Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fracking Is Draining Water From Areas In US Suffering Major Shortages

Posted by samzenpus on from the looking-for-a-drink dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "RT reports that some of the most drought-ravaged areas of the US are also heavily targeted for oil and gas development using hydraulic fracturing — a practice that exacerbates water shortages with half of the oil and gas wells fracked across America since 2011 located in places suffering through drought. Taken together, all the wells surveyed from January 2011 to May 2013 consumed 97 billion gallons of water, pumped under high pressure to crack rocks containing oil or natural gas. Up to 10 million gallons can go into a single well. 'Hydraulic fracturing is increasing competitive pressures for water in some of the country's most water-stressed and drought-ridden regions,' says Mindy Lubber. 'Barring stiffer water-use regulations and improved on-the-ground practices, the industry's water needs in many regions are on a collision course with other water users, especially agriculture and municipal water use.' Nearly half (47%) of oil and gas wells recently hydraulically fractured in the U.S. and Canada are in regions with high or extremely high water stress. Amanda Brock, head of a water-treatment firm in Houston, says oil companies in California are already exploring ways to frack using the briny, undrinkable water found in the state's oil fields. While fracking consumes far less water than agriculture or residential uses, the impact can be huge on particular communities and is 'exacerbating already existing water problems,' says Monika Freyman. Hydraulic fracking is the 'latest party to come to the table,' says Freyman. The demands for the water are 'taking regions by surprise,' she says. More work needs to be done to better manage water use, given competing demand."

51 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Fracking *not* the water shortage cause by grommit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it a coincidence that the water shortages started with the whiteboarding of Slashdot Beta? I think not.

  2. This is missing critical information by Eric+Coleman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community.

    If one does some Fermi math on this, then it is a little less than 2 gallons per person per day per person in Texas. That's less water than a toilet uses. Are any of these drought ridden areas telling people to not flush their toilets?

    1. Re:This is missing critical information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not the point. These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more. And I have a sneaky suspicion that the industry underestimated the amount of water they need in order to get the permits - kind of like how Slashdot underestimated the hatred for beta.

      Are any of these drought ridden areas telling people to not flush their toilets?

      Some are. It depends on where but for example, in some parts of CA you're guided to flush after a couple of times o furinating and flush after a single shit. So pee twice - flush; shit once - flush.

    2. Re:This is missing critical information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hello, I live in north-central PA (just south of Corning, NY), there has been a lot of fracking here recently. The process does use a lot of water, for a while there were water tanker trucks driving around all over the place. But then all of a sudden the trucks disappeared. Why? Because the wells were all drilled and fracked and producing. They will produce for quite a few years before they need re-fracking. So the "gigantic water usage" only happens now and then.

    3. Re:This is missing critical information by CreatureComfort · · Score: 5, Funny

      We don't flush our toilets in Texas.

      We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    4. Re:This is missing critical information by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      These areas are already under heavy stress and the fracking just adds to it even more.

      And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?

    5. Re:This is missing critical information by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's 0.14% of what is used for irrigation in agriculture. In other words: almost nothing.

      To be sure, fracking must be regulated. Very well and tightly regulated, especially concerning the chemicals used and the way fracking fluid is disposed. But I've grown up right next to some of the largest landstrip mines in the world and trust me: everything is better than that!

    6. Re:This is missing critical information by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Disclaimer, I'm no fan of this. However, this is article is missing critical information, namely, how much water do these drought ridden communities normally use? The number 97 billion sounds like a lot, but without some sort of baseline for comparison it could actually be a small percentage of total water demands for a community.

      A quick check shows that the nation uses something more than 300 billion gallons of water PER DAY.

      SO 97 billion gallons per year is less than 0.1% of that total.

      In other words, stopping fracking right now, and diverting that water to drought-plagued areas, would have negligible effect, if any.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:This is missing critical information by bobbied · · Score: 5, Funny

      And here I thought that was only done in Illinois...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:This is missing critical information by camperdave · · Score: 2

      We don't flush our toilets in Texas. We gather the contents into big bags, then elect them to congress.

      And the ones that don't get elected write beta interfaces for Slashdot?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:This is missing critical information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note that the water used for fracking doesn't have to be drinkable water. You can use sea water just as well. Also, most of that water is recovered on the first few days of production, as you "suck" it to get the oil/gas on the well. Over the lifetime of the well, it will produce an order of magnitude more water than what was used to stimulate it.

      The article isn't just missing critical information, it's also misrepresenting the info it has. There's a political agenda here, and it clearly shows.

    10. Re:This is missing critical information by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      And how does that stress compare to the stress caused by wasteful irrigation practices?

      And more importantly, which provides a greater economic benefit. If more people in the local community are employed by the frackers than by farming, per gallon used, then it makes sense that they should have priority for the water.

      Here is the solution:
      1. End the subsidies
      2. Set a market price for water
      3. There is no third step. The first two are enough.
      The water will now flow to whoever derives the greater benefit (and is thus willing to pay more). The price will naturally rise during droughts. People will have an incentive to conserve. Markets are not the solution to every problem, but the appear to be a good solution to this problem.

    11. Re:This is missing critical information by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind they are talking about how this impacts water in the future, and it should be dealt with now.
      Which makes sense to have the company start looking at solutions. Or are you one of those loons that like to wait until there is a problem and then run around pointing fingers and spend a lot more to fix it?
      They are talking about droughts. Just in case you don't know, a drought is when you have more people using water then you get. So it can rain every day,. and you would still be i a drought if it didn't rain enough.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:This is missing critical information by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This economist's pipedream looks like a recipe for externalizing the ravages of water depletion to the environment and to the dinner tables of working class people.

      Markets cannot automatically set priorities that involve the quality of the environment or long-term societal goals (like weaning off of fossil fuels) because the only decisions left are billions of seemingly isolated day-to-day petty greed choices that gang up against any larger considerations.

      Ecologists must have a say in how government policy reacts to a new industrial trend like this.

    13. Re:This is missing critical information by minstrelmike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in Colorado, water is sold on a fairly pure market.
      And that _is_ a problem because economics is how we value scarce resources.
      We're not used to valuing water that highly. We're going to have to change which means higher food and energy prices which isn't better for anyone over the longterm.
      Last March at the excess water shares auction they hold every year where farmers buy additional allotments, agriculture lost to the frackers.
      California is out of water and they grow most of the food for America.
      And there is no easy solution. We need food AND oil AND money to pay for them (as well as clean water to drink and clean air to breathe).
      Economics isn't a solution; it just frames the problem properly.

    14. Re:This is missing critical information by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Texas and Illinois share many competitive similarities .... (snip)

      You lost me right there. I've lived in both states, and apart from some minor similarities in road striping colors and signs, these two states simply do NOT compare.

      Personally, I much prefer Texas for political, financial and social reasons. It's a little cooler in Illinois, but Texas is worth the handful of hot days. Them people up north in Illinois are generally crazy and angry. But I'd be angry too, if I was taxed like they are... Give me Texas!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Propaganda bullshit by Nickodeimus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.

    That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.

    This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.

    1. Re:Propaganda bullshit by rabun_bike · · Score: 2

      That is true. Hydraulic fracking has been in use for many years. The main difference here is the magnitude and scale of frack drilling in the past 10 years. And as most people on slashdot know, not everything scales without consequences.

    2. Re:Propaganda bullshit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Hydraulic fracturing has been a method of drilling for oil for over 60 years. The only differences are that now they can turn the drill head from a vertical bore to a horizontal bore and the depth of the wells are much greater, too.

      That said, the water they use for this process is not water only - it has chemicals in it that assist with the fracturing process. Its non-potable water and therefore must be cleansed before its returned to the land. Because of the cost of the chemicals, they reuse the same water over and over for more than one well.

      This article \ series of articles is just propaganda put out by or influenced by saudi oil princes who are smart enough to co-opt environmentalists and conservationists to do their dirty work. Think about it. Who does the petroleum glut in the US harm the most? Oil producing nations, of course. And of course these oil producing nations want to stop that and get back to their profits any way that they can.

