Watershed-Scale Impacts from Surface Water Disposal of Oil and Gas Wastewater in Western Pennsylvania

Abstract

Combining horizontal drilling with high volume hydraulic fracturing has increased extraction of hydrocarbons from low-permeability oil and gas (O&G) formations across the United States; accompanied by increased wastewater production. Surface water discharges of O&G wastewater by centralized waste treatment (CWT) plants pose risks to aquatic and human health. We evaluated the impact of surface water disposal of O&G wastewater from CWT plants upstream of the Conemaugh River Lake (dam controlled reservoir) in western Pennsylvania. Regulatory compliance data were collected to calculate annual contaminant loads (Ba, Cl, total dissolved solids (TDS)) to document historical industrial activity. In this study, two CWT plants 10 and 19 km upstream of a reservoir left geochemical signatures in sediments and porewaters corresponding to peak industrial activity that occurred 5 to 10 years earlier. Sediment cores were sectioned for the collection of paired samples of sediment and porewater, and analyzed for analytes to identify unconventional O&G wastewater disposal. Sediment layers corresponding to the years of maximum O&G wastewater disposal contained higher concentrations of salts, alkaline earth metals, and organic chemicals. Isotopic ratios of RaRa and SrSr identified that peak concentrations of Ra and Sr were likely sourced from wastewaters that originated from the Marcellus Shale formation.

Utilising Principles of Earth Jurisprudence to Prevent Environmental Harm: Applying a Case Study of Unconventional Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas in the United Kingdom

“…In the 1980s, Mitchell Energy, a company operating in the United States, succeeded in combining vertical with horizontal drilling techniques enabling the extraction of natural gas from previously inaccessible shale formations (Prud'homme 2014). This created what are now often classified as unconventional (horizontal) drilling techniques (Clough and Bell 2016), in unconventional (low-permeability) shale formations (Burgos et al 2017), for unconventional hydrocarbons (shale gas) (Speight 2013).…”

“…The potential consequences of UHF-climate change (Staddon and Depledge 2015), contaminated water supplies (Burgos et al 2017;Gottschalk et al 2013), earthquakes (Ellsworth 2013), loss of habitat due to the infrastructure required for wellpads, and noise 4 -all likely impinge upon other species' individual and community health and wellbeing. The supposed need for humans to have fossil fuel energy does not supersede the right of other species to maintain the integrity and health of their populations.…”

Questioning the local: environmental regulation, shale gas extraction, and the politics of scale

“…Studies that question the environmental and health impacts of shale have become heavily contested in the highly political US regulatory arena (see, for example McKenzie et al 2014). Nonetheless, an increasing number of ongoing studies find a number of impacts including low infant birthweights, stress and quality of life, asthma, and environmental effects including earthquakes and possible ground water contamination (see Burgos et al 2017;Currie, Greenstone, and Meckel 2017;National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2014;see US Geological Survey 2018).…”

Disclosing water-energy-economics nexus in shale gas development

“…8.3-27.0 L/GJ for coal [70,71]. Moreover, other issues have also been identified [72][73][74][75]. For instance, shallow aquifers and groundwater resources can be contaminated with fugitive hydrocarbons.…”