealth also uses 86.1 million gallons per day for agriculture and irrigation, and private water wells use 152 million gallons per day.

A hydraulic fracturing job, by comparison, only requires about four million gallons of water, spread out over several days.

Here are a few other contextual examples:

  • Four million gallons of water is approximately the amount that is emptied every second from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico.
  • New York City consumes four million gallons of water every 6 minutes.
  • Four million gallons is about 1.3 percent of the amount of water used in car washes every day.
  • Just one of the 15,889 golf courses across the United States uses four million gallons of water in less than one summer month.

Gee, hydraulic fracturing doesn’t seem to have the large water-use-impact it is often prescribed, does it?

Still, water is water and certain regions are more susceptible to shortages than others. From water withdrawal limits to recycling standards, the use of water is strongly regulated throughout numerous industries. Many river basin commissions and authorities overseeing water withdrawals set protective limits in low flow periods to ensure enough passby flow to support wildlife and other water uses. And when our nation is in a period of drought it is of even greater importance that these types of regulations and guidelines are properly carried out.

But how does the practice of hydraulic fracturing factor in to water use in these states?

Let’s look at Colorado, certainly no stranger to oil and gas development, and where water scarcity is of constant concern:

  • Agriculture and irrigation are two of the largest users of water, consuming 85.5 percent of the state’s supply.
  • As the New York Times reported in September, “Oil and gas companies estimate that they will use about 6.5 billion gallons of water in Colorado this year, and that figure makes up only 0.1 percent of overall water use, according to state data. Their consumption represents more water than is used making snow on the ski slopes or greening the state’s golf courses. But it is paltry compared with the deluge needed for irrigation and agriculture, which accounts for 85.5 percent of Colorado’s water use.”

In Texas, a state well known for oil and natural gas development, the use of water for production is minimal – which is good, because large portions of the state are dealing with drought or near-drought conditions.

  • According to the Tarrant Regional Water District, oil and natural gas development represents 0.5 percent of total water demand.
  • Darrell Brownlow, geologist and member of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group, states that “for every one acre-foot of water used in fracking, 280 acre-feet acre used for other purposes in South Texas.” (San Antonio Express, 11/2/2011)
  • According to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), water use for mining activity (which includes oil and gas) was only 0.5 percent as compared to other water use categories such as municipal demand, manufacturing, steam electric, irrigation and livestock.

Similarly, Oklahoma has found energy development plays a relatively minor role in its overall water usage:

  • The Oklahoma Water Resources Board states that many if not most of their permits issued, “including those specified for hydraulic fracturing, range from one to about thirty acre-feet of water. Regular permits issued for public water supply, irrigation, and other large-scale uses often authorize hundreds to thousands of acre-feet annually. And while significant growth is anticipated in the state’s oil and gas industry, that particular use sector is projected to account for only five percent of Oklahoma’s total water demand in 2060.” (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, May 2012)

In the Northeast, development of the Marcellus shale has brought countless benefits to communities, including jobs, revenues and clean-burning energy. And compared to the state’s rich agricultural business, water demand is comparatively low:

  • According to the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission, irrigation and aquaculture practices alone account for over 500 million more gallons of water use each day than all natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. In fact, daily water consumption rates for drilling activities in the Marcellus shale rank below the amounts used for nuclear power generation, agriculture, livestock, irrigation, mining and all public and domestic use.
  • According to a report for the U.S. Department of Energy, “Estimates of peak drilling activity in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia indicate that maximum water use in the Marcellus Shale, at the peak of production for each state, assuming 5 million gallons of water per well, would be about 650 million barrels per year. This represents less than 0.8 percent of the 85 billion barrels per year used in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.” (DOE, June 2010)
  • John Arway, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, noted in 2011 that the Marcellus Shale used 1.9 million gallons of water per day. (PFBC, January 2011)
  • The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) indicates total Marcellus Shale water use “represents a little more than half of the amount currently used consumptively by the recreation sector (golf courses, water parks, ski resorts, etc.)”  (SRBC, February 2009)
  • According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, “peak activity high-volume hydraulic fracturing would result in increased demand for fresh water in New York of 0.24%.” (NY SGEIS, p. 6-10 [p. 20 in PDF], September 2011)

All energy sources require water, and natural gas development is no different. But how do natural gas and hydraulic fracturing stack up to other energy sources?

  • According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby source to create steam for turning its turbines – the equivalent of 550 hydraulic fracturing jobs.
  • By nature of its design, solar energy is the most effective in regions where the sun is most intense. As a result, it tends to be most effective in areas with scarce water supplies. In California, disputes over solar projects in the Mojave Desert, the city of Bakersfield and elsewhere have been delayed due to massive water needs in areas with little access to natural sources. The Mojave solar farm being built by Abengoa Solar plant will require 705 million gallons of water annually to operate – equivalent to more than 176 hydraulic fracturing jobs.
  • Similar concerns over water use are seen in the production of biofuels. According to the Arizona Water Institute, “A significant potential issue with biofuels, especially in an arid state such as Arizona, is that they require large amounts of water to produce feedstock. With an average annual evapotranspiration rate of between 3 and 8 feet, there are very few locations within the state that receive enough rainfall to get by with no or even little irrigation.”
  • According to the USDA, when the feedstock in biofuels is corn or soy (used to make ethanol and biodiesel, respectively) and grown on irrigated land, then the water consumption per gallon of fuel produced can exceed the water consumption for refining by a factor of one thousand.

As Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, noted in the New York Times this September, “This is an important use of our water — to produce energy, which is the foundation of all we do.” Schuller continued: “Think about the big users of water — agriculture, industrial development. All these things require energy.”

As technological advancement continues, industry is reducing the use of freshwater sources, enhancing recycling efforts and decreasing the natural gas industries footprint on America’s precious water resources. Along the way, the development of natural gas from shale has created immense benefits across the nation while providing an affordable and clean burning fuel for American consumers.

So yes, hydraulic fracturing uses water. And when opponents present the total volume used – millions of gallons – without any context, it can sound frighteningly large. But the public should be made aware of facts like relative use and total demand, because when the whole story is told, water needed for hydraulic fracturing sounds a lot less scary. That might not make great fundraising emails for groups opposed to oil and gas development, but it’s the truth.

READ MORE:

  • COGA: Water Use Fact Sheet [Link]
  • COGCC: Water Sources and Demand for the Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado from 2010 through 2015 [Link]
  • USGS: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005 [Link]
  • Chesapeake: Water Use in Deep Shale Gas Exploration [Link]

 

Comments

  1. Steve says:

    You make one mention of industry “enhancing recycling efforts” but no mention of current disposal options. Injecting flowback into deep wells essentially takes that water out of the hydrologic cycle. Don’t enhance recycling efforts, make it mandatory.

  2. Neat facts on hydraulic fracturing water consumption that appears well referenced.

  3. As usual, environmentalists try to use “fuzzy math” to make their arguments for them instead of relying on cold, hard facts. Why? Because the people -including most politicians- are more easily fooled by fuzzy math then by facts.

    This article is nothing if not thorough in showing up the environmental left and it’s crazy assertions that hydraulic fracturing is draining United States dry.

  4. Chris says:

    I’m currently writing a thesis looking at the environmental debate on shale gas. As expected the story is very black and white- as a geologist too, I’d have to criticise this piece- comparing something to something else does not seek to justify/support the issue.

  5. MIKE says:

    This piece does not seek to justify/support the issue of water use. It simply highlights the fact that the amount of water used, is not as significant/extreem as enviromental pressure groups would have the general public belive.

  6. kyle says:

    Dana, the “staff geologist”, completely ignores the most important point – the source of the water. Yes, energy production uses the most water, and this is a real issue,specifically for southwestern states. In Pennsylvania though, and most other states, power plants are located on river-ways or other large bodies of water that can afford to supply that amount of water. On the other hand, drilling locations for Marcellus shale wells are, often as not, in rural, mountainous areas, where removing 4 billion gallons from a small waterway can have drastic impacts. All this article does is compare usage on a moot scale.

  7. Bernard Miron says:

    I don’t think it is the amount of water that is the biggest objection to fracking although I was previously unaware of the enormous amount used for just one drilling. I think the objection is the contaminating chemistry, it’s effect on what we need to drink to live and the damage to the underlying structural rock that alarms people. It seems like you actually expect the earth to absorb and counteract the effects you are creating without any consequences. To compare fracking in its entirety to the natural processes of the Missisippi river et all seems like comparing an apple orchard and a twinkie factory. I don’t think you are going in a constructive direction with your argument.

