Search Results for: groundwater

Understanding Water Tradeoffs for Hydraulic Fracturing

By | Published: September 20, 2012

Talk of the impacts of hydraulic fracturing (fracing) is nothing new, but some new developments regarding where gas companies are seeking their water requires another conversation.  We have already explained the quantities of water that are needed to effectively frac a well, but where does all that water come from?  The easy answer is anywhere they can get it.  In some locations, it is primarily ground water that is often purchased from the surface owner. In other areas, water is purchased from a municipality, which sometimes mean that energy is used to treat the water to drinking water quality standards just to be mixed with chemical and sand before being injected deep underground. A newer trend is the purchase of a city's waste water effluent. Here are some thoughts to consider on a couple of these sources.

Groundwater

One of the biggest challenges for supplying frac water occurs in areas with little to no surface water available.  Perhaps, the most controversial of these is the Eagle Ford Shale in Southeast Texas.  To say this area is booming is the understatement of the year.  Each of these wells and all of the people flocking to this area need water. Lots of water.  Most of that water is coming from the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer.

Under Texas law, drillers are allowed to use water owned by the surface owner for their drilling operations which sometimes causes friction between these two parties, particularly if the surface owner doesn't hold the mineral interests. In other words, the surface owner may be receiving very little benefit for a lot of burden.  To bridge this gap, many new surface use agreements include payments for water used, which gives the surface owner a financial interest in the well that may not have previously been present.  Unfortunately, many of these contracts obligate the driller to use water only from the landowner's well which discourages or outright prohibits recycling.  More importantly, it is literally placing landowners against one another for this precious resource.

Another twist to this story involves another part of the aquifer.  Although much of the aquifer produces fresh water, other areas are more brackish in quality.  While the gas companies pull tremendous amounts of fresh water from the aquifer, the city of San Antonio is launching a project to treat the brackish water and transport it to town for municipal use.  This is an extremely expensive project that is part of their new supply portfolio.  Why are oil companies adding chemicals to fresh water that will then be permanently stored in a disposal well while the citizens of San Antonio will pay to clean brackish water from the same area? Why aren't the gas companies compelled to use the brackish resources or help pay for San Antonio to use it?

To be clear, this is no fault of San Antonio's.  The city went after the water that they could acquire and currently, there are no regulations to prevent this from happening and water used for gas production is exempt from groundwater districts' regulations, but the result seems absurd and is not the best use of resources.

City Effluent

A more recent sought source of frac water is city sewer effluent.  The city of Bandera recently voted to sell the city's effluent to Alpha Reclaim Technology, who will transport the water from the sewer plant to drilling sites. At first blush, one might think this is a great solution and in some areas it may be.  Using sewer effluent is generally better than pumping fresh water needed by other users.  So what is the problem? Well, this water used to go down the Medina River and provide flows for the environment as well as for downstream users and now it is being intercepted before that can occur.  Again, Bandera isn't prohibited from making this deal and there is no regulation that requires them to continue to put their effluent in the river, but a change in this current practice will definitely have an impact.

The Future?

Both of these listed practices are legal, but neither may be wise.  The problem is that Texas doesn't always consider the big picture of water and how one user can impact another even in an accidental way.

As a recent conference, I was on a panel discussing these issues and a member of the audience asked why gas companies aren't being compelled to build water infrastructure, such as desalination plants, either for their own use or to save the citizens from having to pay for it in the future.  It was a reasonable point in my opinion.  There is a potential for these companies to make almost unimaginable amounts of money using local resources, such as water and then leave those who remain to pay the price.

It is clear that there are large economic benefits to fracing, both to individuals lucky enough to have mineral rights, and also to communities, but there is also a cost.  Unfortunately, we don't know how much or what this cost might entail, but ignoring it will not make it go away.  These areas need to start discussions about how to ensure longevity after the boom and how companies can contribute to that vision.

Posted in Austin, Drought, Environmental Flows, Groundwater, Hydraulic Fracturing, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | 1 Response

Did We Miss Our Teachable Moment on Water?

