Show simple item record

Hydraulic “Fracking”: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?

dc.contributor.authorBurton, G. Allenen_US
dc.contributor.authorBasu, Niladrien_US
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Brian R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKapo, Katherine E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEntrekin, Sallyen_US
dc.contributor.authorNadelhoffer, Knuteen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-08-06T16:50:07Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-08-06T16:50:07Z
dc.date.issued2014-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationBurton, G. Allen; Basu, Niladri; Ellis, Brian R.; Kapo, Katherine E.; Entrekin, Sally; Nadelhoffer, Knute (2014). "Hydraulic “Fracking”: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33(8): 1679-1689.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0730-7268en_US
dc.identifier.issn1552-8618en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/108102
dc.description.abstractUse of high‐volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) in unconventional reservoirs to recover previously inaccessible oil and natural gas is rapidly expanding in North America and elsewhere. Although hydraulic fracturing has been practiced for decades, the advent of more technologically advanced horizontal drilling coupled with improved slickwater chemical formulations has allowed extensive natural gas and oil deposits to be recovered from shale formations. Millions of liters of local groundwaters are utilized to generate extensive fracture networks within these low‐permeability reservoirs, allowing extraction of the trapped hydrocarbons. Although the technology is relatively standardized, the geographies and related policies and regulations guiding these operations vary markedly. Some ecosystems are more at risk from these operations than others because of either their sensitivities or the manner in which the HVHF operations are conducted. Generally, the closer geographical proximity of the susceptible ecosystem to a drilling site or a location of related industrial processes, the higher the risk of that ecosystem being impacted by the operation. The associated construction of roads, power grids, pipelines, well pads, and water‐extraction systems along with increased truck traffic are common to virtually all HVHF operations. These operations may result in increased erosion and sedimentation, increased risk to aquatic ecosystems from chemical spills or runoff, habitat fragmentation, loss of stream riparian zones, altered biogeochemical cycling, and reduction of available surface and hyporheic water volumes because of withdrawal‐induced lowering of local groundwater levels. The potential risks to surface waters from HVHF operations are similar in many ways to those resulting from agriculture, silviculture, mining, and urban development. Indeed, groundwater extraction associated with agriculture is perhaps a larger concern in the long term in some regions. Understanding the ecological impacts of these anthropogenic activities provides useful information for evaluations of potential HVHF hazards. Geographic information system–based modeling combined with strategic site monitoring has provided insights into the relative importance of these and other ecoregion and land‐use factors in discerning potential HVHF impacts. Recent findings suggest that proper siting and operational controls along with strategic monitoring can reduce the potential for risks to aquatic ecosystems. Nevertheless, inadequate data exist to predict ecological risk at this time. The authors suggest considering the plausibility of surface water hazards associated with the various HVHF operations in terms of the ecological context and in the context of relevant anthropogenic activities. Environ Toxicol Chem 2014;33:1679–1689 . © 2014 SETACen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherAquatic Toxicityen_US
dc.subject.otherFrackingen_US
dc.subject.otherWater‐Quality Stressoren_US
dc.subject.otherEcological Risk Assessmenten_US
dc.titleHydraulic “Fracking”: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelBiological Chemistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNatural Resources and Environmenten_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108102/1/etc2619.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/etc.2619en_US
dc.identifier.sourceEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistryen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEwen C, Borchardt D, Richter S, Hammerbacker R. 2012. Hydraulic fracturing risk assessment: Study concerning the safety and environmental compatibility of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas production from unconventional reservoirs. ExxonMobil Production, Darmstadt, Germany.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaluszczak LO, Rose AW, Kump LR. 2013. Geochemical evaluation of flowback brine from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania, USA. Appl Geochem 28: 55 – 61.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHamilton DA, Seelbach PW. 2011. Michigan's water withdrawal assessment process and Internet screening tool. Fisheries Division Special Report 55. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClements WH, Hickey CW, Kidd KA. 2012. How do aquatic communities respond to contaminants? It depends on the ecological context. Environ Toxicol Chem 31: 1932 – 1940.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Energy Information Administration. 2013. Technically recoverable shale oil and shale gas resources: An assessment of 137 shale formations in 41 countries outside the United States. Final Report. Washington, DC.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGround Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting. 2009. Modern shale gas development in the United States: A primer. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLubowski RN, Vesterby M, Bucholtz S, Baez A, Roberts M. 2006. Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. US Department of Agriculture, Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture. [cited 2014 March 27]. Avalailable from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib‐economic‐information‐bulletin/eib14.aspx#.U2O_rq1dVbt.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHowarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A. 2011. Methane and the greenhouse‐gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim Change 106: 679 – 690.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Government Accountability Office. 2012. Oil and gas: Information on shale resources, development, and environmental and public health risks. Report to congressional requesters. Washington, DC.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEntrekin S, Evans‐White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E. 2011. Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Frontiers in Ecology 9: 503 – 511.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilliams HFL, Havens DL, Banks KE, Wachal DJ. 2008. Field‐based monitoring of sediment runoff from natural gas well sites in Denton County, Texas, USA. Environ Geol (Berl) 55: 1463 – 1471.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDrohan PJ, Brittingham M, Bishop J, Yodeer K. 2012. Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale‐gas development in Pennsylvania: A potential outcome for the northcentral Appalachians. Environ Manag 49: 1061 – 1075.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRozel DA, Reaven SJ. 2012. Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale. Risk Analysis 32: 1382 – 1393.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD. 2013. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340: 1235009.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Watershed assessment, tracking & environmental results: Causes of impairments. [Cited 2014 March 27]. Available from: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control#causes.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurton GA, Johnston EL. 2010. Assessing contaminated sediments in the context of multiple stressors. Environ Toxicol Chem 29: 2625 – 2643.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. Progress report. EPA 601/R‐12/011. Washington, DC.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGround Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. 2013. FracFocus. [cited 2013 May 3]. Available from: fracfocus.org.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRahm BG, Bates JT, Bertoia LR, Galford AE, Yoxtheimer DA, Riha SJ. 2013. Wastewater management and Marcellus Shale gas development: Trends, drivers, and planning implications. J Environ Manag 102: 105 – 113.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWilson JM, VanBriesen JM. 2012. Oil and gas produced water management and surface drinking water sources in Pennsylvania. Environmental Practice 14: 288 – 300.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWarner NR, Christie CA, Jackson RB, Vengosh A. 2013. Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47: 11849 – 11857.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNORM Technology Connection [Internet]. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission [Cited 2013 May 3]. Available from: http://norm.iogcc.state.ok.us/index.cfm.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. 2011. Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 17: 1039 – 1056.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGosman S, Robinson S, Shutts S, Friedmann 2012. Hydraulic fracturing in the Great Lakes basin: The state of play in Michigan and Ohio. A legal analysis by the National Wildlife Federation. Ann Arbor, MI, USA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEncana Corporation. 2013. Chemical use. [cited 2013 March 2]. Available from: http://www.encana.com/environment/water/fracturing/chemical‐use.html.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceUS Geological Survey. 1999. Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in produced water and oil‐field equipment—An issue for the energy industry. FS‐142‐99. Washington, DC.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.