Surfactant chemicals found in samples of fracking fluid are no more toxic than substances commonly found in the home.
This is the conclusion of researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder who analysed samples of fracking fluid that were collected in five US states.
Fracking fluid is largely comprised of water and sand, but oil and gas companies also add other chemicals, including anti-bacterial agents, corrosion inhibitors and surfactants. Surfactants reduce the surface tension between water and oil, allowing for more oil to be extracted from porous rock underground.
In a new study published in the journal Analytical Chemistry, the research team identified the surfactants found in fracking fluid samples from Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Texas. The results reportedly show that the chemicals found in the fluid samples were also commonly found in products ranging from toothpaste to laxatives to detergent to ice cream.
‘This is the first published paper that identifies some of the organic fracking chemicals going down the well that companies use,’ said Michael Thurman, lead author of the paper and a co-founder of the Laboratory for Environmental Mass Spectrometry in CU-Boulder’s College of Engineering and Applied Science. ‘We found chemicals in the samples we were running that most of us are putting down our drains at home.’
In a statement, Imma Ferrer, chief scientist at the mass spectrometry laboratory and co-author of the paper said, ‘Our unique instrumentation with accurate mass and intimate knowledge of ion chemistry was used to identify these chemicals.’
The fluid samples analysed for the study were provided through partnerships with Colorado State University and colleagues at CU-Boulder.
Hydraulic fracturing, which is usually shortened to ‘fracking,’ is a technique used to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be extracted from the ground by forcing fluid down the well.
In the US alone the number of natural gas wells has increased by 200,000 in the last two decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
Among the concerns raised by the fracking boom is that the chemicals used in the fracking fluid might contaminate ground and surface water supplies. However, determining the risk of contamination – or proving that any contamination has occurred in the past – has been difficult because oil and gas companies have been reluctant to share exactly what’s in their proprietary fluid mixtures.
Recent state and federal regulations require companies to disclose what is being used in their fracking fluids, but the resulting lists typically use broad chemical categories to describe the actual ingredients.
The University said that the results from the new study are important not only because they give a picture of the possible toxicity of the fluid, but because a detailed list of the ingredients can be used as a ‘fingerprint’ to trace whether suspected contamination of water supplies actually originated from a fracking operation.
The authors caution that their results may not be applicable to all wells. Individual well operators use unique fracking fluid mixtures that may be modified depending on the underlying geology.
Ferrer and Thurman are now working to analyse more water samples collected from other wells as part of a larger study at CU-Boulder exploring the impacts of natural gas development.
Fracking has been safely used since 1947. A typical fracture treatment uses between 3 and 12 additive chemicals, including acetic acid (vinegar), sodium chloride (table salt), guar gum and citric acid (edible food additives), and Isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
“Progressive” hysteria against fracking is simply their latest anti-science bugaboo to keep the ignorant masses aroused now that their “global warming” hysteria has collapsed and they need a replacement fraudulent horror story.
Well said! yet another example of meja hype, completely irrelevant to reality. ‘Dog bites man’ has no news value (whatever that is) “Man bites dog.” does.
I look forward to the headline. “Scientifically trained technologist rams microphone down throat of investigative journalist” for demonstrating pig-ignorance in question.
Best
Mike B
I was about to send a missive when I read that from Asok Asus, he has summarized the present political / energy press more succinctly than I ever could. The BBC has sunk below contempt and the general media seem to echo the “Newspeak” daily in their treatment of the global warming nonsense; today they are threatening increase thunderstorms from the increased moisture in the atmosphere. My computer model of the climate says that there is no linkage between carbon dioxide and global warming…but I lack an IPCC to sell mine.
My kitchen cupboard contains many highly dangerous chemicals which are permitted because of their small quantities. Comparison with the quantities used in fracking is completely missleading.
What a totally dishonest title, the review was about surfactants. It does not discuss the biocides, silica, benzene, diesel fuel and a host of other things used in fracking fluids.
Clearly the title is wrong. Benzene, silica, biocides and diesel fuel are used in fracking fluids.
I’m sure the water alone is safe to drink if it had nothing else in it.
Does this mean that the Met Office didn’t need to buy a new supercomputer when all they had to do was ask Mr Broughton what his laptop says.
All you need to do is Google – Denver Post fracking.
You can see the litany of problems happening every day in Colorado – spills, leaks,explosions, deaths, sick people, benzene contamination and on and on and on.
Fracking is so fracking wonderful.
Note above that Ineos are investing heavily in Fracking. This is survival against the ridiculous energy prices that Europe has caused itself in a suicidal dash away from coal and nuclear power. All engineers should be hoping that they proceed quickly and successfully or there will be no petrochem industry in the UK in a few years time; just lots of windmills and white elephants.
Anony Mous can have my climate model and computer for a fraction of the cost of the new Met Office one and a lot more sensible too.
While the chemicals used in fracking does not particularly concern me I am concerned about the amount of methane that is released into the atmosphere, methane causes much more global warming per unit mass than CO2.
Unfortunately recent satellite measurements of methane release from fracking wells in the US suggest that the amount of leakage in well in excess of the amount needed per Kg to cause the same amount of warming as coal.