By | Published: September 14, 2012

Well blog readers, the blog is  back after a long hiatus and there is A LOT to talk about.  This summer may not have been as dry as last summer, but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of water issues to discuss.  We are not out of a drought and there still isn't enough to go around.  First, a tad about me.  I have changed positions and shifted into academia full time, while still doing some work for EDF so for now this blog will still be up and running in its current location. Unless you hear differently, please keep tuning in.

As the title indicates, I have been a bit disappointed in what I have been seeing in cities lately regarding water planning. One would think that after such a severe drought we would reevaluate our practices to be able to withstand another drought or just live more sustainably. Sadly that isn't the case. Here are some examples.

Austin

If you live in Austin you might have been confused this summer about when you can water and when you can't.  This might be in part because the city changed briefly back to 2x/week watering (even though the lakes were still far from full) in July and then they quickly got changed back to 1x/week in September.  The reason given for relaxing the standards was the trees, but hose watering was never restricted so that doesn't make sense.  The mayor said he didn't see a problem going back and forth, but some citizens might disagree particularly when it is within a 2-month time frame.  To successfully create a conservation culture you need a consistent message.  Perhaps a permanent ordinance change can be crafted that protects trees and provides consistency for residents.

Some Austin residents have all the consistency they need by having no watering rules apply to the wells they have drilled.  They argue that their use of groundwater alleviates the lakes for other uses, but that argument has very little do to with the issue.  First, that water they are happily removing is needed somewhere else, whether it be by springs and the environment or communities that don't have access to surface water.

Second, people shouldn't have the right to do things their neighbors aren't allowed just because they  can afford it especially when it is wasteful and not beneficial to the greater good of the community.  If anything, this could lead to local disputes and discord.  It is also looking for a solution in the wrong direction.  Central Texas is dry.  That is the reality. Instead of spending all that money on a well, the whole lawn could be revamped to require less water.  The City of Austin recently passed a resolution to require an owner register a well, but didn't prohibit the wells as other cities have done.

San Antonio

Last night in San Antonio, I attended one of San Antonio Water System's (SAWS) two public meetings on a proposed new Water Management Plan and Conversation ordinance.  What? You didn't know about these?  Perhaps that it because the events weren't listed on the SAWS website or in their newsletter.  In fact, I had to call SAWS to get time, date, and location the afternoon of the meeting, at which point it was added to the website.  Why does this matter?  Well, it matters because this will define the water future for San Antonio and people need to be aware of it.  It will also greatly impact water rates, although we don't know how much yet because that wasn't part of the presentation even though the board vote is scheduled for October 2, a mere two weeks away.  It is unclear when citizens will have the opportunity to learn about and comment on their future water rate increase.

Although I have many questions and concerns about the plan, right now I am more concerned about the process.  SAWS has a nationwide reputation for their leadership in conservation and water innovation. Part of the reason they have been so successful is their willingness to partner with community stakeholders.  However, in this biggest roll out since 2009, hardly anyone knows it is happening.  I hope this doesn't indicate a shift in SAWS culture.  The best thing SAWS can do in this situation is delay the vote on this plan and allow people time to review the draft document once it is complete and submit comments.

I have heard from various water managers that customers are experiencing drought or conservation fatigue. I am not sure how to respond to that.  We can't make it rain, we can't change our climate, we can only live within its bounds. Didn't the drought teach us that if nothing else? Perhaps the fatigue is coming from fighting reality whereas accepting it would not only make folks feel better, it would enable us to live here longer.

Posted in Austin, Central Texas, Drought, Edwards Aquifer, Groundwater, san antonio, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | 2 Responses

In Texas, Your Water May be My Water Too

By | Published: March 17, 2012

Lately there have been a rash of articles discussing water resources and the drought.  Unfortunately, they are all focused on people using more water than they do under normal conditions or on finding new supply so people can continue to use more water.  The problem with this is that the water now proposed as "new supply" may be depended on by another user, the environment, or it might be part of a groundwater/surface water connection in a cherished area.

What's the Big Deal?

