Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Environmental Concerns of the Hydraulic Fracturing for hydrocarbon extraction in Europe (Oil and Gas)
Introduction
According to the United Nations, the global population is expected to reach 8.5 billion persons in 2030, from 7.3 billion people in 2015 (Kreipl and Kreipl, 159). This population growth is a fundamental driver for economic expansion universally since the global demand for goods and services also increases simultaneously. The higher the need for these products, the higher demand for the raw materials together with energy. The International Energy Outlook 2013 stated that global energy consumption would increase by 56% from 2010 to 2040, by 2025, the energy use will be at 680 quadrillions Btu. In 2040, the use will be at 820 quadrillion Btu (Kreipl and Kreipl, 159). Nonetheless, while the demand rates of products, raw materials, and energy are increasing, their natural resources are declining. It becomes highly expensive to exploit both natural gas and oil resources successfully.
It is challenging to extract oil and gas in their fields due to impermeability or horizontal reservoirs or difficulties accessing them. Furthermore, there is also the objective of having the yields obtained from conventional crude oil and natural gas reservoirs improvement. These inaccessible fields and consistent yield improvements prompt the utilization of hydraulic fracturing/fracking. An estimated 80% or more of natural oils and gas drilling will involve fracking. The Council on Foreign relations indicated that various countries had implemented fracking, including the United States, where the process id use in an estimated none out of ten natural gas wells.
In Europe, the exploration and production of natural oil and gases have mainly been in the conventional resources readily available and quickly developed. These resources are mostly from sandstone, siltstone, and limestone reservoirs. Extraction from conventional resources will allow booth oil and gases to flow readily into boreholes. However, this kind of domestic extraction opportunity is reducing or becoming limited to meet the increasing demand. Countries within the European Union are now turning into the exploration of unconventional natural gas resources such as shale gas and tight gas (Tawonezvi, 2). The unconventional resources are characterized by porosity, permeability, fluid trapping mechanisms, and other reservoir characteristics or rock formations where gas extraction is done differently from the conventional reservoirs. While there are indicators of extensive shale gas resources within Europe, confirmations via exploratory drilling are required. Currently, the UK and Poland are the only countries that have undertaken high-volume hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas.
Despite the extensive use of hydraulic fracturing technologies to meet the primary economic demand, numerous concerns have been raised concerning the technology. Issues such as air emissions, high water consumption, microseismicity, and endangering groundwater sources because of perforations in the protective layers, and chemicals are oozing via the surfaces (Kreipl and Kreipl, 160). Additionally, cross-linking and breaking agents bring forth severe risks to the environment in regards to their eco-toxicity. Perforation In protective layers hindering groundwaters from being enriched with gas and chemicals. This risk is related to the depth of the well being considered in conjunction with the respective soil texture, the distance between the protective plates, and the cracks’ lengths. Some stakeholders have considered having proper regulations to govern the conditions in which hydraulic fracturing is utilized, for instance, permitting the technology only within wells with particular depths. This also applies to chemicals oozing via the surface where the industry players are prompted to have a protective concrete coat covering the area around the borehole. Overcoming the eco-toxicity round, the well takes a different form of using fluids and additives with no environmentally hazardous chemicals, which the market does not provide presently. These issues are a demonstration of some of the extensive environmental concerns arising from hydraulic fracturing technologies.
This research paper intends to comprehensively discuss the environmental concerns that arise from hydraulic fracturing for hydrocarbon extraction oil and gas within Europe. The discussion will first start with understanding hydraulic technologies and their implementation in Europe before moving into environmental concerns.
The objective of this European study
The European Council indicated that Europe needs to assess its potential in engaging in sustainable extraction and utilization of both conventional and unconventional fuel resources. As at the Council’s 2011 report that would be commissioned by the European parliament, there are numerous potential health and environmental risks associated with unconventional hydrocarbons extraction. These risks are more likely to happen, with almost half of all the European Union members interested in developing the resources.
Nonetheless, some European member states have prohibited or are looking into banning the utilization of hydraulic fracturing technologies. Their main objective is to have appropriate national legislation with specific national requirements for hydraulic fracturing (GreenFacts). The European context on the issue is evolving, thus suggesting an increasing need for a transparent, predictable, and logical approach for the unconventional resources to ensure optimal decisions are made in a field where the economy, environment, and public trust are fundamental. It is against this background that the European Commission would begin its investigations on the environmental and health risks and impacts affiliated with hydraulic fracturing to extract hydrocarbons in Europe (GreenFacts).
