• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 2 days How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 4 hours The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
  • 8 hours China deletes leaked stats showing plunging birth rate for 2023
  • 5 days Bad news for e-cars keeps coming
  • 10 hours Oil Stocks, Market Direction, Bitcoin, Minerals, Gold, Silver - Technical Trading <--- Chris Vermeulen & Gareth Soloway weigh in
Barry Stevens

Barry Stevens

Dr. Barry Stevens has over 25 years of proven international experience building technology-driven enterprises and bringing superior products and services to market ahead of the…

More Info

Premium Content

The Facts about Fracking Fluid and its Disposal

At a recent shale gas symposium in South Africa a question was asked “if hydraulic fracturing is so safe, why do drilling operators working in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale Play dispose the backflow out of state in Ohio.”  The question was satirically proposed by a rather uninformed anti-fracking environmentalist. His point was to show that even a natural gas producing state wants nothing to do with the disposal of the hydraulic fluid’s flowback (chemical-laced wastewater).

This discussion addresses the attendees question from a chemical perceptive. It is not intended as a review of the relationship between wastewater injection wells and earthquakes. Let it suffice to say that injection well seismicity typically ranges from 1 to 4 on the Richter scale and rarely cause damage. Nevertheless, the industry is minimizing the risk of seismicity by: assessing susceptibility when identifying or permitting injection sites; requiring seismic monitoring at active well sites; limiting well pressure thresholds by decreasing the amount of water pumped into wells and reducing the pressure at which it is pumped; and recycling and reusing wastewater.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process used to stimulate gas production from conventional oil and gas reservoirs. The process requires between 3 to 5 million gallons of fluid per well. The fracturing fluid is a proprietary mixture consisting of at least 98% water and sand with the remaining 2%, or less, of chemical additives, each having a specific function.

Although there are dozens to hundreds of chemicals, which could be used as additives, typically, there are no more than 12 chemicals used in the fracturing process.  Most of the additives are commonly used household or personal care items, which pose little or no health risks.  However, a limited number are classified hazardous substances.

After stimulation, about 20% to 40% of the fluid flows back to the surface and disposed by any one of a number of options. The four most common disposal options are: recycling for additional fracking, treatment and discharge to surface waters, underground injection, and storage in open air pits.

The answer to his question has nothing to do with Pennsylvania’s supposed dismay of the fluid. The answer is matter of simple geology. Pennsylvania’s tightly formed low-porosity underground geology is not suitable for deep injection disposal wells. Correspondingly, Ohio’s geological underbelly composed of deep, cavernous permeable rock formations are ideally suited for injection well holding tanks.

When injection is the most practical solution, the flowback is injected in deep, up to 10,000 feet, underground porous rock formations and sealed above and below by unbroken, impermeable strata. Ohio is home to 176 injection disposal wells, operated by more than 80 companies. Compare that with just six active wells in neighbouring Pennsylvania. “There are over 151,000 injection wells around the country injecting over 2 billion gallons of brine every day. Since the 1960s, there have only a handful of incidents due to direct contact or chemical migration into aquifers.”

Both horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are established technologies with a significant track record; horizontal drilling dates back to the 1930s; and hydraulic fracturing has a history actually going back as far as 1860’s, when nitroglycerine was used to stimulate shallow, hard-rock oil reserves, it was surprisingly very successful and not so surprising very hazardous and often illegal.

A key element in the emergence of shale gas exploration has been the refinement of cost?effective horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies. These two processes have allowed shale gas development to move into areas that previously were not accessible, literally your backyard.

The possible harmful effects of the fracking fluid to people and planet cannot be minimized. A 60-year history dictates that hydraulic fracturing is safe. There are few, if any, known cases of anyone being hospitalized or harmed from chemical contact with the fracturing fluid and/or its flowback. Especially, when used in a safe and responsible manner! “Best Management Practices” employed to select sites with the proper geology, construct and cement the casing, and manage the handling, injecting and disposal have just about eliminated problems and complaints.

The dilemma with all this brouhaha over hydraulic fracturing is the lack of concern over:

1. Sodium fluoride found in almost every tube of fluoridated toothpaste, which is far more hazardous and toxic than any of the additives in the hydraulic fracturing fluid.

Sodium fluoride is toxic by ingestion, inhalation and skin contact. “Fluorides are more toxic than lead and only slightly less poisonous than arsenic. As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) has required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning on the label. Another of the little-known facts about fluoride toothpaste is that each tube of toothpaste – even those specifically marketed for children – contains enough fluoride to kill a child.