First things first.  You may have noticed a little rain outside, but it doesn't mean that the drought is over.  Far from it.  The highland lakes are currently less than 50% full and the ground in many areas is still bone dry to say nothing of all the trees and wildlife that may not recover. Many parts of Texas have still received little to no rain.  This is an important starting point for understanding the water situation as summer approaches.  If the drought continues, there will be areas in Texas where all water needs cannot be met.

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) recently announced its plans to develop 100,000 acre-feet of "new" water through a variety of different technologies (none of which is conservation, by the way).   Proposed project costs range from $1.9 billion to $177 million.  Ideas include desalination, off-channel reservoirs and groundwater pumping among others.  Although none of these ideas have been committed to by the board, they all have implications for other users.

This announcement comes at the heels of rice farmers not receiving their allotted water so that other users with firm contracts (such as City of Austin) could be guaranteed water.  How does this inability to deliver downstream change the relationship between farmers and Austinites?  If a farmer comes to town and sees water running down the street, might they wonder how that relates to their inability to farm this year?  This was certainly true in the case of proposed Fastrill Reservoir.  Local citizens were angered at the thought of their land being taken to provide water for Dallas lawns.  The problem with water is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it is a system.  That system means that we are interrelated as much as the waters are.  Unfortunately, the law often doesn't recognize this.

Groundwater v. Surface Water?

Nowhere is this more obvious than the way our legal system bifurcates the regulation of surface water and groundwater.  The problem is that nature doesn't follow along.  A recent example of this creates particular cause for concern.  Earlier this month, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) approved the Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) for the Trinity Aquifer in western Hays County. While this act alone may not be noteworthy, this will directly affect the Texas treasure known as Jacob's Well.  Jacob's Well is one of many locations in Texas where groundwater changes character to surface water.   We know geologically and historically that allowing over pumping of groundwater will make these beautiful areas disappear.  Should the water needs of a growing residential area take priority over such a unique place? What if those residents don't use the water wisely?

As we move into the crowded and hot future, priorities will need to be set and accountability between neighbors will continue to increase.  As water resources dwindle, the state grows smaller and what happens in one part of the state directly affects the livelihood of another Texan miles away.  As we plan for the future, we need to keep this in mind.

Posted in Austin, Central Texas, Drought, Environmental Flows, LCRA, Reservoirs, Resources, Texas Rivers, Water Conservation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Biggest Decision in TX Groundwater Since 1904!

By | Published: February 27, 2012

Almost 2 years ago, in one of our first blogs, we posted about a groundwater case pending in front of the Texas Supreme Court.  At the time, none of us predicted that we would have to wait over 2 years for a decision, but wait we did — until Friday.  On February 17th, the Texas Supreme Court issued perhaps the most important decision governing groundwater since the 1904 East case declared that right of capture was Texas' official system of allocation.  While we were awaiting a ruling, the Texas legislature tried to answer the same question posed to the court with SB 332.  After enacted legislation and a 50-page opinion, the only thing that we can be certain about is more uncertainty.

Some background

Although Texas recognizes right of capture, there was a question regarding when the property right is perfected. The fundamental issue in the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA) v. Day case is whether an overlying landowner owns the groundwater beneath her property “in place” or whether ownership of the groundwater only vests once the groundwater has been captured through pumping.   If the property right is held in place, regulations promulgated by groundwater districts limiting pumping by a landowner may constitute a constitutional taking requiring compensation. Consequently, imposing regulations to ensure groundwater sustainability may be become difficult if not impossible.

The ruling

The Day case was initiated when the plaintiff landowners requested 700 acre-feet from the EAA and were granted a permit for 14 acre-feet so they brought a claim alleging a taking.   The EAA grants permits based on proven historic use of the water between 1972 and 1993.  The court explicitly held that landowners have a vested right in water in place; however, the court remanded the case to determine if a takings had occurred in this individual case.  In defining the rule of capture, the court defined it as right of capture for oil and gas has been classified in the state.

