Pennsylvania

Energy. Environment. Economy.

How Fracking Could Disrupt CO2 Sequestration

STR/AFP/Getty Images

A technician stands in front of the Krechba carbon capture and sequestration treatment plant in Algeria.

The goal of carbon dioxide sequestration is to bury the harmful greenhouse gas thousands of feet underground. The goal of fracking is to release natural gas from deeply buried deposits. So, can the two coexist within close range? A recent study published in February by two Princeton University engineering professors tries to answer that question with their paper “Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production.”

“Production of natural gas from shale and other tight formations involves fracturing the shale with the explicit objective to greatly increase the permeability of the shale. As such, shale gas production is in direct conflict with the use of shale formations as a caprock barrier to CO2 migration.”

Shale is considered a good lid to keep the CO2 from leaking back out into the atmosphere. But hydraulic fracturing, using high pressured water to fracture the rock, and sand to keep those fractures open, could end up poking holes in that lid. It all depends on how much CO2 sequestration happens near frack jobs. And that’s what the researchers, T.R. Eliot and M.A. Celia, looked at.

“These analyses indicate that colocation of deep saline aquifers with shale and tight gas production could significantly affect the sequestration capacity for CCS operations. This suggests that a more comprehensive management strategy for subsurface resource utilization should be developed.”

But Briana Mordick, from the Natural Resources Defense Council explains in her blog on the new report that the two could safely co-exist if more sub-surface formations lie on top of the shale and serve as a protective cover.

 ”For example, the portion of the Marcellus Shale that is targeted by gas drillers is only 50-100 feet thick and above it are thousands more feet of shale and other low permeability rocks. In other words, even if a small section of a caprock is fractured, the larger formation could still serve as a seal, and will often have multiple seals above it in addition.”

What Brianna is really worried about, however, and what is not addressed in the paper, is how poor well construction might serve as a conduit for the CO2 to escape.

“If the formations that these oil and gas wells are drilled into eventually become the caprock for CO2 sequestration projects, these wells could be exposed to harsh conditions they haven’t been designed to withstand, potentially creating thousands of new pathways for CO2 to escape to the atmosphere.”

Faulty wells have been blamed for methane migration in towns like Dimock, Pennsylvania.

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Oram/1503951853 Brian Oram

    This is the one reason – I have recommended that the Marcellus/Utica shale wells be drilled in a manner that is consistent with the UIC Program and that EPA does not oversee, but there is a MOU between PADEP and EPA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Oram/1503951853 Brian Oram

    Also – I can not wait to see what the community will think of deep well injection for sequestering CO2 – if there is this much push back on hydraulic fracturing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ray-Smith/100002446728147 Ray Smith

    Why don’t all you people who are on the CO2 kick, go out and get a real job, instead of making jobs in a field that is bogus? I can say this with absolute certainty,CO2 that man creates cannot even be measured out in space. Furthermore life could not sustain without, I do not need to tell all of you scientist, and professors, that your barking up the wrong tree! It is absolutely “not” a fugitive emission!!! Nature puts a million times more CO2 into the environment then man.
    I worked with the Auto Emission Laboratory In Ann Arbor Michigan years ago, their experts concluded through testing that, trees cause more CO2 emissions then Automobiles.

    Recently, one of the experts in your field, had developed an artificial tree, with would take CO2 out of the air! Can you imagine a world with no plant life, in it, and a forest full of artificial trees! Do you really want to live on such a planet? One thing for sure, Obama would be thrilled if we could start such an industry, he would put 20 million people to work making such trees. In his view this would help the economy, and you know him, the cost of implementing such a task, would not even be a consideration of his, we just print some more money, to pay for the job!

    Get real, get a life, and let mother nature alone.

    Ray Smith

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ray-Smith/100002446728147 Ray Smith

    I forgot to mention a very important fact! Since it now assumed that a part of the fracking operations is actually causing earth Quakes? One can also assume that injecting CO2 into the ground, will also cause earth Quakes?

    One positive factor that might come from putting CO2 into the ground is, if, it gets into the water, effervescent, which would be good in my opinion!

    Ray Smith

    • Iris Marie Bloom

      Good job, Susan Phillips, on raising the question of whether fracking would make carbon sequestration even more difficult. Those layers of rock which supposedly form an “impermeable” barrier or cap between the shale and the surface, by the way, have pre-existing networks of fractures and fissures which extends all the way to the surface, in some places, according to hydrogeologist Paul Rubin. That, in combination with abandoned mines and wells, and well casing failures (currently well casing failures are running at 6.2% in the first year alone at Marcellus Shale fracked wells in PA for 2010 and 2011), means methane migration from fracking is ongoing and inevitable. 

      It’s not just Dimock, PA; Parker County, TX; Pavilion, WY where methane migration has turned people’s homes into explosion hazards. Two homes exploded in PA due to methane migration in late 2010 and on February 28th, 2011. In a separate incident, DEP fined Chesapeake Energy $1M for its methane migration in Bradford County, PA. But $1M means nothing to a multinational corporation with a fresh $10 billion in investment money coming from Asia. Multinational corporations don’t care about exploding homes, families evacuated due to their methane migration, etc. They don’t have to care. A $1M fine is less than 1% of CHK CEO McClendon’s take-home pay.  Carbon sequestration may or may not turn out to have a significant impact, pragmatically speaking, on global warming. Since scientists have a global consensus that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions — particularly C02 and methane — are rapidly and dangerously escalating climate change, the most important thing we can do  now for climate is to stop extreme fossil fuel extraction. Reduced energy consumption, conservation and efficiency combined with greatly increased use of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables is the ticket. At an absolute minimum we must avoid increasing methane emissions, which fracking does on a grand scale. Methane is 105 times more potent than C02 in trapping heat, on the 20-year time frame; and that 20 year time frame is about what we’ve got to turn climate change around. The gas has been there 380 million years and it isn’t going anywhere. Why not leave it in the ground for our grandchildren, who may need a strategic reserve? As it is, fracking is doing more than just causing large numbers of earthquakes due to toxic fracking waste disposal. It’s increasing both chemical poisons in our waterways and bodies AND accelerating climate change — already two of the most urgent problems we have to solve. Let’s solve those problems instead of rapidly making them worse.   

  • hunkahunkaburninglove

    Given enough time, everything leaks.

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Education