2014
DOI: 10.1186/2190-4715-26-10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential water-related environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing employed in exploration and exploitation of unconventional natural gas reservoirs in Germany

Abstract: Background: The application of hydraulic fracturing during exploration and exploitation of unconventional natural gas reservoirs is currently under intense public discussion. On behalf of the German Federal Environment Agency we have investigated the potential water-related environmental risks for human health and the environment that could be caused by employing hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs in Germany. Here we provide an overview of the present situation and the state of the debate in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
(1 reference statement)
0
15
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…For the majority of the substances used as fracking additives, no de minimis thresholds or other water-lawbased assessment values have yet been established. Therefore, hygienic guidance values for drinking water (GVDWmaximum concentration of a substance in drinking water that can be tolerated for a lifetime without suffering adverse effects on health) or health orientation values (HOV -precautionary value for substances that cannot (or can only partially) be toxicologically assessed [27]) and ecotoxicologically established Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNEC -maximum concentration of a substance at which no effects on organisms of an aquatic ecosystem are expected [28]) were assessed for such substances, or derived using published methods, following the concept of LAWA [26].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the majority of the substances used as fracking additives, no de minimis thresholds or other water-lawbased assessment values have yet been established. Therefore, hygienic guidance values for drinking water (GVDWmaximum concentration of a substance in drinking water that can be tolerated for a lifetime without suffering adverse effects on health) or health orientation values (HOV -precautionary value for substances that cannot (or can only partially) be toxicologically assessed [27]) and ecotoxicologically established Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNEC -maximum concentration of a substance at which no effects on organisms of an aquatic ecosystem are expected [28]) were assessed for such substances, or derived using published methods, following the concept of LAWA [26].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the uncompensated human and environmental damages associated with shale gas development, strategies to reduce risks of injuries should be considered (Bergmann et al 2014). One strategy is to employ BMPs that address activities to reduce risks of adverse consequences.…”
Section: Journal Of Environmental Planning and Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reaction mass of 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one ( this assessment, labeling of the considered frac fluids would not be necessary (ExxonMobile 2017). Another approach for the assessment of risks for health and ecological impacts by constituents of the frac fluid was introduced by Bergmann et al (2014). The authors defined a risk quotient by dividing the substance's concentration in the frac fluid by an assessment value.…”
Section: Chemical Namementioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). It should, however, be kept in mind that the approach by Bergmann et al (2014) uses the principles of drinking water assessment and, as such, may be critically discussed whether it represents an adequate basis. For example, the threshold values for groundwater were often justified by drinking water limit values or comparable derived toxicological guidance values.…”
Section: Chemical Namementioning
confidence: 99%