The impact

While the ruling is being hailed as a victory by landowners, its true implications will not be known without further litigation.    This means that future court decisions will be responsible for filling in the factual details of what constitutes a taking and what does not.  Meanwhile, while that is getting sorted out around the state, groundwater pumping may be left unchecked during a critical time and a continuing drought will only exacerbate this problem.  In addition to creating some uncertainty across the state, the ruling may put the legitimacy of multi-year, stakeholder driven Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) into question.  This is particularly unfortunate because it was a consensus-based approach to maintaining flow in the springs while still adhering to pumping limits.  While only time will tell, it is alarming to think that this ruling may have created more questions than answers thus putting our already fragile groundwater resources at further risk.

Posted in Austin, Central Texas, Edwards Aquifer, Groundwater, Groundwater Conservation Districts, Legislature, Litigation, san antonio, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Responses

Is Desal the Answer?

By | Published: January 6, 2012

As concerns about water supply continue, more and more stories seem to point to desalination as the answer.  Until now, most Texas desal plants are small and regionally located, but a seawater desalination plant will open on South Padre Island in 2014 again opening conversations about importing water from the coast to Central Texas.  El Paso is the largest municipal user of desal technology in Texas.  The plant on Fort Bliss is capable of treating 27.5 million gallons of water a day for regional users.  Like other technologies, desalination can be a useful tool for water resources, but there are other important considerations to be made before it is hailed as the final solution. 

Price

To date, one of the stopping points for using desal as a water supply alternative is it's price.  Treatment of brackish groundwater can be 4 times as expensive as freshwater supply and the price increases considerably for salt water.  Of course price is also contingent on location.  Brackish groundwater often has the advantage of being local without additional pipeline costs, whereas some discussed projects such as hauling treated Gulf water instate would have exponential costs added for pipeline construction and transport.  Property owners along the way might also wonder where that pipeline is going to be located and through what legal means will it be placed there.

Energy

As we have mentioned here before, it takes energy to move and treat water.  This needs to be considered for these larger projects.  A city can increase its water sustainability while inadvertently decreasing energy sustainability.  Proposals for these projects need to include calculations of the associated energy footprint so that the big picture is considered.  Energy needs also increase based on the salinity of the water because additional treatment is required.  Long-haul projects also require large amounts of energy.  To bring water from the coast to San Antonio, 140 miles of pipelines would need to be installed with large amounts of power to push the water uphill.  

The key to desalination is to see it is as a part of a suite of solutions like El Paso has.  The city employed the new technology along with a host of other conservation, efficiency and water supply projects.  Because of the pricing and energy drawbacks of desalination, other supply options such as water efficiency programs should be fully implemented before additional treatment plants are built.  Regional brackish water treatment makes more sense, where possible, than piping treated water long distances.  Technology can provide some great solutions, but it is not a magic cure. It must be paired with common sense and evaluated with all the data to ensure a well rounded sustainable system.

Posted in Central Texas, Corpus Christi, Energy-Water Nexus, Water Planning | Tagged , , | 1 Response

Learning a Little About Aquifers

By | Published: November 23, 2011

I recently ran across an amazing video of the Trinity Aquifer in Central Texas posted by the Hays Trinity Groundwater Conservation District.  Groundwater has been described as "mysterious and occult" because we often don't totally understand what is happening underground.  Aquifers are highly complex systems and each one has its own unique characteristics, but this video is a great starter for understanding something so important.

Happy Thanksgiving from Texas Water Solutions!!!

Posted in Central Texas, Drought, Groundwater, Water Conservation | Tagged , , | 1 Response

Big Step Forward in Protecting the Edwards Aquifer

By | Published: November 15, 2011

This post was written by Dianne Wassenich, Executive Director of the San Marcos River Foundation

Four years ago, a group of very diverse (and often at odds) group of stakeholders started meeting in a seemingly impossible effort to solve the problem of the Edwards Aquifer and ensure water for all its users.  Last week marked a historic agreement in that effort.   Through an almost unanimous vote, the group agreed on a Recovery Implementation Program (RIP), which will protect the flowing Comal and San Marcos springs and the threatened and endangered species who live there while still providing water for its users.

This agreement comes after decades of conflict in this central Texas region about who could pump the aquifer, how much, and when.  The consensus-based RIP process was initiated by US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) because of its success in other states and later legislated in 2007’s SB3, which created tight deadlines for the process.  This was a particularly difficult challenge because it involved complex groundwater and surface water hydrology and a mix of state agencies, cities, farmers, industries and environmental interests.