Currently, the European reserves of 639 Tcf compare favorably to 862 Tcf reserves located in the United States. However, there are other factors to consider when considering why they compare favorably (Morton et al). For instance, Europe’s geology tends to be more complex, with the hydrocarbon resources being buried more in-depth into the ground, thus making it more extensive to be extracted. The Deutsche Bank indicated that Europe’s extraction could cost up to three and a half times compared to the United States. The gas industry in America is also less restricted than Europe when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, considering it has also been exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act (Morton et al). This contrasts with a country like France, which has a moratorium on the technology, assessing its risks already undertaken.
Some other countries, such as Poland, have gone on with the exploration as it has issued over 20 licenses to respective firms, conduct tests on the drilled wells and commercial products already in place. Hydraulic fracturing was known in the UK after the occurrence of two small earthquakes in Lancashire in 2011 (Morton et al). However, the process has been happening from the 1970s, with an estimated 200 wells fracked onshore and others in the North Sea. Several experiments, such as the Lindsey oil well being carried out as it was fracked in September 19991 via a fracturing agent microbial acid, also called the Marmite. Theoretically, Marmite and molasses are food for particular bacteria that create acid for carbonate rock’s dissolution. Nonetheless, the acid would also feed the indigenous bacteria causing the production of hydrogen sulphide gas. The well would even fracture with the usual sand frack before the Marmite treatment, which continues to happen.
Hydraulic fracturing for hydrocarbon extraction in Europe (Oil and Gas)
Based on data by Montgomery and Smith, the history and development of fracking. The initial fracture treatments were undertaken using gelled crude and afterward gelled kerosene. The use of the fluids permitted the production of higher volumes at a lower cost due to their inexpensive nature (Gandossi and Ulrik Von, 14). In 1953, the introduction of water as a fracturing agent was made, prompting several gelling agents. It was also necessary to provide surfactants to reduce surface tension and reduce emulsion with the formation fluid. With time, other forms of clay-stabilizing instruments were produced, allowing water to be used in a greater variety of formations.
Due to the large variability of shale formations, no particular hydraulic fracturing technique has universally worked (Tawonezvi, 4). Every individual shale play has a distinct composition that needs to be countered using fracture treatment and fluid design. The importance of altering the fracturing liquid’s composition allows it to meet particular operational and reservoir settings (Hammond and Malcolm, 15). For instance, slickwater fracking is suitable for reservoirs, brittle, and initially fractured, and resistant to large water volumes. Ductile reservoirs necessitate more operational proppant placement to accomplish the required permeability. To make the fracturing liquid more effective, the fluid can be “energized” by incorporating compressed gas (Hammond and Malcolm, 12). This technique improves the energy needed to recover the fluid and reduces the amount of water placed on water-sensitive formations. The only disadvantage of this process is it minimizes the quantity of proppant deposited in the fracture.
Therefore, water-based liquids are the easiest and the most cost-effective method to break a rock formation. However, other alternatives have significantly performed better than water treatment in many areas. For example, foams have been considerably used to deplete conventional reservoirs where water-based fluids were not adequate. The choice of technique should be dictated by its cost-effectiveness and the quality of work done. The adoption of hydraulic fracturing to extract minerals from below the earth’s surface has become widespread today. The process of hydraulic fracturing is a technique utilized in the extraction of minerals and other gases from beneath the earth surfaces by injecting a liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks or boreholes. This technology enlarges and opens fissures due to the tremendous pressure exerted by the injected material forcing materials such as oil and gases to be exposed from beneath the earth, facilitating mining. This essay discusses the process of fracking for the extraction of hydrocarbon in Europe.
Advanced technology in performing our daily tasks has become a common phenomenon in our modern society. The increased utilization of advanced technology can be attributed to the remarkable ability to perform tasks faster, more effectively, and the financial benefits of these techniques (Gandossi and Ulrik Von, 9). One of the factors that have greatly influenced modern technology for hydrocarbon extraction in Europe is the ability of technological advances to offer solutions for the extraction of natural gas from unconventional reservoirs. The use of multiple techniques such as directional drilling, high degree hydraulic fracturing, and monitoring of micro-seismic with the advancement of multi-well pads has, in recent years, been very effective in gas production from shales due to its cost-effectiveness, making the process technically feasible.
