Hydrogeochemical and Isotopic Indicators of Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Fluids in Shallow Groundwater and Stream Water, derived from Dameigou Shale Gas Extraction in the Northern Qaidam Basin

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 5889-5898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoxian Zheng ◽  
Hongda Zhang ◽  
Zongyu Chen ◽  
Xufeng Li ◽  
Pucheng Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Qaidam Basin ◽  
Stream Water ◽  
Shallow Groundwater ◽  
Gas Extraction

scholarly journals Uso de agua en la extracción de gas de lutitas en el noreste de México. Retos de regulación ambientalWater use in shale gas extraction in Northeast Mexico. Environmental regulation Challenges.

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (44) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Manzanares Rivera
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Socially Responsible ◽  
Regulatory Protection ◽  
Robust Measures ◽  
Uncertainty Level ◽  
High Uncertainty ◽  
The U.S

El objetivo es analizar el esquema regulatorio de protección ambiental en México ante los retos que el procedimiento de fracturación hidráulica representa para las fuentes de abastecimiento de agua potable locales. Se aplica una metodología descriptiva en el caso de Estados Unidos, país pionero en esta práctica. Los resultados sugieren que el marco regulatorio actual en México presenta barreras significativas frente al procedimiento de fracturación hidráulica, si bien su prohibición no es explícita. Las conclusiones indican que la explotación de gas de lutitas representa un grado elevado de incertidumbre por su impacto ambiental. Se deberán tomar acciones para eliminar a incertidumbre y contribuir al aprovechamiento socialmente responsable de este recurso. Abstract The goal is to analyze the environmental regulatory protection framework in México in face of the challenges that hydraulic fracturing represents for local drinking water sources. A descriptive methodology approach is applied, using the case of the U.S. as reference. The results indicate that current Mexican regulatory framework presents robust measures that highly restrict hydraulic fracturing however; given the complex nature of the process, an explicit ban hasn´t been implemented. Conclusions indicate that the extraction of shale gas presents a high uncertainty level regarding its potential environmental impacts. Therefore efforts to eliminate the uncertainty should be taken to contribute to a socially responsible exploitation of this resource.

Microbial Community Changes in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and Produced Water from Shale Gas Extraction

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (22) ◽  
pp. 13141-13150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind Murali Mohan ◽  
Angela Hartsock ◽  
Kyle J. Bibby ◽  
Richard W. Hammack ◽  
Radisav D. Vidic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Microbial Community ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Produced Water ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Fracturing Fluids ◽  
Community Changes

The Great Divide: Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania and New York

Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erick Lachapelle
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Marcellus Shale ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Gas Extraction ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Levels Of Support

This study compares public perceptions of shale gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing in two of the most populous states with significant shale gas reserves but with vastly different approaches to developing this resource. Drawing on data from a comparative survey administered to two statewide samples in Pennsylvania (n = 411) and New York (n = 404), the study examines the correlates of support for hydraulic fracturing, as well as general levels of public awareness, and perceptions of effects of hydraulic fracturing within the Marcellus shale play. Though the level of awareness of the fracking issue among residents of Pennsylvania and New York is found to be similarly high, levels of support for fracking differ, mirroring distinctive policy approaches found in these neighboring states. The correlates of support for fracking include being Republican, having a conservative ideology, and being male. The study also finds that residents of New York are more aware of fracking policy and debate in Pennsylvania than vice versa, with many New York residents perceiving negative effects on their home state as a result of fracking in neighboring Pennsylvania. This asymmetric level of awareness and concern raises new questions on the role of cross-­border perceptions in shaping opinion toward hydraulic fracturing in adjacent states.

Shale, Quakes, and High Stakes: Regulating Fracking-Induced Seismicity in Oklahoma, USA and Lancashire, UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Miriam R. Aczel ◽  
Karen E. Makuch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Seismic Activity ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Oil And Gas Industry ◽  
High Volume ◽  
The United States ◽  
Horizontal Drilling ◽  
Induced Seismic Activity

High-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has “revolutionized” the United States’ oil and gas industry by allowing extraction of previously inaccessible oil and gas trapped in shale rock [1]. Although the United States has extracted shale gas in different states for several decades, the United Kingdom is in the early stages of developing its domestic shale gas resources, in the hopes of replicating the United States’ commercial success with the technologies [2, 3]. However, the extraction of shale gas using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling poses potential risks to the environment and natural resources, human health, and communities and local livelihoods. Risks include contamination of water resources, air pollution, and induced seismic activity near shale gas operation sites. This paper examines the regulation of potential induced seismic activity in Oklahoma, USA, and Lancashire, UK, and concludes with recommendations for strengthening these protections.

scholarly journals Omnipresent distribution of herbicides and their transformation products in all water body types of an agricultural landscape in the North German Lowland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uta Ulrich ◽  
Matthias Pfannerstill ◽  
Guido Ostendorp ◽  
Nicola Fohrer
Keyword(s):  
Drinking Water ◽  
Oxalic Acid ◽  
Water Body ◽  
Sulfonic Acid ◽  
Stream Water ◽  
Parent Compound ◽  
Shallow Groundwater ◽  
Transformation Products ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Rainfall Events

AbstractThe research of the environmental fate of pesticides has demonstrated that applied compounds are altered in their molecular structure over time and are distributed within the environment. To assess the risk for contamination by transformation products (TP) of the herbicides flufenacet and metazachlor, the following four water body types were sampled in a small-scale catchment of 50 km2 in 2015/2016: tile drainage water, stream water, shallow groundwater, and drinking water of private wells. The TP were omnipresent in every type of water body, more frequently and in concentrations up to 10 times higher than their parent compounds. Especially metazachlor sulfonic acid, metazachlor oxalic acid, and flufenacet oxalic acid were detected in almost every drainage and stream sample. The transformation process leads to more mobile and more persistent molecules resulting in higher detection frequencies and concentrations, which can even occur a year or more after the application of the parent compound. The vulnerability of shallow groundwater and private drinking water wells to leaching compounds is proved by numerous positives of metazachlor-TP with maximum concentrations of 0.7 μg L−1 (drinking water) and 20 μg L−1 (shallow groundwater) of metazachlor sulfonic acid. Rainfall events during the application period cause high discharge of the parent compound and lower release of TP. Later rainfall events lead to high displacement of TP. For an integrated risk assessment of water bodies, the environmental behavior of pesticide-TP has to be included into regular state-of-the-art water quality monitoring.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document