For years, the American people have been assured by energy companies that fracking is harmless and doesn’t use more water than other energy sources. The Duke research team that recently put out a new report begs to differ. They examined data across 12,000 wells and five years of operation. Here are key findings from the report and what they mean for our survival.
The Findings
Water is staying trapped in the shale, or if it does re-emerge, isn’t treated:
Only a small fraction of the fresh water injected into the ground returns as flowback water, while the greater volume of FP (flowback and produced) water returning to the surface is highly saline, is difficult to treat, and is often disposed through deep-injection wells.
Right: Charts showing the increase in water use intensity over time. Left: Charts showing the decrease in usable Flowback & Produced waters over time. Courtesy of Duke University via Creative Commons.
The amount of water used by fracking has been critically underestimated.
The study finds that from 2011 to 2016, the water use per well increased by as much as 770 percent. In an interview for ThinkProgress, one of the authors of the study explained how early estimates of fracking’s irresponsible use of water had been so skewed:
“Previous studies suggested hydraulic fracturing does not use significantly more water than other energy sources, but those findings were based only on aggregated data from the early years of fracking… After more than a decade of fracking operation, we now have more years of data to draw upon from multiple verifiable sources.”— Avner Vengosh, Duke professor of geochemistry and water quality
The toxic wastewater produced is a much bigger problem than previously understood.
The study found that toxic wastewater produced from fracking had increased up to 1440 percent between 2011 and 2016. There has been no satisfactory practice of water treatment that returns this water to usable condition for humanity — and at this scale, one can reason that fracking is on pace to destroy U.S. water sources and leave us without water for our population’s consumption:
The total water impact of hydraulic fracturing is poised to increase markedly in both shale gas– and oil-producing regions. On the basis of modeling future hydraulic fracturing operations in the United States in two scenarios of drilling rates, we project cumulative water use and FP water volumes to increase by up to 50-fold in unconventional gas-producing regions and up to 20-fold in unconventional oil-producing regions from 2018 to 2030, assuming that the growth of water use matches current growth rates and the drilling of new wells again matches peak production.
What We Do Next Is Critical
Waiting another five years for a new report to bolster this or to show an even bigger spike in fracking’s greedy water consumption is not an option.
“At a time when large parts of our county are suffering through persistent droughts and year-round fire seasons, it’s truly unconscionable that the fossil fuel industry would be allowed to divert vast volumes of water to fracking for oil and gas. The fact that the burning of this oil and gas is driving our climate chaos and intensifying the droughts and fires makes this reality all the more shameful and absurd.” – Seth Gladstone, Food & Water Watch
Organizations like Food & Water Watch and people like you need to double down on our efforts to ban fracking now and to move to 100% renewable energy ASAP. Humanity doesn’t get a do-over on saving our water supply.
Showing your support for a ban on fracking helps persuade Congress.
Care about plastic pollution? Then it’s time to work to start moving away from fossil fuels.
Plastic is a serious problem, and it’s time we addressed it at its source: fossil fuel production. Plastics are increasingly fueled by fracking in the U.S.—the extreme method of extracting fossil fuels that is polluting our air and our water, and exacerbating climate change. Fracking provides the cheap raw materials for plastics production, which has lead industry publication Plastics News to say fracking “represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity.” More fracking equals more profit in plastics (which equals, you guessed it…more plastics.)
It is so pervasive in our environment that it’s become commonplace to digest it through the microplastics present in our food and water.
Plastic in Water, Salt…Even Beer?
Everyone drinks water, and whether you drink tap water or bottled water, you are very likely ingesting some level of plastic pollution. A recent study by Orb Media tested 159 drinking water samples from cities and towns around the world, and 83 percent of those samples contained microplastic fibers. That means food prepared with plastic-contaminated water becomes contaminated as well.
Bottled water samples fared even worse than tap water—unsurprising because it is manufactured with plastic. Another recent study by the same organization found 90 percent of bottled water analyzed from around the world contained plastic microfibers. A single bottle of Nestlé Pure Life had concentrations of microfiber plastics up to 10,000 pieces per liter. The type of plastic used to make bottle caps was the most common type of microplastic fiber found in bottled water.
In response to the mounting evidence showing plastic is present in our drinking water, the World Health Organization is now looking into the problem.
Plastic has also been found in sea salt, and researchers attribute that to the ubiquitous nature of single-use plastics such as water bottles, which comprise the majority of plastic waste. In 2015 about 70 percent of plastic water bottles went unrecycled, and much of this plastic waste ends up in landfills, incinerators or in—you guessed it—our oceans and seas. Plastic has also been found in seafood, beer, honey and sugar.