Although these new technologies are essential, incorporating these techniques has created worries and great expectations in Europe. The increased concern caused by the utilization of these techniques is due to the tremendous environmental risks involved. On the other hand, the population has great expectations due to the large volumes of indigenous hydrocarbons produced. Even though other forms of formation stimulation do not utilize water-based fluids, such as dynamic loading and explosive fracturing, or use alternative fluids other than water, they are not used extensively due to low effectiveness.
Gandossi points out that it has to that some of the concerns associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing are high rates of water wastage, contamination of the aquifer, risk of earthquake occurrence in the region, enlarged surface footprint, and infiltration of methane in aquifers, among others (Gandossi and Ulrik Von, 10). Adoption of foam technology can be used to reduce water usage, although they are more expensive compared to water-based stimulators. Other methods that can be utilized to minimize these adverse effects are but are not limited to; using products that are not toxic, utilizing technologies that reduce or eliminate the usage of water, and minimizing a well’s footprint. Despite having alternative methods, hydraulic fracturing remains the most preferred technique due to its cost and technical effectiveness.
The technology of fracking involves using a liquid to break the reservoir rocks to facilitate mining. A hydraulic breakage can be achieved by injecting the fracturing liquid into the wellbore at a rate that is enough to maximize the pressure down the hole to surpass the rock (Gandossi and Ulrik Von, 14). The term hydraulic fracturing is extensively used nowadays to explain the process of breakage of rock formation utilizing water-based fluids. However, it is also used to describe all techniques that utilize fluids, including foams and emulsions, as a fracturing instrument. The utilization of water as a fracturing agent is a recently adopted technology.
Environmental Effects of Hydraulic fracturing Technologies for Extraction of Hydrocarbons (Oil and Gas).
The environmental impacts from hydraulic fracturing range from water-related effects on land use to noise to the seismic impact to air, among others. Scholarly research would also indicate that human health is also affected, and proper regulatory and safety procedures are required to mitigate these negative environmental impacts.
Water-related Effects
A higher risk is present concerning surface and groundwater in distinct stages of the constructing well-pass, the process of hydraulic fracturing, the production of gases, and the abandonment of wells (Bloomberg, ix). The developments could quickly accumulate, thus increasing the risk. During the early site constructions, run-offs, and erosion, mostly from stormwater, will cause silt accumulation, which is a challenge to the large-scale mining and extraction operations. Nonetheless, the extraction of hydrocarbons, both oil and gas, poses a higher risk considering it needs installation of extensive volumes, which are more likely to generate larger stormwater run-offs that affect the natural habitats via erosion of streams, the build-up of sediments, degrading water quality and flooding (Bloomberg, ix).
When the well designs and constructions are poorly done, contamination of subsurface groundwaters is possible due to aquifer penetration and the flow of fluids into and from the rock formations or combustible natural gas migrating into the water supplies. A properly constructed well will have a considerable distance between drinking water sources and the zones producing gases (Bloomberg, ix). The geological conditions will also be enough; thus, the risks associated are considered low in single and multiple installations. During the well drilling operations for natural gases, compressed air, or muds will be utilized as the drilling fluids. Notably, the drilling process could also lead to contamination due to a failure to maintain the stormwater controls, ineffective management of sites, inadequate surface and subsurface containment, and poor construction of cases, among other shortcomings. Therefore, inadequate engineering controls increase the risk of accidental releases increasing with the many shale gas wells. The risk of radioactive contamination increases with improper handling of cutting produced from the wells. Any exposure to the various risks may pose a small chance to health, but it only happens when there is a significant failure in the established control systems. In the view of the potential impact of spillages on the sensitive water risks, the risk on surface waters is considered moderate (Bloomberg, ix).
During the technical hydraulic fracturing processes, the risk of contamination of surface water and groundwater is considered to be moderate to high. In areas with a 600m separation between the sources of water and production zone, the likelihood of fracturing liquid that is properly injected to reach the underground sources via the fracture is considered remote. Nonetheless, natural and human-made geological features used in increasing hydraulic connectivity between the deep strata and the shallow formations have a risk of migration to seepage. If the depth separation is large, then the risk increases further. In case wastewater has been used to form the fracturing liquid, water requirements may be reduced, but there is a risk of introducing the naturally occurring chemical contaminants and radioactive materials into the aquifers if a well fails if the fractures do extend out of the production zone.