      So... source?

      Not that I do or don't believe you, but we wouldn't want someone to accuse you of perpetrating any 'propaganda bullshit.'

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Propaganda bullshit by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      You contaminate groundwater by lousy (cheap) cement jobs on the bore. It shouldn't happen and, with the right regulatory framework (like in Texas, where they actually check the pressure tests and fine the hell out of you if you screw up) it won't.

      The problem has been that a number of states have let the drillers in without comprehensive regulations and oversight. Despite places like Texas saying 'hey, we have 50 years of experience with this, you want some help drafting regulations?'.

      Those states got bought out clean and simple.

      So,you're right. It's always about money.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  4. Consider the source by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This most of this article is based on information from the Ceres Investor Group. So, who are they?

    Ceres mobilizes a powerful network of investors, companies and public interest groups to accelerate and expand the adoption of sustainable business practices and solutions to build a healthy global economy.

    Our mission is to mobilize investor and business leadership to build a thriving, sustainable global economy.

    They are a self-professed environmental activist organization. That puts the results of their self-done study in question.

    The major tip-off that something wasn't right was the title of this submission. It implies that fracking is causing water shortages by destroying watershead via draining. The report doesn't say that. What it says is that fracking uses lots of water and most fracking operations are taking in areas that are experiencing water shortages and/or drought.

    The rest of the article is based on information from another journalistic source that is known to be biased.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:Consider the source by Noryungi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, "Ceres Investor Group" may be biased but that does not mean their data is wrong.

      As a matter of fact, most of the the time, the studies financed by Big Business are much more biased than the ones financed by environmental groups.

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    2. Re:Consider the source by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are a self-professed environmental activist organization. That puts the results of their self-done study in question.

      And, of course, anything the companies doing the fracking tell us is also in question, because it's in their interests to say "but it's safe". So if you're going to dismiss what the environmentalists tell you, you also need to dismiss what the oil companies are telling you.

      It implies that fracking is causing water shortages by destroying watershead via draining.

      And where do you think that water comes from? Either wells or the municipal supply -- which will lead to draining the wastershed faster.

      Unless these companies are bringing in their own water to do the fracking, it could only be coming from the local supply. And if you're draining that much water, you will have an impact.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Consider the source by geekoid · · Score: 2

      You should look a little deeper. Ceres is about helping business make decisions, and they are recognized as a good source of information from the business community, and their GRI report is considered one of the best. Nothing i this report looks incorrect, or manipulated.

      http://www.ceres.org/resources...

      Yes, we all should be concerned about bias, and yes you raise a red flag, but looking deeper they have been pretty good with numbers.

      Unlike, say, Greenpeace,

      "The report doesn't say that. What it says is that fracking uses lots of water and most fracking operations are taking in areas that are experiencing water shortages and/or drought. "
      So? what does their report say. The fact the Hugh Pickens is trying to manipulate it, or doesn't understand it is not Ceres fault.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Consider the source by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Or from the wells they're drilling. Much of the water used in fracking is very saline (and thus useless for anything else) and comes from the wells themselves.

      Which pulls from the exact same water table and watershed as the locals.

      In other words, they are using the local supplies of water.

      That it may not be the surface water is irrelevant. If you dry up your water table, it's still gone.

      Or do you think underground water is somehow magical and not connected to the rest of it?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Context people by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    10M gallons is a lot of water, isn't it? 97B is unimaginable, isn't it?

    Well, at least until you start figuring that American families average 300 gallons. So 10M gallons for a single well is 'merely' 1 years worth of water for a 100 families. With 115M households, that's ~12.6T gallons of water used by people at home every year. Meaning Fracking is .8% of domestic water usage.

    Then figure that 'domestic' is only 8.5% of our water usage, with irrigation taking up 37% and thermoelectric power 42%.