We need more research on the extent of microplastic pollution and the best ways to treat water to remove it. It’s also clear that we need to upgrade water treatment plant infrastructure so it can handle this new pollutant. But the best way to address this pollution is at the source by reducing plastic waste in the environment.
Fracking in the U.S. Promotes a Global Plastics Bonanza
Fracking, which causes many negative public health problems and harms our air, water, and climate, is now powering a dangerous plastics bonanza. It was the rapid expansion of fracking in the United States that led to a gas glut, which drove real natural gas prices to the lowest level in decades. This is where the plastic industry came to the rescue of the oil and gas industry: low-cost ethane, a byproduct of fracking, is used to manufacture plastics.
Both plastic and ethane are being exported across the globe. More than half of the raw plastic produced in the U.S. is headed to distant shores. Whereas the chemical giant Ineos, based in the United Kingdom, is receiving ethane to help fuel European plastic factories. The controversial Mariner East pipeline system delivers this gas byproduct to the Marcus Hook export terminal in Pennsylvania—where it is then carried via massive “dragon ships” across the Atlantic to Ineos’ facilities in Grangemouth, Scotland and Rafnes, Norway.
What represents an “opportunity” for the plastics, oil, and gas industries means adverse health effects and climate catastrophe for all of us. To learn more about the toxic relationship between the plastics and fracking industry read our fact sheet, and spread the word: we can’t tackle plastic pollution without moving off fossil fuels.
When the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit for the 1,100-mile Dakota Access Pipeline in July, executives at the corporations behind the plan probably thought their path forward was clear. They’d moved easily through the permit process, seemingly dodging the concerns of people affected by the pipeline, and were ready to go ahead with construction.
But the communities in the pipeline’s path, especially local tribes, had other ideas. Thousands of people, mostly Native Americans, have converged at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota in an effort to stop the pipeline from being built. The Standing Rock Sioux call the pipeline a black snake, and they know that if it were to rupture and spill — a serious risk, given the well-documented history of pipeline leaks in the U.S. — it could poison their drinking water and pollute their sacred land.
As we will detail, the Standing Rock Sioux are not just up against the oil and gas industry and the federal government, as daunting a challenge that alone would be. They are up against many of the most powerful financial and corporate interests on Wall Street, the profit-driven institutions that are bankrolling this pipeline plan and so many others like it throughout the country.
The pipeline company disrupted the peaceful demonstration this weekend when its security firm unleashed violence on the activists, attacking them with dogs and pepper spray. The tribes are standing strong in their unity, and won’t give up despite these frightening and horrifying developments.
Your voice can help stop injustice like this. Join our volunteer call & text team to reach out on important issues like this.
Powerful oil and gas companies are taking appalling steps to override the Sioux’s objections, using their immense financial resources to push for building this pipeline, which will further line their pockets. But behind the companies building the pipeline is a set of even more powerful Wall Street corporations that might give you flashbacks to the 2007 financial crisis.
Here are the financial institutions banking on the Dakota Access pipeline:
Seventeen financial institutions have loaned Dakota Access LLC $2.5 billion to construct the pipeline. Banks have also committed substantial resources to the Energy Transfer Family of companies so it can build out more oil and gas infrastructure:
Energy Transfer Partners has a revolving credit line of $3.75 billion toward expanding its oil and gas infrastructure holdings, with commitments from just 26 banks.
All told, that’s $10.25 billion in loans and credit facilities from 35 banks directly supporting the companies building the pipeline. Beyond the Energy Transfer family of companies, many of the same banks have likewise given big credit lines to the other stakeholders in the pipeline–Phillips 66, Marathon and Enbridge.
These banks expect to be paid back over the coming decades. By locking in widespread drilling and fracking in the false name of U.S. energy independence and security, the banks are increasing our disastrous dependence on fossil fuels.
How Standing Rock Sioux are Fighting Back
The focal point of the resistance is at a camp outside the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Thousands of people, most of them Native Americans, have gathered in nonviolent demonstration to stop the pipeline’s construction and protect their land and water. In August, youth from the tribe finished a 2,000-mile relay run to Washington, D.C., to bring their message to the White House in their own show of opposition. The tribe is doing everything in their power to stop this pipeline.
Even before Dakota Access’s security turned violent, the activists faced harsh responses as Governor Dalrymple has declared a state of emergency, removing water and sanitation resources from the reservation, and the police have set up roadblocks around the reservation. Dozens of protesters have already been arrested, and police have spread false rumors of violence from the peaceful protectors.
But it’s the company, not the activists, that’s guilty of violence. This weekend, security sprayed activists with mace and released guard dogs into the crowd – even a pregnant woman was bitten by a dog. Democracy Now! captured disturbing footage of the attack.
In the aftermath of such violence, we can’t lose sight of how remarkable this gathering is: in a historic show of unity, over 300 North American tribes have united in solidarity with the Oceti Sakowin, or Sioux Nation effort to stop the pipeline.
Philip J. Deloria, a professor of American Culture and History at the University of Michigan, sees the fight as historic:
“The whole thing is kind of amazing, really. It’s a conjuncture of local organizing, social media activism, tribal-generated intertribal solidarity, semi-traditional ‘march on Washington’ strategies, and alliances with environmental and other political action groups… I think a lot of Indian people are seeing it as a moment of new possibility.”
Energy Transfer Partners is pushing ahead with their construction — and in North Dakota’s dirty-energy-oriented economy, these corporations have the backing of the political establishment. In contrast, the activists stand against them with only their bodies, protecting their sacred and sovereign land and water by physically standing in the way of the construction.
We all owe these activists our support. Communities all along the pipeline route have been carrying out their own protests, and Food & Water Watch has been working with the Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition to block the proposal since it was first announced in 2014. Now, as the pipeline is being built, we’re asking everyone to call on your senators to intervene.
The Problems with Pipelines
Oil pipelines are inherently dangerous, and threaten our communities and environment with spills and explosions. They boost corporate profits and increase our dependence on fossil fuels, while bringing only risks and harms to those who live along the pipelines’ paths.
Overall, the Bakken Crude Pipeline will cost about $4.8 billion, and Energy Transfer Partners is touting it as a key element of its future plans to “capitalize on U.S. energy exports.” In building this infrastructure, Energy Transfer and its financial backers are banking on increased fracking in the United States in the coming decades. Over that time, communities will be left to deal with the spills, explosions, water pollution, air pollution, and climate impacts that ensue.
Help Stop the Bakken Pipeline
Pipelines are not the answer to our energy needs. We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and we need an urgent shift to 100% renewable energy. The Dakota Access Bakken Pipeline is a direct threat to our air, water, and clean energy future. This is why we need our elected officials to support the Standing Rock Sioux and other activists, and use his authority to revoke the federal permits and deny the Bakken pipeline. Urge your senators to deny the Bakken pipeline.
Join our call & text volunteer team to reach out to people on issues like this.
Although fracking itself can cause earthquakes, they are smaller and less frequently felt than earthquakes produced from underground injection control wells. A study in Seismological Research Letters found that fracking was the likely culprit of hundreds of small tremors in Ohio during 2013; another Ohio-based study that came out in 2015 pinpointed fracking as the cause of a 3.0 magnitude earthquake near Poland Township. In 2011, fracking was associated with a 3.8 magnitude earthquake in British Columbia, Canada; and that same year, in Blackpool, England, two earthquakes were directly linked to fracking operations. Fracking has also been linked to an earthquake that was felt in Garvin County, Oklahoma in 2011.
Download our issue brief on fracking and earthquakes.
More typically when talking about fracking-related earthquakes, the conversation is referring the seismic events triggered by injection wells, a common method of disposal for fracking waste. In the eastern and central United States, earthquake activity has increased about fivefold, from an annual average of 21 earthquakes above a 3.0 magnitude between 1967 and 2000, to more than 300 earthquakes over three years from 2010 to 2012. According to scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), this increased seismic activity is associated with wastewater disposal wells in states such as Oklahoma, Colorado, Arkansas, Ohio and Texas. The threat of increased earthquake activity is also of concern for the seismically active state of California, where the Monterey Shale overlaps the San Andreas Fault.
Induced seismicity occurs when human activity triggers a dormant fault by adding or reducing stress and/or increasing pore pressure. When fluid is injected underground — as is done to fracture shale rock and for the disposal of fracking wastewater — it can lubricate fault zones. As fluid moves into a fault zone, pore pressure increases, which can cause the fault to slip and result in an earthquake.
It’s important to note that induced seismic events may not always strike soon after the injection activity begins; it may take a long time for an earthquake to trigger, and sometimes not until after the injection activity has ended. Fluid pressure from high-rate disposal wells can migrate, so even if an injection well is not very close to a fault line or to one that is susceptible to earthquakes, the fluid pressure can migrate long distances to reach a fault that is more susceptible.
We can’t afford more fracking catastrophes. Sign on to ban fracking now!
Get the latest on your food and water with news, research and urgent actions.
By submitting my email, I agree to receive emails about urgent food, water and climate issues from Food & Water Action and Food & Water Watch. I may unsubscribe at any time.