Fortunately, however, toothpaste-induced fatalities have been rarely reported in the US. In a review of Poison Center Control reports between 1989 and 1994, 12,571 reports were found from people who had ingested excess toothpaste. Of these calls, 2 people – probably both children – experienced “major medical outcomes”, defined as “signs or symptoms that are life-threatening or result in significant residual disability or disfigurement,” see following chart.

Colgate Could Kill your Kid

2. The environmental impact and water pollution caused by deicing salt. Salt the most commonly used deicing chemical in the United States; it is spread at a rate of approximately 20 million tons per year. “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate road salt but acknowledges that special consideration and best management practices are needed to protect reservoirs and other drinking water supplies near treated highways and salt storage sites from contamination with road salt runoff.”

3. The presence of gar gum in natural toothpaste. Guar gum or hydroxyethyl cellulose is one of the hazardous additives used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to thicken the water in the fracturing fluid to suspend the sand. Neither its identity nor concentration is labeled on most tubes of toothpaste.

4. The use of ethylene glycol in many household products, including antifreeze, deicing products, detergents, paints, and cosmetics. Ethylene glycol is a colorless, odorless, sweet-tasting toxic additive used in hydraulic fracturing fluid to prevent scaling in the drill pipe.

“Ethylene glycol that is released into the environment does not persist since it is degraded within days to a few weeks in air, water, and soil. Reports of fatalities following ingestion of ethylene glycol indicate that a volume of 150–1,500 ml consumed at one time may cause death. In humans, the lethal dose of ethylene glycol is estimated to be in the range of 1,400–1,600 mg/kg. Ethylene glycol vapor concentrations measured in the air at airports during de-icing spray operations ranged from 0.05 to 22 mg/m3. Ethylene glycol has also been detected in airport stormwater. Background concentrations of ethylene glycol in the environment are not available.”

5. The dry cleaning of clothes.  “You know that smell on clothes that have been to the dry cleaners? Well, for the first time scientists have measured it and found worrying levels of the toxic chemical used most commonly in the dry cleaning process. Most dry cleaners use an oil-based solvent called “Perc” (short for perchloroethylene) that has been linked to serious health problems, particularly for workers or nearby residents who inhale fumes, or for those drinking water contaminated with the chemical. The chemical is such a potent toxic substance that it’s prompted federal and state hazardous waste cleanups at dozens of Superfund sites around the country, some of them at defunct cleaners that didn’t handle their waste properly. And, not surprisingly, the chemical remains on clothes after they come home from the dry cleaners, and even build up over time if clothes are repeatedly dry cleaned, according to a Georgetown University study that was inspired by a sophomore high school student’s science project.”

6. Throwing something away.  If you don’t reuse or recycle that item, it probably will end up in a landfill.  Once in a landfill the only thing left for it to do is decompose into carbon dioxide, water, hydrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, inorganic acids, and methane. “In 2010, Americans generated about 250 million tons of trash and recycled and composted over 85 million tons of this material. On average, we recycled and composted 1.51 pounds out of our individual waste generation of 4.43 pounds per person per day.”

“Decomposition rates (rate at which it will totally break down into the earth) of items in landfills will vary depending on the amount of sunlight, moisture and air exposure it receives.  Some of these time ranges are:”:


“Apple core: 1 to 2 months, can take longer in landfills due to lack of microbes

Glass bottles: tens of thousands of years; glass is made from sand and it can outlast most anything
Plastic drinking bottles: hundreds of years; consist of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which is made from petroleum, which won’t break down.

Plastic bags: up to hundreds of years; newer plastic bags can photo-degrade, but most aren’t exposed to sunlight when in a landfill.

Milk carton: 5 years
Plastic milk jug: 500 years
Aluminum can: 80 to 200 years
Styrofoam: no sign of ever breaking down
Cigarette butt: 1 to 5 years
Newspaper: 2 to 4 weeks, can take longer in landfills due to lack of microbes; will decompose much faster when wet.”

7. The December 2008 report that “one in every three of the more than 1,500 children’s toys tested in time for the holiday shopping season have been found to contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern such as lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic.”

In closing, it’s convenient and easy to point at hydraulic fracturing as another human activity that if not curtailed will destroy humanity.  The ascent of man is one of risk management and ultimately doing the right thing. Sure controls, oversight and improvements are necessary when our future is at stake. But let’s deal in facts rather than mindless cut and pastes that naysayers righteously proclaim to an unwary public who go about brushing their teeth, driving behind salt spraying trucks, sitting in aircraft during deicing procedures, sending their clothes to the local dry cleaner, buying toys for birthdays and holidays, and shopping to feed and clothe the family without thinking of the potential harm they are doing to themselves and mother earth. Time to put fracking in proper perspective!

By. Dr. Barry Stevens

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Gary Shorter on May 24 2012 said:
    Does Gas fracking present less problems than water ?

    By all appearances , we are using a tremendous amount of water , which is our most precious resource to extract the shale based oil and gas.
  • AlmostEven on June 17 2012 said:
    And if all those fracking chemicals are so darn harmless, why not just dump them directly into the groundwater? Why bother with all the added expenses of injection and sealing and cement casing? Also, earthquakes caused by fracking "typically range from 1 to 4 on the Richter scale"... Isn't the lesson we learned from Fukushima that we should prepare for the atypical? But if the chemicals are harmless, I guess the worries are irrelevant.
  • TheEcho on July 02 2012 said:
    "After stimulation, about 20% to 40% of the fluid flows back to the surface and disposed by any one of a number of options."

    Do you even pay attention when you are writing these articles or do you just sit there with dollar signs in your eyes awaiting the inevitable contributions from oil and gas companies? Do you realize that the quote above means 60% to 80% of that fracking fluid is never recovered and able to be "safely disposed" of? Have you ever even looked at a simple paper concerning hydrology or did you skip your grade school Earth science classes all together? 80% (high mark) at 3 million gallon (low mark) that's 2,400,000 gallons of hazardous fracking waste left to poison aquifers and the water table. Liquid does not remain stagnant in the ground just in case you were actually stupid enough to think surface water is the only water that moves.

    "A limited number of them are classified hazardous substances." Okay, where are you getting you numbers? Are you pulling them out of your ass? 29 fracking chemicals have been deemed carcinogens and others are closely guarded trade secrets; most likely because if people knew what they were - fracking wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of acquiring any more leases.

    I love how about 1/3 of the way in you turned an article entitled "The Facts About Fracking Fluid and its Disposal" in to one that should be entitled "7 Things That Will Get Your Mind Off of Fracking Fluid and its Disposal". Do you know what the difference is between fracking, fracking fluids, the drilling process, and the 7 things you listed? People can not be forced (through compulsory integration) to buy a certain toothpaste (there are toothpastes out there without fluoride and guar gum in them).

    Towns are not required to use salt to deice their roads, some municipalities have turned to sand as well as other preventative measures that can be taken before the storm hits.

    As with toothpaste, people are not forced to buy a certain type of detergent or cosmetic product, there are alternatives out there.

    Wow, I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

    People have the choice NOT to purchase dry clean only clothes. People can also choose to live a more sustainable lifestyle that reduces waste in their local landfills, and parents most certainly have the choice as to whether or not they want to buy their children toys that have lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic (and BPA) in them because most states have enacted policies to either have these toys labeled or banned all together.

    All drilling and disposal leases (atleast in NY) are done through compulsory integration with an approval proportion being 60% of the land in a spacing unit (640 acres). It is not uncommon in New York for this 60% mark to be able to be reached just by a handful of large farm owners agreeing to the lease while putting hundreds if not thousands of urban and suburban dwelling citizens at risk.

    You can stop trying to mask your pandering. We can all clearly see your kowtowing to the energy companies. Your biography even says so:

    "Dr. Barry Stevens has over 25 years of proven international experience building technology-driven enterprises and bringing superior products and services to market ahead of the competition. He is the founder of TBD America Inc., a technology business development group. In this role,he is responsible for monetizing technologies and leading globally-competitive companies to higher levels of revenue, earnings, and growth."

    Wow, sure doesn't sound like you have an ulterior motive or anything. Anyone who read this article and scrolled down to view the comments BEWARE. This man hasn't written a single scientific publication in his professional life, and I doubt he wrote many while attending Rutgers for Inorganic Chemistry. His Biography might as well read: With 25 years of being OUT of the scientific community, and 25 years experience having the energy sectors hand up his ass puppeteering him, Barry Stevens has absolutely no business talking about hydrofracking or its wastes from a scientific standpoint.
  • Ed on August 08 2012 said:
    What makes you think guar gum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guar_gum#Chemical_composition) which is harmless, is the same thing as hydroxyethylcellulose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyethyl_cellulose)?