    I don't object to making fracking companies pay a premium, import their water, use treated & filtered sewage, or other options to leave the 'good water' to people who need it, but let's face it - your average water company could save more water patching leaks they've let sit for a while(17% of domestic usage is wasted on leaks) than what fraking companies use.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Context people by rabun_bike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course all of the water usage you are citing in comparison is sent back into the water supply system. A lot of fracking fluid is injected into deep disposal wells and does not re-enter the water system. The industry is trying to move to more recycling but is complicated and costly due to the chemicals and minerals in the fracking water.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03...

  6. US irrigation uses 128bn gallons EACH DAY by tp1024 · · Score: 2

    In other words, fracking is using up 0.14% of the amount of water used for agricultural irrigation. Most of that in dry parts of the United States (who would have guessed that?!).

    http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/w...

    Shut the fuck up if all you have are not arguments but LIES!

  7. First come first serve by rjstanford · · Score: 2

    American history is fairly unique in that a lot of the laws were written at a time when there were massive quantities of natural resources just lying around for anyone who "wasn't lazy" to grab. The idea that the nation's supplies of oil, gas, and water don't belong to the nation to be used by America for Americans, but instead belong to anyone who can fund the means to extract them (even out from under their neighbors) is relatively unusual. It also leads to an accelerated tragedy of the commons.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  8. Re:What the frack? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think he was talking about Slashdot beta.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Oil thicker than water by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Surely the ability to keep America powered with "cheap" domestic oil is far more important than drinking water, right? I mean it's not like Americans drink tapwater, bathe, or eat vegetables anyway. Also, Beta sucks.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. Re:Wait, Fracking uses Water? by hey! · · Score: 2

    We've been told this whole time that fracking uses some toxic unknown substance that causes water to burn and makes children possessed by the devil.

    Now it's water?

    It's water with a rather long list of additives including benzene, formaldehyde, ferric chloride, napthalene and toluene. But, yes, it's *primarily* water.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Holy crap by hyfe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy crap. Up until now I thought all the 'beta sucks' comments where just 'I hate new stuff'-type comments...

    .. but I just got served my first beta-page and well, it sucks. It sucks on so many levels I actually think this design isn't salvagable. It's so hard to read, navigate and use that it is, well, useless. I am honestly curious how anyone would think it's a good idea to push anything like this out to users.

    Seriously, this is even worse than Windows 8 (the first windows version, including Vista, I hated enough to not even keep as a dual-boot alternative). What's wrong with people?

    --
    "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    1. Re:Holy crap by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      "This is a triumph.
      I'm making a note here, huge success.
      It's hard to over state my satisfaction."

      (Looks around)

      Just wondering.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. You're damned if you do... by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 2

    ... and damned if you don't. One more round for the environmental version of the peanut gallery.

    The great thing about the watershed is that it renews itself every year. If we take a small portion of what comes in rainfall every year and inject it into a fracking well, the next year we'll pretty much be back to where we started.

    If the glaciers on the planet melt, then we have too much water. If we put it down fracking wells, then we'll have too little!

    It's like watching the wardrobe of the latest movie actress. She puts in on, then she takes it off. She puts something else on, then she takes it off. Ad nauseum.

  13. Re:About beta. by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My advice to the peons working on Slashdot: find another job. The veracity with which this "upgrade" is being pushed displays a stubbornness that can only be attributed to MBAs with no idea of what Slashdot is about. The fact that the commenting system is such an afterthought in the Beta is as much evidence as I need that the people pushing this redesign never use this site.

    I know you don't get to decide whether or not the Beta moves forward or which design gets used, but believe this: You WILL be blamed when it fails. You work for a corporation now and the higher ups with undoubtedly throw you under the bus when they have to explain to their bosses or shareholders why the website redesign failed. This failure is going to be associated with you and your teammates and it will set back any hopes you have of being promoted within the company. Take the advice of me and my fellow Slashdotters: Get out now.