Thousands of stakeholder hours have resulted in a feasible science-based plan that will help keep the springs flowing in a drought even more serious than the one we are enduring right now, according to computer models.  Seven years of additional work is planned on the aquifer model and other studies to help the group understand whether the plan is enough or if more is needed.   The plan is estimated to cost $18.5 million a year and will further limit the pumping of the aquifer.  Much of this money will go towards paying farmers not to pump during low water years and storing water in an underground reservoir, which will be owned and operated by San Antonio Water Systems.

As a stakeholder representing the San Marcos River Foundation, I am happy to see this plan completed and hope it will be approved by Edwards Aquifer Authority in December and forwarded on to the USFWS for their approval.  We hope we can move quickly in our region to get some of the projects underway to protect this important water resource.   This RIP is a testament to what can be accomplished when people work together for a solution.

Posted in Austin, Central Texas, Edwards Aquifer, Environmental Flows, Groundwater, Legislature, Regional Planning Process, Resources, SB3, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Holes To Be Filled In the 2012 Draft Texas State Water Plan

By | Published: October 19, 2011

 This post was co-written by Sachin Shah, an intern in EDF's Austin Office.

Source: Texas Water Development Board

Last night, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) conducted a formal public meeting in Austin to get input on the recently released 2012 Draft State Water Plan.  The plan is the product of the State’s five year water supply planning process. Considerable funding decisions are based on the projections and supply strategies proposed in this plan.

Upon review of the plan, many of the same concerns from the 2007 State Water Plan were left in the minds of citizens, environmental organizations, and industry officials alike.  While a laudable effort, some key issues still need to be addressed more effectively in state and regional water planning.

The Water Plan at Work

The State Water Plan, developed every five years, is based on a consensus-driven process involving 16 Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPG), which are composed of various stakeholders.

Within TWDB guidelines, each RWPG reviews water use projections and water availability volumes to meet the needs of all water users under dry or drought-of-record conditions. When a shortfall between supply and projected demand is identified, the planning groups recommend water management strategies to meet this need. If existing supplies cannot meet future demand, specific management approaches such as water conservation, new reservoir or groundwater development, water reuse, or others approaches are recommended.

Source: Texas Water Development Board

Once the planning group adopts the regional water plan, the plan is sent to the TWDB. The TWDB then compiles information from the regional water plans and other sources to develop the State Water Plan. Because water is vital to all aspects of our economy and environment, the plan, which directs state funding for water development, affects all Texans. Currently, Texas is in the worst drought since 1950and the State Water Plan is essential to create a framework to alleviate the drought’s long-term effects.

“Texas Has a Long Way to Go.”

The 2007 State Water Plan, sounded many alarm bells when it predicted several water availability shortfalls created by increasing demand coupled with decreasing supply. The lack of serious discussion regarding drought contingency, conservation and efficiency left many stakeholders feeling that some of these extreme scenarios were unfounded and could be cured with a few simple solutions.

 While an improvement on 2007, the 2012 Draft State Water Plan has many of the same weaknesses.  It focuses on one message: in serious drought conditions, Texas does not and will not have enough water to meet demand.   The 2012 draft plan estimates that under drought conditions, without ANY water supply development, Texas will be short 2 million acre-feet of water in 50 years (a decrease of 10 percent).  It proposes to remedy many of these shortfalls with antiquated and expensive solutions. For example, in addition to the 26 proposed reservoir sites (up from 14 in 2007), there is a series of proposed long-haul pipeline projects, which would create expensive and potentially environmentally damaging impacts, while still not being a reliable resource.

 Perhaps, the most dramatic change between the 2012 and the 2007 plan is the cost of implementation. Carolyn Brittin, of TWDB, who oversees the publication of the Plan, says that the cost for implementing the State Water Plan will rise from $31 billion (in 2007) to $53 billion due to increased construction cost, water purchasing costs, and increasing land costs related to mitigation.

