Hydrofracking is a process of extracting crude oil and natural gas from underground sources. In this process, the earth surface is drilled horizontally into a shale rock where steel and concrete reinforcement are used to create a well. Thereafter water, sand, and other chemicals are injected into the underground rock to create fractures. However, this process has been hampered by its negative impacts on the environment. For instance, 60% of the water injected into the underground normally comes out as flow back medium ( Abualfaraj, Gurian & Olson, 2014). As a result, the flow back waste water carries hazardous chemicals that not only endanger people but the environment as well. With this knowledge, the disposal of hydrofracking wastewater has always been considered to be the main goal of environmental conservation. The federal government has been at the forefront of establishing policies that ensure the lives of citizens are not jeopardized. For instance, it prohibits the release of hydrofracking wastes into the surface water. Therefore, the companies carrying out fracking activities have no option other than looking for the viable means of disposing of the wastes. Wastewater treatment, recycling, and underground injections are some of the current best practices used in waste management.
With the direct disposal of wastewater having been restricted, companies have devised means of sending their wastes to treatment facilities. Some of this facilities are privately or publicly owned water treatment plants. These facilities are managed under the stipulations of the federal “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System” Act ( Rahm & Riha, 2014). Even though the disposal of hydrofracking wastes through water treatment facilities is widely used in the United States, it has its drawbacks. Once the wastewater has been treated in these facilities, it is normally released on the surface which is a risky process. Water treatment through these facilities should be less preferred since there are a lot of hurdles that need to be surmounted for it to be effective. If there is any misstep in the process, the life of people is endangered because some of the waste products like sodium fluoride are hazardous. In some other facilities, wellheads are used for the treatment of hydrofracking wastewater. Even though it provides an opportunity for treating wastewater in large amounts, it exposes the radioactive wastes to the environment. Some of these wastes deplete the oxygen in the region thus suffocating living organisms. Of all the hydrofracking waste disposal methods, water treatment through facilities should be considered last because of the risky challenges associated with it. Also, because the waste products are transported from the fracking sites to the facility, failure of transportation mediums endangers the environment in general.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Recycling of hydrofracking wastewater is another best method that is currently used. In this process, shale gas producers store wastewater in wells where treatment procedures are carried out before blasting the mixture into the shale rock. This method is more popularly used in Pennsylvania ( Skalak et al., 2014) . The Pennsylvania state has well-established water recycling standards that permit the treatment of water without causing any harm to the environment. However, the repeated use of this process may lead to the accumulation of waste products which could be difficult to manage. The water recycling method is normally carried out in a two-step process. The first step involves filtering off the solid particles from the flow back water then channeling it to the blending unit. Thereafter, the filtered water is subjected to various treatment chemicals that are determined by the products used in the fracking site. Once the water has been treated, it is made to go through a series of valves for the subsequent processes. For instance, once the wastewater enters the DAF unit, Nano-sized bubbles are introduced into the water to suspend all the solid particles for proper filtering. The second step of waste recycling involves channeling the filtered water to the disinfecting unit where bacteria and other harmful organisms are eliminated. In comparison to other methods of waste management, recycling of wastewater is considered the most environmentally friendly. However, this process requires stringent measures for its effectiveness. Also, there are other reuse methods, but their implementation is based on the composition of the wastes. Based on the chemicals used in the hydrofracking process some of the water recycling techniques may not require any pretreatment due to their low degree of danger to the environment.
Underground injection methods provide the best technique of disposing of wastewater obtained from hydrofracking processes. If the hydrofracking wastewater cannot be reused or treated further, underground injection provides the best solution. However, this process is effective in regions with porous sedimentary rocks where the injected water can easily be absorbed. The great plains and mid-continents are some of the locations considered viable for underground injections. Unavailability of proper sedimentary rocks has hampered the widespread use of underground injections. For instance, in 2011, only eight wells were allowed to be used in Pennsylvania with the authorization of additional well denied ( Lutz, Lewis & Doyle, 2013). As a result, the majority of hydrofracking companies in Pennsylvania transport their products to the wells stationed in Ohio and West Virginia for disposal. However, deep well injection method is regulated by the stipulations of the 1974 “Safe Drinking Water Act” ( Tiemann, & Vann, 2013). This Act stipulates that the recovered oil, hydrocarbons, and disposals are properly stored in the class II designators. Based on this concept, class II mediums are generally the waste water obtained in the extraction of natural gas and crude oil.
In the underground injection technique, the injected brine is typically isolated from the main sources of drinking water. It is a carefully executed process where brine is blasted into the porous rock that contains the corresponding salt formations. By depositing the waste salts in the rocks containing its formations, it is possible to reduce the contamination associated with it. Therefore, deep well injection methods are the safest of all the hydrofracking waste management methods. In the United States, more than two billion gallons of waste brine are injected into the underground wells ( Vengosh et al., 2014). California, Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma are some of the regions that are renowned for the underground injection of brine. In the year 2007, more than 882 gallons of hydrofracking water was managed by underground injections in the United States. In this year, about 40% of class II wells were used to get rid of the hazardous salts from the surface ( Vengosh et al., 2014). This statistical data help to reinforce the fact that underground injection technique is the most effective in disposing of fracking wastes. Also, considering the fact that waste treatment and recycling methods may not eliminate the accumulated salts deposits, underground injections provide the most viable solution. However, this method is hampered by the availability of few injection wells in the world. Also, the transportation of brine from hydrofracking sites to the wells may be hazardous due to a high chance of exposing the radioactive materials to the environment. For instance, in Marcellus shale, only a few class II wells are licensed to operate because of the geological restrictions imposed on the practice ( Eaton, 2013). The drawbacks associated with the transportation of brine is the main reason behind such sanctions in the region.
References
Abualfaraj, N., Gurian, P. L., & Olson, M. S. (2014). Characterization of Marcellus shale flowback water. Environmental Engineering Science , 31 (9), 514-524.
Eaton, T. T. (2013). Science-based decision-making on complex issues: Marcellus shale gas hydrofracking and New York City water supply. Science of the Total Environment , 461 , 158-169.
Lutz, B. D., Lewis, A. N., & Doyle, M. W. (2013). Generation, transport, and disposal of wastewater associated with Marcellus Shale gas development. Water Resources Research , 49 (2), 647-656.
Rahm, B. G., & Riha, S. J. (2014). Evolving shale gas management: water resource risks, impacts, and lessons learned. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts , 16 (6), 1400-1412.
Skalak, K. J., Engle, M. A., Rowan, E. L., Jolly, G. D., Conko, K. M., Benthem, A. J., & Kraemer, T. F. (2014). Surface disposal of produced waters in western and southwestern Pennsylvania: Potential for accumulation of alkali-earth elements in sediments. International Journal of Coal Geology , 126 , 162-170.
Tiemann, M., & Vann, A. (2013). Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues. Congressional Research Service, Report , 41760 .
Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014). A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environmental science & technology , 48 (15), 8334-8348.
