Fracking would pose no danger to water supplies, new research suggests

Posted: April 28, 2016 by oldbrew in fracking, Geology, research
Tags: ,

Hydraulic fracturing wellhead  [image credit: Joshua Doubek / Wikipedia]

Hydraulic fracturing wellhead
[image credit: Joshua Doubek / Wikipedia]

It’s enough to make celebrity anti-fracking protesters choke on their cakes. — H/T

Potential future fracking activity in the UK is unlikely to pose a pollution danger to overlying aquifers, new research from a leading academic suggests.

One of the primary concerns of those who oppose the development of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing is that creation of new fractures in the earth could cause fracking fluids to leak into, and contaminate, underground freshwater aquifers.

However, in a new paper just published online in the journal Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Professor Paul Younger from the University of Glasgow’s School of Engineering demonstrates that fracturing on a far larger scale – and far closer to overlying aquifers – led to no such interconnections.

A detailed study of the Selby Coalfield in Yorkshire illustrates this. Mining activity at Selby was carried out for more than two decades at depths far shallower than those proposed for potential fracking activity, until the coalfield was closed completely in 2004. While deep mines elsewhere in the UK gave rise to water pollution because of their mined connections to shallow flooded workings, Selby’s complete isolation from aquifers close to the surface prevented any development of pollution pathways via fractures. This isolation is closely analogous to what would happen (albeit at far greater depth, and thus even greater isolation) in the case of shale gas development.

Professor Younger, the University’s Rankine Chair of Engineering, said: “Although the Selby Coalfield didn’t use hydraulic fracturing of the kind suggested for the recovery of unconventional oil and gas deposits, the site offers a useful analogue to help us learn more about what could happen if fracking were to take place in strata of similar age in the UK.”

“In order for aquifers to be contaminated, an interconnection between a fracture and an aquifer would need to be created during the fracturing process. Firstly, shale gas developers have a major vested interest in preventing this from happening, since it would result in a great deal of expense to pump it away before gas production could begin. Secondly, we can see from Selby, which is located at less than half the depth of proposed shale gas fracturing zones, that total isolation from aquifers is entirely likely.

“Even where fracture connections were present, contamination could only occur if the water pressures favoured upward movement of fluids. In fracking, upward hydraulic gradients are only created for a few hours at the beginning of the process, after which the boreholes are de-pressurised altogether in order for gas or oil to be extracted. Given that potential contaminants would need to travel a kilometer or more to reach an aquifer, there is no way that they would be able to cover that distance during the short space of time an upward hydraulic connection would be created.”

The report goes on to discuss fracking in Scotland.

Full report: Fracking would pose no danger to water supplies, new research suggests

Professor Younger’s paper, titled ‘How can we be sure fracking will not pollute aquifers? Lessons from a major longwall coal mining analogue (Selby, Yorkshire, UK)’, is published in Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

  1. Fanakapan says:

    The water problem seems to have become the biggest Bull in the anti fracking roundup, primarily based upon the American experience.

    But of course what the UK anti progress groups forget, is that the provision of water supply outside of City Limits in the USA is primarily up to the householder, which involves the sinking of a bore hole on the property, and with a supply being virtually straight from ground to user.

    Contrast that with the prevailing situation in the UK, where those who are off the water grid must be vanishingly small in number. As a consequence of this happy state of affairs, water supply becomes monitored at numerous points between abstraction and delivery. In such a situation the pressure is then on the frackers to make doubly sure that the small chance of leakage of their propriety fracking fluids does not occur. Its not too hard to imagine the financial and PR damage that would result from the water supply being contaminated.

    There may also be an argument that those cases of tapwater being inflammable in the fracking zones in the USA, have likely come from people who lost out locally in the cash bonanza that US fracking is ? Its therefore likely that at least some of the famous cases may have been motivated by motives other than concern for ones water supply ?

    Given that all minerals in the UK are owned by the Crown, and in the absence of local financial winners and losers, we can, or ought to, expect a much more fair and balanced review of what may be a non existent problem 🙂

  2. Bitter&twisted says:

    “Professor Younger, the University’s Rankine Chair of Engineering”

    Professor Younger is not a Climate Scientist, his report is clearly deeply flawed and should be ignored (and probably will be).

  3. ivan says:

    Professor Younger is not a Climate Scientist

    Exactly, he is a real scientist and not a climate expert (remember, x is an unknown and a spurt is a drip under pressure).