Estep 1

Paige Estep

Mrs. Jackie Burr

ENGL 2010

2 April 2019

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Fracking Water Cycle’s Impact on Groundwater Sources

Controversies about Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) are plentiful in this day in

age, from contaminated ground water to causing an increase in earthquake in areas with

multiple fracturing sites. In the 2000’s, people who live in heavily fracked areas raise the

concern of potential impacts to groundwater (EPA 1). With pressure by Congress the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did a study “to assess the potential for activities

in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle to impact… drinking water” (1). Hydraulic

fracturing is the act of pushing high pressured liquid mixed commonly with sand into oil

production wells to break up tight shale formations to increase oil and natural gas

production. There is an estimated 275,000 wells drilled and likely hydraulically fractured

between the years 2000 and 2013 (EPA 6). Hydraulic fracturing wells can be either be

vertical or horizontal. Vertical wells are more well known and seen as “the traditional

type of oil or gas well” and can go down between 50-300 feet; by comparison, Horizontal

wells are dug at a deeper depth than their vertical counterparts, about 1,500-5,000 feet

(How Hydraulic Fracking). Along with Horizontal and Vertical wells, there is differences

between the process. There is two different processes, high-rate fracking and high-

viscosity fracking. High-rate fracking is when proppant (solids designed to keep a

fracture open) is pumped into a well at a high rate, high-rate fracking is “associated with
 Estep 2

slickwater fracking fluids… [allowing] fluids to be pumped more quickly” (How

Hydraulic Fracking). On the other hand, high-viscosity is uses a high viscosity fluid as a

proppant, this method produces larger and more dominant fractures (How Hydraulic

Fracking).

The hydraulic fracturing water cycle mentioned by the EPA is what happens to

and how fracking companies dispose of the water they use for the fracking process. It is

important because water used in the process is mixed not only with solids like sand but

with other potential harmful chemicals. Chemicals such as ammonium chloride as a scale

inhibitor (to prevent blockage from scale); mixture of tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium

chloride, methanol and proprietary chemicals (chemicals protected by copyright or

patent) for use as a biocide; hydrochloric acid; paraffinic solvents, breakers in form of

sodium persulfate; and hydrotreated petroleum distillate as a fraction reducer (Mohan et

al. 2).

With the EPA study, they determined events where wells can impact or

contaminate the surrounding environment. In area with low water available or is

experiencing drought may see more severe impacts from the presence of the fracking

industry, hydraulic fracturing fluids or Chemical Spills during handling outside of the

fracturing process can lead to the chemicals reaching groundwater sources, The injection

of fracturing fluids or chemical directly into sources of groundwater can cause immense

impacts, chemical can also leak into groundwater if the walls of the wells have poor

mechanical integrity (2). The events above can impact groundwater sources and the
 Estep 3

surrounding environment. In every part of the hydraulic water cycle cases of

environmental impact has been identified (EPA 2).

In 2010, it was estimated about 42% of Americans rely on groundwater as their

primary source of water, the other 58% receive water from surface water (EPA 2). In the

same year only 14% of people who rely on groundwater received it from non-public

sources (EPA 2). Non-public water source can be described as wells on or from private

property or wells for a residence to use. If chemical from a fracturing site where to get

into a public water supply in would be a problem for resident who rely on public

groundwater sources in the area where contamination occurred: therefore, with the small
 Estep 4

percentage of people who use non-public water supplies, the contamination event would

affect a large percentage of people.

The EPA has identified five stages to the hydraulic fraucturing’s water cycle,

“each stage is defined by an activity involving water that supports hydraulic fracturing”

(EPA 7). Water acquisition is when companies take water from groundwater sources and

use the water to make fluids for hydraulic fracturing, after the water is withdrawn

chemical mixing can begin. (EPA 7). Chemical mixing is the production of the hydraulic
 Estep 5

fracturing fluid, the fluid is typically a mix of a base (commonly water taken in water

acquisition), proppant, and other additives introduced at the fracking site (EPA 7). The

hydraulic fracturing fluid is then injected into the well in the next stage called well

injection (EPA 7). The fluid is injected into the production wells and in rock formations

(EPA 7). When the site does not need the water anymore produced water handling can

start collecting and handling the water which is coming out of the well and be prepare for

disposal (EPA 7). The water collected from the site can either be reuse in the hydraulic

fracturing process or disposed of.

All the stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle have potential impacts.

Impacts defined by the EPA “ is any change in the quality or quantity of drinking water…

regardless of severity” (EPA 7). Also defined is severity which “ is the magnitude of

change in the quality or quantity of drinking water” (EPA 7). Though, hydraulic

fracturing is affordable and increases production of oil and natural gas it is not free from

risk. Fracking has the potential and can impact the environment in negative ways if the

chemicals used in the process are not handle correctly or site management is careless.

Hydraulic fracturing is high award but is also high risks and people need to find a balance

between the two and find the more safe and efficient way of boosting oil and natural gas

production.

Works Cited:

Scobie, Courtney. “Denton Could Become First Texas City to Ban Fracking.” Energy

Litigation Journal,
 Estep 6

vol. 14, no. 1, Fall 2014, pp. 15–16. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=102928163&site=eho

st-live.

“Avoidable ‘Fraccident’: An Argument Against Strict Liability for Hydraulic

Fracturing.” Kansas Law

Review, Feb. 2012, pp. 1215–1257. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=85972614&site=ehos

t-live.

Diaz, Jessica. “A Forest Divided: Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Service and the

Battle over Private Oil

and Gas Rights on Public Lands.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 2, May

2013, pp. 195–227. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=90041637&site=ehost-live.

HARTMAN, KRISTY. “Economies of Shale.” State Legislatures, vol. 41, no. 6, June

2015, pp. 28–30.

EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=103235974&site=ehost-live.

Mohan, Arvind Murali, et al. “The Functional Potential of Microbial Communities in

Hydraulic Fracturing

Source Water and Produced Water from Natural Gas Extraction Characterized by

Metagenomic Sequencing.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 10, Oct. 2014, pp. 1–12. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107682.
 Estep 7

“How Hydraulic Fracking Is Used And The Reasons For It.” setxinds.com, Mining New

Site, 1 December 2013, Web. Accessed 5 April 2019.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil

and Gas:

Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources

in the United States. Executive Summary. Office of Research and Development,

Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-16/236ES.