  8. Paul Roden says:

    Where is all this water going to come from? What will happen during a drought? Where will you store and how will you treat it? Ask any organic chemist and they will tell you that once you mix water with volatile organic compounds, you cannot filter or distill it. You maybe able to reuse it for fracking by removing some of the salt, but the water otherwise is unfit for human, animal or plant consumption. It is toxic, carcinogenic, and mutanogenic. It is permanently ruined. Injecting it into spent wells with three or four layer pipe that only lasts 100 years at best through an aquifer that will cause earthquakes is not a permanent waste storage solution. Is that the price and risk you want to take? How about visiting Carol French’s farm and then tell us that “there has been no contamination of well or drinking water ever in the history of hydraulic fracturing”? Watch her testimony at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBfeyBzsjD0 Fracking is too dangergous, too expensive and unnecessary for our energy needs. Go to the Nov. 2009 Scientific American article by Jacobson and Delucchi at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

  9. sonya says:

    Are all wells created equal? I mean, when the well is created, how much variation is there in water used in that creation? If there is variation what factors affect how much water is required?

  10. Dale says:

    It is not about how much water the industry will USE it is about how much it will LOSE!

    This may be the worst article ever written. This year the O&G industry will LOSE 60-80 Billion gallons of WATER in North America while turning a great profit! Once it goes down a deepwell, it is gone forever.

    That is the annual usage drinking usage of about 4-5MM people, this year, the same or more next year etc etc.

    The real facts are that yes it only takes 4-5 million gallons of water for a well and that is how much a power plant will use in 12 hours. However, the powerplant pulls it from a river, evaporates as steam or cooling tower exhaust, dirties some of it up then cleans it up and puts it back in the river. It does not get removed from the hyrdocycle…meaning it does not get LOST forever.

    Technology exist to clean this up and stop using it, but it cost money. Not so much the industry will break. As long as people like the author of this keep posting bogus facts presented by CHK and others, people will continue to dismiss the “usage” which is really LOSING THE WATER.

  11. Karl says:

    Actually … the gas produced from a shale gas well, when burned, returns more water to the hydrogeologic cycle than is used to produce the gas. Think of shale gas wells as water wells …

    http://www.energyindepth.org/turning-natural-gas-into-water-hydraulic-fracturing-doesnt-deplete-water-supplies/#comments

  12. Although it is true that fracking does have risks similar to other energy development projects, it has been safely used for over 60 years.

    Nevertheless,the Environmental Protection Agency is constantly looking for ways to demonize fracking methods.

    For instance, last year the EPA successfully implemented the Clean Air Act in an effort to reduce pollution caused from sub-standard natural gas projects.

    However, at the same time that these regulations were passed by Congress, the EPA acknowledged that the processes and technologies required by the new regulations were already in use by half of the fractured natural gas wells in the United States.

    The EPA’s Tier 3 gasoline proposal is another one of their costly efforts, which would have minimal impacts and affect businesses and consumers.

  13. Mark says:

    High-volume slick water horizontal hydrolic fracking, the technology that is used TODAY, is not fracking. Get is straight. It was used safely for years, in vertical, separate pads, spaced out, using 20,000 to 60,000 of water and chemicals in each well versus…billions of gallons of water, tons of sand, highly toxic slick chemicals, pools of waste water, polluting diesel tens of thousands of truckloads of transport, the devastation of trees and the construction of roads into untapped natural habitats. Yeah – complete BS. It might calm your dissonance to talk about this highly toxic, unregulated, polluting industry as if it is doing anything remotely beneficial to the environment, but it shouldn’t. You act as if gas is the only thing that matters. It isn’t. Try not drinking any water from here on out and you will readily agree pretty quickly. Group think and greed has become a dangerous norm.

  14. If I had known that all we had to was ask I would have done it years ago. Good call Steve J

Trackbacks

  1. […] a hydraulic fracturing job uses the same amount of water as a golf course does in a summer month (http://www.energyindepth.org/hydraulic-fracturing-and-water-use-get-the-facts/).  Got a problem with fracking?  Why don’t you have a problem with golf?  Or snow makers […]

  2. […] how does that water usage compare to other industries? There's some good examples here: *UPDATE IV* Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use: Get the Facts While it is a lot of water, stating figures without context is a bit misleading. Especially when […]

Speak Your Mind

*