Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:35:47.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: The Decision to Use Acidic Coal-Mine Drainage for Hydraulic Fracturing of Unconventional Shale-Gas Wells

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2013

Dave Yoxtheimer ,
Seth Blumsack  and
Tom Murphy
Dave Yoxtheimer
Affiliation:
Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Seth Blumsack*
Affiliation:
John and Willie Leone Family Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Tom Murphy
Affiliation:
Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
*
Seth Blumsack, 124 Hosler Building, University Park, PA 16802; (phone) 814-863-7597; (fax) 814-865-3248; (e-mail) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Coal-mining activities in the Appalachian Basin have left behind an environmental legacy of acid mine drainage (AMD), which collectively discharges more than 1.2 billion liters of low-pH contaminated water per day into freshwater streams. Meanwhile, concerns over the use of freshwater for hydraulic fracturing applications in the Appalachian Basin are rising, where an average daily withdrawal of freshwater for hydraulic fracturing may approach 60 million liters per day. The use of AMD as a substitute for freshwater has the joint advantages of mitigating existing environmental damage to surface waters and relieving some pressures on freshwater withdrawals, but the practice faces technical, economic, and regulatory hurdles. To reduce sulfate levels, coal-mine drainage that is currently treated to meet Clean Water Act standards may need additional treatment for hydraulic fracturing applications. Reducing sulfate levels without the use of additional freshwater may involve costs of several dollars per barrel versus less than one dollar per barrel for freshwater purchased directly. The cost of treatment to remove sulfates would need to decline by perhaps a factor of 4 in order to be cost-competitive with the purchase of fresh water. So-called abandoned (untreated) mine drainage poses a larger environmental challenge, but treatment and transportation costs may be orders of magnitude larger. Issues regarding handling liability and storage costs for abandoned-mine waters in particular represent significant regulatory barriers. We find that treatment, transportation, and storage costs are the most important factors affecting water-utilization decisions in shale-gas development. While Pennsylvania has proposed policy reforms to address environmental liability issues associated with AMD use, implementation itself will likely raise costs for its use in hydraulic fracturing as compared to the use of freshwater. AMD use may become cost-competitive with the development and use of low-cost AMD treatment technologies in centralized locations designed for long-term use, along with efficient water transfer and storage facilities.

Environmental Practice 14:301–307 (2012)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 301 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Button, K., Stough, R., Comp, T.A., Arena, P., and Casper, M.. 1998. The Economic and Social Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage Remediation. Institute for Public Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 41 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravotta, C.A. III 2006. Relations among pH, Sulfate, and Metals Concentrations in Anthracite and Bituminous Coal-Mine Discharges, Pennsylvania. In 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage (ICARD), March 26–30, 2006, St. Louis, MO, Barnhisel, R.I., ed. American Society of Mining and Reclamation (ASMR), Lexington, KY, 378–404. Available at http://www.asmr.us/Publications/Conference%20Proceedings/2006/0378-Cravotta-PA.pdf.Google Scholar
Curtright, A.E., and Giglio, K., eds. 2012. Coal Mine Drainage for Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction: Proceedings and Recommendations from a Roundtable on Feasibility and Challenges. RAND Conference Proceedings CF-300. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 67 pp. Available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF300.html.Google Scholar
Hansen, E., Collins, A., Zegre, S., and Hereford, A.. 2010, December 1. The Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage Remediation on the North Branch Potomac River. Report for the Maryland State Water Quality Advisory Committee. Downstream Strategies, Morgantown, WV, 77 pp. Available at http://www.marylandwaterquality.org/NorthBranchPotomacRiver.pdf.Google Scholar
Kepler, D., and Clinger, M.. 2012. Managing Costs through Centralization. Presentation at the Fifth Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative, March 28–29, Canonsburg, PA. Available at http://www.shale-gas-water-management-2012.com/.Google Scholar
Loomis, J. 2006. Importance of Including Use and Passive Use Value of River System Restoration. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 134:4–8. Available at http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jcwre.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Memory, M. 2011. Marcellus Source Water Optimization. Presentation at the Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative, April 13–14, Canonsburg, PA. Available at http://www.shale-gas-water-management-2011.com/8/information/44/the-shale-gas-water-management-marcellus-initiative-2011/.Google Scholar
Miller, P. 2011. Evaluating Flowback and Fresh Water Storage Options. Presentation at the Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative, April 13–14, Canonsburg, PA. Available at http://www.shale-gas-water-management-2011.com/8/information/44/the-shale-gas-water-management-marcellus-initiative-2011/.Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). 2011, January 25. White Paper: Utilization of AMD in Well Development for Natural Gas Extraction (Draft). PA DEP, Harrisburg, PA, 13 pp. Available at http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/WatershedPortalFiles/FINAL_WhitePaperReviewTeamFindingsForUseOfAMD_ForFracWater.pdf.Google Scholar
Wilson, W., Leipzig, T., and Griffiths-Sattenspiel, B.. 2012. Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity. Report for the River Network and the Kresge Foundation. River Network, Portland, OR, 62 pp. Available at http://www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/BurningOurRivers_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Yeager, B. 2011. Energy Corporation of America-Waterline Project. Presentation at the Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative, April 13–14, Canonsburg, PA. Available at http://www.shale-gas-water-management-2011.com/8/information/44/the-shale-gas-water-management-marcellus-initiative-2011/.Google Scholar