    Or is it just part of your plan to throw inanities at the wall to distract people from the serious issues of water contamination, earthquakes and more caused by your industry?
  • Sondra Wolferman on August 10 2013 said:
    The article only addresses the dangers (or lack thereof) of hydraulic fracturing to human beings. What about the rest of creation? What about the dangers of gas fracking to all the wildlife, flora and fauna that are displaced, killed, and/or driven to extinction when thousands of acres of our public lands are deforested and cleared to be replaced by drilling pads, service roads, pipelines and compressor stations?
  • Rodney Hytonen on September 02 2013 said:
    If these chemicals are so harmless or negligible, why is it highly illegal for US individuals, or small business, to dump antifreeze (ethylene Glycol)or cleaning fluid (tetrachloroethylene)into the ground?


    Do you know what that means?

    It means they CANNOT be removed or 'cleaned' from water (or the body) BY ANY MEANS and OVER ANY LENGTH OF TIME.

    As he writer/panderer/propagandist points out, we already live i the ragged edge of carcineginc environment. Such an enormous use(20 Million Gallons per day for the Marcellus area alone,)of cumulative carcinogen- laced, NONRECOVERABLE water will do far more tham a gentle nudge over the line. More like a kick off the cliff, for the human race in America and wherever fracking is done - and all for the short term corporate profits of a few.

    They even use Eminent Domain to nonconsentually TAKE your land if you refuse to allow it!

    This literal cancer on our economy and our ecology as well as being a corruptor of our laws, regulatory infrastructure, electoral and judicial processes, and government in general; MUST BE STOPPED NOW.
  • Patrick on September 10 2013 said:
    I'd be interested in an update to this article (since it's gained so much attention recently).

    also, that 20-40% is the amount of water that returns to the surface during drilling (ie they pump the water down and the well overflows and brings it back up where it's recaptured).

    After that additional fluid is pumped back out. Unfortunately I couldn't find any credible sources on the % (ie epa, doe, or university papers) that is actually removed.

    The nice thing about a huge industry like this is the monetary incentive to recycle the water (and develop technologies to do so.
  • RHytonen on October 16 2013 said:
    At a public meeting of the Pennsboro(WV) City Council on Sept. 16, 2013, I asked representatives (introduced as a company "Engineer" and a "Geologist")of Antero Resources, who were presenting a plan to frack under Pennsboro City Limits in direct contradiction to a city ordinance against it,
    "What do they do with the 30% of the fluid they recover?"
    The response shocked me:
    "Actually, it's more like 10%!"

    I said, "TEN PERCENT? So, NINETY PERCENT of fracking fluid STAYS IN THE GROUND?"

    Their answer was simply, "YES."
  • Vernon Yarker on October 23 2013 said:
    Antis always quote water and allude it it being a scarce commodity. Here in the UK people have been led to believe that water is scarce . Which is pure codswallop . There is no shortage of water in the UK. What the antis have picked up is statements from water companies, who claim it is in short supply. In effect, what they should say is that there is a shortage of water storage.... Well get out and build more reservoirs , should be the rejoinder.

    I think you article would be enhanced if you gave the decay rates for the chemicals used in fracking. Personal research has suggested that they don't last more than a few days once they have been injected, and if it is put into safe storage ponds air and sunlight and their own chemical activity nutralises them .

    Well said anyway
  • Cmorabito on February 10 2015 said:
    Excellent points, Dr. Stevens! I guess I shouldn't be surprised by all the comments (attacks). Personal attacks never won an argument. If detractors want to be taken seriously, they'd do better to present facts to the contrary, sans emotion. I've been following this debate for a while now, and I'm stunned by how rarely we hear about the benefits of fossil fuels, but we certainly hear about the dangers. By the same token, we don't hear about the hundreds of thousands of protected birds and bats killed by wind farms every year, or how the mining of rare earth minerals used in making the turbines devastates the environment, pollutes drinking water, kills livestock and causes major human health concerns. The mantra is: fossil fuels = bad. Alternative energy = good - period. The hypocrisy is astounding!
    Let’s weigh the pros and cons of EVERY energy source at our disposal. Only then can we make educated decisions about using the most appropriate sources and continuing to improve the ones we can.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News