Addressing Inadequacies

Ken Kramer, Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, believes that although Texas water policies have evolved dramatically over the past decade and a half, it still “has a long way to go in devising a state water plan that will meet the needs of our people in the 21st century.”

Mr. Kramer says that in many respects the draft 2012 State Water Plan is a mere “place holder” for incorporating new data in the 2017 plan. In fact, the current plan was “unable to incorporate new information such as the results of recent joint groundwater planning efforts and the standards for instream flows and freshwater inflows” currently in process. Other important data sets, such as the increased water use for hydraulic fracturing seem to be missing all together.

Here are a few recommendations made by Mr. Kramer at the meeting to improve the plan:

  1. Enhance the role of water conservation as a water management strategy. The plan needs more aggressive conservation initiatives like the ambitious and effective water conservation program San Antonio Water System has implemented over the last 15 years. Conservation shouldn’t just be maximized in areas without an alternate water supply, it should be used everywhere. 
  2. Incorporate drought management as a water management strategy for all water user groups who are preparing drought contingency plans. The state water plan continues to ignore the reality that the Texas Water Code requires the preparation and submittal of drought contingency plans by a large number of water suppliers and water rights holders. These plans usually rely mainly on supply management practices allowing people to use as much water as they would in a normal year without any consequences instead of requiring dry climate reductions.
  3. Water use and demand for hydraulic fracturing needs to be incorporated into the planning process for areas with increasing natural gas development. Although the draft 2012 plan acknowledges this issue, the Barnett Shale region and now the Eagle Ford Shale region are being impacted at an unprecedented rate by the expansion of hydro-fracking water use that was not addressed in previous water plans. Accurate predictions and management of future water supply is not possible if significant users are quantified.
  4. The energy-water nexus is not well understood in the draft plan. This nexus may actually lead to a decrease in water demand for steam-electric generation. The current draft plan does not take into account the push for energy efficiency and non-water-using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. These alternative energy sources may lead to decommissioning existing coal-fired power plants and prevent the build of new ones, for which water has traditionally been the cooling source. This must be addressed in the plan to re-evaluate the projection in the draft that steam-electric water use is expected to increase by 121 percent over the next 50 years.

Water supply decisions motivated by the Texas State Water Plan are critical to our natural environment, economy, livelihood, and any effects from climate change.  For that reason, we need to ensure that we are as innovative as possible.  Texas should not plan with the assumption that we will use the water the same way 50 years from now. The Environmental Defense Fund knows Texans can do better.

Posted in Drought, Energy-Water Nexus, TWDB, Water Planning | Leave a comment

Drought from the Power Perspective

By | Published: October 13, 2011

We have said it before and we will say it again — NO ONE is immune from drought and the latest group feeling the pinch is the power producer. This should be no surprise as we have written extensively on the energy water relationship. Drought not only limits the water available for our water needs, it may also limit our power.

Texas' record breaking drought reduces the amount of available water power plants require for cooling.  If that water is not available, the plant must stop running.  Despite this critical co-dependency, power and water are still planned separately.  In times of limited water supply, this can cause big problems.  So what is the solution?  Well in the short term, the options are somewhat limited.

Maximizing conservation and efficiency by all users will help protect water for power use.  Private landowners are also seeing an opportunity.  One landowner wants to sell almost 400 million gallons of water per year to the newly permitted White Stallion plant.  White Stallion has encountered challenges in obtaining water rights because of public opposition and limited water availability.  While potentially serving a short-term goal, approval of the sale of groundwater for these purposes will cause significant problems for nearby land owners sharing in this resource, particularly in times of drought.   Simply selling water and re-purposing it will not work for the long term.

For the future, we must think beyond the short term because one thing is certain, after this drought there will be another one. We need to learn from this one and put policies in place to be ready for the next.  The power and the water sectors need to come together in their planning.  New power plants, particularly those being built in drier areas, need to use water efficient cooling technologies and companies need to complete a water availability study for the life of the plant which takes into consideration existing users and drought scenarios. Water must be discussed and planned in the beginning so we don't get caught later.

When we discuss energy security, water must be a integral part of that conversation so we don't end up sitting in the dark craving a glass of water.

