Skip to main content

Water pouring from a faucet into a glass.

Thinkstock/Thinkstock

We are still learning about what it means to inject millions of litres of water into the earth to unleash unconventional gas.

Here in Canada, a comprehensive, independent scientific report on water use in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and other unconventional operations is due any day from the not-for-profit, respected Canadian Council of Academies.

Meanwhile, scattered information about water use and the after effects continues to roll in from elsewhere.

Story continues below advertisement

In July, the U.S. Department of Energy reported on one of the first, preliminary examinations of what happens to the potentially toxic chemicals that are contained in some fracking fluids injected into the earth.

The department monitored chemicals in Western Pennsylvania for a year. It found that the chemical-laden fluids remained hundreds of metres below the more shallow drinking water aquifers in the region, which is a hotbed for U.S. fracking operations.

In other words, the fracking fluid did not affect drinking water, this study found.

The report is "interesting," Scott Anderson, a drilling expert with the U.S. Environment Defense Fund, told The Associated Press. But it's just one study, and Canadian environmentalists say this information does not seal the case.

"More than 40 per cent of fracking fluids get left in the ground and we know little about their mobilization or fate," says Andrew Nikiforuk, an Alberta-based author and expert on energy and the environment. "Fracking is underground mining and a good example of non-linear chaos. Man-made fractures can connect to natural fractures in unexpected ways."

The not-for-profit Science Media Centre of Canada says that between one and eight million gallons (up to 36 million litres) of water are used in each fracking well, and even when the used water is left in the earth, no studies prior to the U.S. Department of Energy study had looked at what happens to this underground water.

There are also wide discrepancies in the amount of used water that comes to the surface after a fracking operation – between 15 and 80 per cent of the injected water, according to the Science Media Centre. The centre notes that, consistent with the new U.S. study, no well water contamination has been traced directly to deep fracking water, but it also notes that there is "some uncertainty," which makes the coming Canadian Council of Academies report important.

Story continues below advertisement

"It should provide us with well-researched data," says Adam Goehner, technical analyst with the Calgary-based Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank.

With the information about water so tentative and preliminary, companies such as Gasfrac Energy Services Inc., based in Calgary and Houston, Tex., see a strong future for technologies such as their use of gelled propane, which Mr. Nikiforuk concedes does minimize water use. Other companies are working with different compounds, such as mixtures of carbon dioxide and nitrogen to lessen the amount of water injected.

It's going to take a lot more evidence to satisfy the industry's critics that new technologies like propane are the answer, though.

"It may minimize water use. But it may still contaminate groundwater," Mr. Nikiforuk says. "Frack fluids that minimize water usage are a bandage on a ruptured artery."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies