197
justified recommendations in the world won’t make a bit of difference if they are not
implemented as an appropriate policy.
More than a few expert panels have already weighed-in on the issue of fracking
and the environment, and all of them agree that the single biggest problem is a lack
of data, especially field data (e.g. Jackson et al. 2013). The U.S. Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB) recommended greater transparency and full open disclosure of all chemical constituents added to frack fluid (USDOE 2015). The U.S. EPA
has called for more regulatory clarity and protection against known risks (https://
www.epa.gov/uog). The Council of Canadian Academies has urged focusing on
GHG emissions and water resources, especially groundwater (Council of Canadian
Academies 2014). In the U.K., the Royal Academy of Engineering and Royal
Society (2012) have recommended steps to reduce or eliminate induced seismicity
associated with fracking. The U.K. panel also suggested that water requirements
and environmental risks of fracking can be managed through operational best practices, with wellbore integrity as the highest priority, robust monitoring, and a mandatory environmental risk assessment at each site across the entire lifecycle of
operations.
Some authors have proposed that a total environmental study paradigm be
designed for impact analysis of fracking, similar to those done for other significant
human effects on the environment, such as mountain top removal coal mining or oil
sands production (Meng 2017). The argument is that the environmental impacts of
fracking are much broader and deeper than current studies presume, and a systematic research structure is needed to evaluate the effects of fracking on the total environment, including an examination of the complicated relationships among different
environmental elements. This may be a great idea on paper, but given the challenges
of getting industry to cooperate on even modest air quality and groundwater monitoring studies, is unlikely to happen.
On a more practical note, several things can be done immediately to remediate
some of the environmental damages caused by fracking and shale gas development.
Controlling air pollution, water contamination, stormwater runoff, and allowing terrestrial ecosystems to re-occupy the pad will benefit both the environment and
human health. Companies are not likely to implement these on their own, but if
enacted as regulations by state legislatures, the requirements could be enforced by
oil and gas regulators.
Air quality can be improved by ending the venting of methane and VOCs directly
into the atmosphere, especially from flowback water that typically contains high
VOC concentrations (Pekney et al. 2018). Flowback should be captured in closed
tanks, not open pits, to keep the gases and volatiles out of the air. Methane is a powerful GHG, and VOCs contribute to smog. Complex organic molecules in VOCs,
especially aldehydes will react with sunlight and moisture to form brown hazes or
smog. These sunlight-driven reactions in the atmosphere create ozone, one of the
most harmful pollutants in smog that can cause human health effects, harm birds
and mammals, damage vegetation, and crack rubber and polymer materials. If these
volatile vapors and gases must be removed from the flowback holding tanks, they
should be flared instead of vented. Flaring converts methane to carbon dioxide,
10.3 Remediation of Damages
justified recommendations in the world won’t make a bit of difference if they are not
implemented as an appropriate policy.
More than a few expert panels have already weighed-in on the issue of fracking
and the environment, and all of them agree that the single biggest problem is a lack
of data, especially field data (e.g. Jackson et al. 2013). The U.S. Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB) recommended greater transparency and full open disclosure of all chemical constituents added to frack fluid (USDOE 2015). The U.S. EPA
has called for more regulatory clarity and protection against known risks (https://
www.epa.gov/uog). The Council of Canadian Academies has urged focusing on
GHG emissions and water resources, especially groundwater (Council of Canadian
Academies 2014). In the U.K., the Royal Academy of Engineering and Royal
Society (2012) have recommended steps to reduce or eliminate induced seismicity
associated with fracking. The U.K. panel also suggested that water requirements
and environmental risks of fracking can be managed through operational best practices, with wellbore integrity as the highest priority, robust monitoring, and a mandatory environmental risk assessment at each site across the entire lifecycle of
operations.
Some authors have proposed that a total environmental study paradigm be
designed for impact analysis of fracking, similar to those done for other significant
human effects on the environment, such as mountain top removal coal mining or oil
sands production (Meng 2017). The argument is that the environmental impacts of
fracking are much broader and deeper than current studies presume, and a systematic research structure is needed to evaluate the effects of fracking on the total environment, including an examination of the complicated relationships among different
environmental elements. This may be a great idea on paper, but given the challenges
of getting industry to cooperate on even modest air quality and groundwater monitoring studies, is unlikely to happen.
On a more practical note, several things can be done immediately to remediate
some of the environmental damages caused by fracking and shale gas development.
Controlling air pollution, water contamination, stormwater runoff, and allowing terrestrial ecosystems to re-occupy the pad will benefit both the environment and
human health. Companies are not likely to implement these on their own, but if
enacted as regulations by state legislatures, the requirements could be enforced by
oil and gas regulators.
Air quality can be improved by ending the venting of methane and VOCs directly
into the atmosphere, especially from flowback water that typically contains high
VOC concentrations (Pekney et al. 2018). Flowback should be captured in closed
tanks, not open pits, to keep the gases and volatiles out of the air. Methane is a powerful GHG, and VOCs contribute to smog. Complex organic molecules in VOCs,
especially aldehydes will react with sunlight and moisture to form brown hazes or
smog. These sunlight-driven reactions in the atmosphere create ozone, one of the
most harmful pollutants in smog that can cause human health effects, harm birds
and mammals, damage vegetation, and crack rubber and polymer materials. If these
volatile vapors and gases must be removed from the flowback holding tanks, they
should be flared instead of vented. Flaring converts methane to carbon dioxide,
10.3 Remediation of Damages