Potential aquifer contamination could also occur when the designs to wells are inadequately done, or the well casing fails during the production phase; the substances that raise potential concern encompass the naturally occurring heavy metals, natural gas, radioactive materials, and the technologically enhanced radioactive materials arising from the drilling operations (Bloomberg, ix). Generally, risks related to groundwater are considered to range from moderate to high when dealing with individual sites and high when dealing with many sites’ development.
The potential water-related impact pathways are fundamental in understanding the respective risks related to hydraulic fracturing (Meiners and Denneborg, C1). Generally, the paths include: Pathway group 0 encompassing pollutant (substance) discharges done directly to the ground surface, the Pathway group 1, which is pollutant substance rising and spreading across the boreholes, Pathway group 2 including the pollutant substances growing and spreading across the geological faults, pathway group 3 including the direct discharges of the hydraulic fracturing fluids into the underground regions and the pollutant substances rising and spreading without following the preferred pathways, the flow back disposal through disposal wells and a combination of the distinct impact pathways in conjunction with effects in the long run (Meiners and Denneborg, C2).
The effective functioning of an impact pathway requires enough permeability and potential differences. Notably, the different sites have distinct hydrogeological systems such that when exploration and exploitation are planned, there is a need for the system to be identified and monitored to determine the large-scale and combined effects of the activities. In the proper geological and hydrogeological conditions, different components can rise and spread through impact pathways, including fracking fluids, formation water, gases, and finally, the solution, reaction, and transformation products formed by a combination of fracking fluids and formation water (Meiners and Denneborg, C3). These components rise and spread to the near-surface groundwater that is exploitable. This process means that the pollutants and gases could enter the near-surface water cycles and impair the waters that they cannot be used for their qualitative uses. Additionally, the changes that occur within the projects affect the natural permeabilities and hydraulic potentials, causing further changes in the large scale hydro-geological flow systems. For instance, fracking within a target horizon will increase permeabilities across the entire large field (Meiners and Denneborg, C3).
In case wells are not sufficiently sealed after they are abandoned, groundwater and surface waters are more likely to be contaminated. However, there is still little information on the risks brought forth by the movement of fracturing fluids to the surface in the long run. A higher presence of high salinity fluids during the formations of shale demonstrates the lack of a pathway to release fluids into other formations under the present geological conditions that would prevail in those particular formations. Nonetheless, a research rapport that was published recently. It stated that the pathways might exist in particular geological areas, such as in Pennsylvania, thus requiring a high standard of characterix=zation in those conditions.
Hydraulic fracturing utilizes a lot of water, causing a risk of significant effects brought about by water abstraction, especially in multiple installations. A proportion of the water never gets recovered, in case the water has been excessively used, this could cause a decline in public water supplies, cause adverse impacts on the aquatic habitats and ecosystems due to degraded waters, the quality and quantity of water are affected. In contrast, the water temperature changes; for the areas suffering from water scarcity they negatively impact the climate change effects of water demand and supply, especially in the long run. Water levels are expected to reduce due to chemical changes in water aquifers causing bacterial growth that negatively affect the taste and odor of drinking ware. Destabilization of the underlying geology can also occur before the upwelling of low-quality water or other substances. The United States has, however, suspended water withdrawal licenses for hydraulic fracturing, which should be a consideration for other regions utilizing the processes.
Figure1: An Illustration of the Effects of Hydraulic Fraction on Drinking Water as Presented by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.
Air Emissions
Generally, the extraction and exploitation of unconventional oils and gas have been suspected to be linked to greenhouse gas emissions and emission of airborne pollutants, leading to climate change. In relation to the fracking fluids, gases and vapor are emitted into the atmosphere from the fluids due to the original additive chemicals, ingrained contaminants from the formation of shale gas, and the methane released during the fracking process (Khyade, 72). There is currently a debate on the relative leakage rate of methane into the atmosphere due to exploiting shale gas compared to the emission rates from conventional oil and gas. This is fundamental because a high leakage rate could mean that the methane from the fracking operations into the atmosphere from shale gas extraction will have a higher net greenhouse gas footprint. The fracking operators need to implement measures to minimize emissions into the atmosphere and monitor the processes to ensure that efforts have been actively enforced.