    --
    The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
  14. Check your sources by SteveG3942 · · Score: 2

    RT.com is the Kremlin's mouthpiece in the West. The Kremlin's power derives from oil money, and they desperately need oil prices to remain above $100/barrel. Oil prices are undermined by fracking. Russia has been engaged in an anti-fracking campaign in Europe, and apparently, they're bringing this campaign to the US. In the meantime, you can expect more articles attempting to undermine the Western hemisphere's domestic oil operations, such as this one: http://rt.com/usa/native-ameri.... I'm not pro- or anti- some oil production or transport method or another. I'm simply saying that there's insight to be gleaned from examining from where certain information originates.

  15. Re: "MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. by schlouse · · Score: 2

    /rioting in the streets/

    Dare I say that such a thing might be properly termed a "pussy riot"

  16. Slashdot Beta is surprise prison sex for the eyes by nctritech · · Score: 2

    There's nothing like getting fucked.
    Without advance warning.
    With a rake.
    In the eyes.
    In the corner of an Internet prison cafeteria.
    Slashdot BETA is a war against the Internet proletariat.
    Oh well, back to 4chan.

  17. Fracking is good for business by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    Fracking is good for business, so the environmental and health arguments are falling on deaf ears. The Republocrat duopoly sees only dollar signs

    And /. beta still sucks.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  18. Give priority to human consumption by grahamm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the area has a drought then priority for water should be given to human consumption and hygene usages. Anyone using 'industrial' quantities of water should be charged in such a way as to discourage its use. Either that or the oil companies should have to pay for pipelines and pumps to bring sea water to their sites rather than competing for the local water supply. Even better make them not only pipe in sea water but also provide desalination plants to augment the local drinking water supplies. After all, the oil companies are no strangers to long distance pipelines.

  19. Re:we need a new community if beta goes forward by unitron · · Score: 2

    Check this out:

    http://www.altslashdot.org/wik...

    and remember s/he's only been at it for a few hours.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  20. I'll say this about Linkedln.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...they have got moxxy. To go this far just to get me to sign up?

  21. Re:"MOVIN' ON UP"? Not up mine, you aren't. by unitron · · Score: 2

    I think you have your dates wrong... Today is the 6th.

    Right. 4 days 'til Slashcottpocolypse begins.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  22. Re:SI Standard of Measure by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    15.

  23. Recycling? by rjstanford · · Score: 2

    After the water is used one time in fracking, its buried into containment wells to be sealed up for the foreseeable future. Its taking a resource that depends on massive reusability and turning it, slowly, into a single-use resource.
    That's kind of a problem.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  24. Waste by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wasteful irrigation practices temporarily pull water out of the ground and, in general, either let it evaporate to rain down again somewhere else or store it briefly in foodstocks that will be eaten and returned to the system.
    Fracking takes water out of the ecosystem completely, since its used one time and the waste is typically then stored in containment wells "forever."

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  25. Fuck Beta, Fork Alpha.Time to resurrect slashcode? by seandiggity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.slashcode.com/www.slashcode.com/

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/slashcode/

    food for thought: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SlashDot

    --
    Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
  26. Re:Fracking doesn't use drinking water. by sexconker · · Score: 2

    Get a fricken life.

    And when you use assloads of [not drinking] water to frack, your [drinking water] has to also be used for the things the [not drinking] water would have otherwise been used for.

    Beyond that, fracking makes a lot of [drinking water] unsafe. Plenty of people rely on water sourced from wells and streams and shit. When the frackers set up shop their pipes end up releasing those flammable gases into that water. You shouldn't be drinking from the tap if it looks like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    And yes, fracking causes earthquakes too. The issue isn't the holes from drilling destabilizing the rock, the issue is the pressure changes they cause after they extract all that gas. If fracking were happening in San Francisco or New York, the "educated" position would be that it's terrible for the environment. But because it's happening in rural areas, the people complaining about it and the problems it causes are branded as "ignorant" and the "educated" position is that it's perfectly safe.

  27. nope by nobuddy · · Score: 2

    The ag argument fails because fracking removes that water from the water cycle. Ag does not.

  28. Don't look now, your lie is showing by nobuddy · · Score: 2

    fracking reduces the number of wells drilled by making each well more productive.

    Fracking outlawed means more wells per reservoir have to be drilled. johnny, looks like steak again, daddy's skills are in high demand.