Posted in Central Texas, Drought, Energy-Water Nexus, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Drilling Down Deep on Fracing Water Consumption

By | Published: July 6, 2011

 This post was written with Elena White, a Leadership Rice intern working with EDF's Energy Program this summer.

As drilling companies flood shale plays in North, South and East Texas, Texas farmers and municipalities are praying for rain. We have blogged about how water and gas are inextricably linked in hydraulic fracturing or fracing. But how much water is actually used? Can that amount be reduced? Today’s post is the first in a series of posts about hydraulic fracturing and how it impacts water resources.

How much water is used in fracing?

Fracing is the process of injecting water with fluid additives into a tight formation to open and enlarge fractures allowing the product to flow out. The water contains a proppant, such as sand, that remains in the fractures, keeping them open during the production phase. Water use varies from well to well depending on the nature of the shale formation.

According to Chesapeake Energy, the typical deep shale play use is between 4 to 6 million gallons per well or 0.8 – 1.6 gallons per MMBtu of energy produced.  Proponents of fracing argue that the water amount per unit of energy in fracing is less than most other energy sources. Although this may be true, it is no consolation to a region with insufficient water to go around. Just like in real estate, the key is location, location, location.

This can create large issues in Texas, particularly because the oil and gas industry is regulated by the Railroad Commission, but water resource planning is the domain of the Texas Water Development Board.  According to the Texas Water Code, oil and gas wells are exempted from regulation by groundwater districts meaning that although a district can limit pumping by an agricultural user, they may not have the tools to do the same to industry.  Oddly enough, the Texas Water Development Board did not mention this in a recent message from Melanie Callahan, the Interim Executive Administrator, in which they advised readers to contact their districts for information regarding oil and gas water use. Further, the State Water Plan, upon which water planning decisions are based, does not even include oil and gas water projections in their fifty-year forecast.  All of this means that we really don’t know what the impact of fracing will be on our water resources over the long term. 

What about recycling?

Water usage for drilling is consumptive.  Water removed from local sources and used for drilling or fracing will not return to the local water cycle.   Once the water has been mixed with additives and run through the formation, the resulting produced water contains remaining chemicals as well as contaminants released from the parent formation.  Some of the water remains in the shale, and about 10 to 40 percent resurfaces in the first few weeks.

Recycling can mean a couple of different things.  It can mean that a large portion of the water is treated and made available to fracture additional wells.  It can also mean that the water is treated and then returned to the normal water supply or to a surface water body.  Some states, such as Ohio, have banned the latter practice because scientists are unsure whether traditional water treatment facilities are able to handle all of the contaminants contained in produced water. In many states, water that is not recycled or cannot be treated to a safe quality for release is injected deep below the surface for permanent storage. 

Drilling companies in the Barnett Shale practice both of these techniques. The Texas Railroad Commission expects companies in the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shale plays to submit approval for similar recycling methods as drilling activity increases, particularly because water is becoming more expensive. However, recycling is no cure-all.  Even with recycling, large amounts of water are necessary and it requires energy.

What are the water-energy trade-offs?

As in most energy related endeavors, there is a water component and visa versa and there are tradeoffs in this relationship. If you want to use less of one, you almost always need more of the other.  Most of the water is used not in the fracing process, but in delivering the proppant. The more pressure behind the water, the less water is necessary.  However, water pressure requires energy. Thus, yet again, we see how water use and energy are inextricably linked. We must make a decision between more surface energy use and using more water.

Recycling of the water can also have a large energy footprint. Produced gas is often used to power onsite treatment; however the quantity needed is not actually measured by gas companies. Energy needed would certainly fluctuate based on the content of the water. Higher concentrations of total dissolved solids would require more energy, particularly if the goal is to get the water to drinking water quality or “clean” enough to discharge into a surface water body.  For all of these processes, decisions should be made based on local needs and limitations.  Areas with low water availability may be willing to sacrifice more energy use for less water demand.  Each region will be different and drilling should be tailored accordingly.

Posted in Energy-Water Nexus, Resources, Texas Economy, Uncategorized, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , | 1 Response