The report by the European Union on the potential risks associated with hydraulic fracturing included the emissions of methane from wells, diesel fumes, and other hazardous substances. Hydraulic fracturing equipment such as the valves, compressors, and pumps will also release ozone precursors or odors. The gases and the process’ fluids will dissolve into the flow backwater, which also poses emission risks. For instance, considering methane, MIT’s study in 2012 indicated that the natural gas was migrating into the freshwater zones in particular areas due to substandard well completions (MIT). Methane is considered one of the worst greenhouse gas pollutants that are causing climate change. Methane would also contaminate groundwater, negatively affecting the water quality, and in extreme scenarios, they may cause potential explosions. The emission of hazardous pollutants from gases and hydraulic fracturing fluids are more likely to dissolve in wastewater as the wells are completed. The fugitive emissions of methane, which also has links with forming photochemical ozone and climate effects, together with other hazardous gases, may happen when gas is being routed using the small-diameter pipelines to the primary ones or gas treatment plants (Bloomberg, viii).
The technicalities of hydraulic fracturing increase concern on the potential effects on air quality (Bloomberg, vii). The diesel fumes from the fracking liquid pumps and the emission of hazardous pollutants, ozone precursors, and odors from gases leaking during the completion stage. Methane could also be released together with other traces of hydrocarbons during the production phase, which will contribute to air pollution locally and regionally. These increase the risk of adverse health effects, potentially high when the refracturing operations continue to occur (Bloomberg, vii). The adverse impact on air quality that causes the depletion of ozone levels have demonstrated harming respiratory health, which is an extensively high risk (Hoffman). Acute and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma will arise from the airborne particulates, ozone, and exhaust form the drilling and transit equipment. Apart from the individuals living in the regions, air pollution is a concern for the workers within the fracking well sites due to the chemical emissions from the storage tanks and the open flowback pits in conjunction with the airborne concentrations from the surrounding wells (Whalen, 58).
Land Pollution
Hydraulic fracturing has also demonstrated having significant risks on land due to the extensive utilization of the resource. The surface installations will need a field of about 3.6 hectares for each pad as high volume hydraulic fracturing occurs during the phases of fracturing and completion (Bloomberg, vii). Conventional drilling utilizes only 1.9 hectares for each pa. Furthermore, more land is needed during the refracturing activities, which each well could even experience up to four times of refracturing during its lifetime of about 40 years. Despite the extensive land utilization, research has proven that it is next to impossible to have the sites restored, especially the sensitive areas that have wells completed or abandoned. This is detrimental, especially when dealing with high agricultural, natural, and cultural lands considered to have a high value. The large areas that have multiple installations will experience significant loss or fragmentation of amenities and the recreational facilities, valuable farmlands, and even the natural habitats.the report done by Fayetteville Shale in 2015 indicates that the mature as fields affected almost % of the land field, which would substantially increase the edge habitat creations (Bloomberg, vii).
Seismicity
The stimulation done for the hydraulic simulation modeling has been identified for causing microseismicity, which increases the risk of microearthquakes, which have magnitudes of less than two and maximally three on the Dinske et al, 173)). However, there have been numerous large seismic events that increase the possibility of induction by hydraulic fracturing. The most massive induced earthquake from hydraulic fracturing reached a magnitude of 3.6. Scholars have indicated while the impact is not negligible, they have no severe risks affiliated with them (Bennett, 42).
By August 2016, at least nine fault reactivation cases from hydraulic fracturing were known, which induced seismicity that could be dealt with by human beings on the surface. These cases happened in Canada, British Columbia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Additionally, only a small fraction of the waste fluid disposal wells for both oil and gas activities have induced the earthquakes, which raised concerns among the public. While the magnitudes have been small, the USGS indicates no guarantee that more massive earthquakes may not happen (United States Geological Survey). The earthquakes’ frequency has also been reaching sixfold from the 20th-century levels; there is also a concern that the earthquakes may damage the underground, gases, oil, water lines, and wells that had not been designed to resist earthquakes.
Traffic Impacts
The total truck movements during the wells’ construction and developments are estimated to be about 7000 to 11000 for each ten-well pads (Bloomberg, x). The movements are typically temporary in duration but cause adverse effects on both local and national roads. The result is extensively felt in areas that are densely populated. Other industry players have considered reducing the truck movements by using temporary pipelines to transport water. The intensive development phases have been estimated to have 250vtruck trips each day for each site. Their effects that are extensively faced by residents include the increased traffic levels on the public road, issues arising from road safety, damages to the streets, bridges, and other infrastructure, increased risk of spillages and accidents that encompass hazardous materials. The more installations are within a region, the higher the negative impacts (Bloomberg, x).
Noise Pollution
For each well pad, they undergo preparatory and hydraulic processes, which could take between 600 to 2500 activity days to affect the community residents. These processes emit a lot of noise as the activities are carried out together with the transit operations. The noise that will come from traffic or burnoffs has been seen as a source of psychological distress and poor academic performance for both the adults and students within the region. The UK Onshore Oil and Gas, which is the industry’s representative body, has a published charter that stipulates the measures to mitigate noise through sound insulation and heavily silenced rigs when they are needed.
Visual Effects
The identification and preparation of well-pad sites have a risk of fundamental visual effects even if it is considered low risk due to new landscape features brought in during the well pad construction stage, the utilization of large will drilling rigs are unsightly during the construction duration, especially in the sensitive agricultural and residential areas (Bloomberg, xi). The local persons may not be familiar with the drills’ sizes and scales, hence the risk of the significant impact if moderate in the circumstances where there is the development of multiple well pads. The affiliated risks with visual effects related to hydraulic fracturing are less marked, with primary landscape changes having less visually intrusive features. A moderate risk is experienced in the multiple installations of time the site is prepared and the fracturing phases. All wellhead equipment may not be removed during the site’s post abandonment phase, but this still poses a low risk of significant visual intrusions since small equipment is more likely to remain on site.
Current Approaches in Europe Handling Environmental Concerns.
The European region has mainly implemented regulatory frameworks to control hydraulic fracturing operations to mitigate their environmental concerns (Healy, 18). The French Government imposed bans on fracking in May 2011 to respond to the pressure arising from distinct ecological groups. The exploration permits at the time would be revoked, especially for the companies that had fracking programs as part of their appraisal plans. It is important to note that the exploration and development of unconventional resources have not been banned. Still, the actual fracturing process is a fundamental element of the development of geothermal energy from the hot, dry rock located in the Soultz-sous-Forets in Vosges, France (Healy, 18). The process is also evident in the offshore hydrocarbon fields, raising questions on whether the fracking ban applies to other situations.
With the largest reserves of shale gas, Poland is engaging in extensive drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes. The UK is carrying out close monitoring of Poland and has cautioned the EU on having a unilateral development policy whose drive is energy security (Healy, 19). As of 2011, Poland did not have any specific legislation on shale gas and grant concessions to over 100 foreign companies. Bulgaria has outlawed the fracking process while Germany is considering the exploratory drilling. The UK would first place suspensions on the hydraulic fracturing process due to the small earthquakes resulting from the process near Blackpool in 2011 (Healy, 9). The government has not identified any ban on the fracking process by fully supporting unconventional oil and gas extraction as long as it is done safely and correctly. The Environment Agency in the UK also believes that proper legislation is developed to deal with flow back fluids.
Recommendations for handling the Environmental Concerns from hydraulic Fracturing.
All European member states require robust regulatory processes that will cover the entire range of hydraulic fracturing processes within their boundaries. These regulations need to consider all the particular risks related to the technologies. The public and industry players should understand the dangers of hydraulic fracturing through the policies, regulations, and extensive awareness. Notably, hydraulic fracturing is already presenting benefits, especially in easing the process of exploiting hydrocarbons; thus, some governments supporting its utilization within the country. The typical call for bans and moratoria should be considered with caution since even though it entails taking actions against risks, the risk could be deferred into later dates when the technology is implemented again, or the countries will lose out on the economic potential of the exploited hydrocarbons. In this case, it is preferred to have the practice but in a limited manner.
Therefore, reasonable policies are required to deal with the identified risks as they also allow the practice. The various changes happening in the operations being considered would ensure that the risks and negative impacts are mitigated. For instance, the regulatory frameworks would encompass ensuring all the industry players have protective coverings that would ensure gases are not released into the atmosphere or to water pathways and have a respective body that will regularly investigate whether the right measures are implemented by the players at all stages. The industry needs to develop a culture of self-regulation, which goes beyond meeting regulatory requirements. Extensive research is to be conducted on the potential environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing and the risks posed to human and ecological health. Fundamentally, they make use of the information to ensure they are doing everything they can to mitigate them.
Furthermore, the real world is more complicated than ideal scenarios. While residents are affected by hydraulic fracturing operations, they do not necessarily have similar tolerance levels for the affiliated risks (Murphy, 23). They may not be fully aware of the production protocols’ benefits and disadvantages. Some of these pros and cons of fracking will not be entirely borne by the landowner when one decides to allow the operations, which brings forth another complication. The overlapping jurisdictions within pre-existing regulations also make it challenging to instill a group of particular recommendations to the government officials. However, legal and regulatory frameworks’ complexity should not act as a deterrence to make the practice tolerably safe. With the right measures in different stages and urging the industry to implement and comply with the recommended “best practices” will most likely push the industry towards being environmentally friendly (Murphy, 24). Local communities also need to be intensively educated on the whole process such that they will only grant permission to companies that have demonstrated compliance with the recommended practices and the existing regulations.
Conclusion
Hydraulic fracturing technologies are being considered in the European region to explore hydrocarbons such as oil and gas as the conventional resources deplete. However, these processes do raise concerns about the numerous environmental risks they pose. However, the extensive economic benefits they provide to immediate communities, and the societies should prompt scholars to bring up ways to see the industry players gain maximal economic benefit while reducing the negative impacts on the environment. To this effect, proper regulatory mechanisms and adequate education initiatives should guide how to conduct the operations safely.
Works Cited
Gandossi, Luca, and Ulrik Von Estorff. “An overview of hydraulic fracturing and other formation stimulation technologies for shale gas production.” Eur. Commission Jt. Res. Cent. Tech. Reports 26347 (2013).
Hammond, Patrick A., and Malcolm S. Field. “A reinterpretation of historic aquifer tests of two hydraulically fractured wells by application of inverse analysis, derivative analysis, and diagnostic plots.” Journal of Water Resource and Protection 2014 (2014).
Tawonezvi, Joseph. “The legal and regulatory framework for the EU shale gas exploration and production regulating public health and environmental impacts.” Energy, Ecology and Environment 2.1 (2017): 1-28.
Healy, David. “Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts: A Small Scale Study for the Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland) under the Science, Technology, Research & Innovation for the Environment (STRIVE) Programme 2007–2013.” (2012).
MIT. “The Future of Natural Gas.” Main, 2 July 2012, energy.mit.edu/research/future-natural-gas/.
Environmental Protection Agency (USA), 2011, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm
Meiners, G., and M. Denneborg. “Environmental impacts of fracking related to exploration and exploitation of unconventional natural gas deposits: risk assessment, recommendations for action and Assessment of relevant existing legal provisions and administrative structures.” UWETBUNDSAT https://www. umweltbundesamt. de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_83_2013_environmental_impacts_of_fracking. pdf. Accessed on 15 (2016).
Bloomfield, Mark. Support to the Identification of Potential Risks for the Environment and Human Health Arising from Hydrocarbons Operations Involving Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe/[Author: Dr. Mark Bloomfield]. AEA Technology pic, 2012.
Bennett, Les, et al. “The source for hydraulic fracture characterization.” Oilfield Review 17.4 (2005): 42-57.
United States Geological Survey. “Man-Made Earthquakes Update” (17 January 2014). Archived from the original on 29 March 2014. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
Hoffman, Joe. “Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana.” Case Studies, 15 Feb. 2012, serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html.
Khyade, Vitthalrao B. “Hydraulic fracturing; Environmental issue.” World Scientific News 40 (2016): 58-92.
Whalen, Christina. “The environmental, social, and economic impacts of hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and acidization in California.” (2014).
GreenFacts. “Risks of Shale Gas Exploitation in Europe.” Shale Gas: 1. Why Are Unconventional Natural Gas Resources in Europe Likely to Be Exploited?, 2020, www.greenfacts.org/en/shale-gas/l-2/1.htm.
Kreipl, M. P., and A. T. Kreipl. “Hydraulic fracturing fluids and their environmental impact: then, today, and tomorrow.” Environmental Earth Sciences 76.4 (2017): 160.
Dinske, Carsten, Serge A. Shapiro, and James T. Rutledge. “Interpretation of microseismicity resulting from gel and water fracturing of tight gas reservoirs.” Pure and applied geophysics 167.1-2 (2010): 169-182.
Morton, Michael Quentin, et al. “Unlocking the Earth – A Short History of Hydraulic Fracturing.” GEO ExPro, 6 Mar. 2014, www.geoexpro.com/articles/2014/02/unlocking-the-earth-a-short-history-of-hydraulic-fracturing.
Murphy, Robert. “Managing the Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing, 2020 .” Fraser Institute.org, 2020.
