Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 647–668 | Cite as

Characterizing hydraulic fracturing fluid greenness: application of a hazard-based index approach

  • Tim Hurley
  • Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha
  • Alireza Gheisi
  • Kasun Hewage
  • Rehan Sadiq
Original Paper


Growth of the unconventional gas industry is predicted to continue to be an important component of the global energy landscape. The rapid expansion of shale and tight gas development has raised many environmental and human health concerns, particularly in regards to ground and surface water contamination. The unconventional gas industry has begun to transition toward the use of hydraulic fracturing chemicals that pose minimal environmental and human health hazards in order to mitigate the risks associated with possible chemical containment failure. Integrated chemical hazard evaluation has been facilitated by an adapted index-based approach to combine noncommensurate multiparameter chemical hazard data into a single score value. Comparative analysis of existing chemical hazard index scoring systems as well as the formulation of a novel hydraulic fracturing fluid greenness assessment system revealed several important considerations for index development and application. Index scores calculated using the investigated index systems highlighted the need for informed, optimized hazard class selection as input for score determination, the maintenance of hazard category intensity during parameter transformation, as well as representative hazard class and chemical component mathematical weightings, and robust aggregation techniques for final score calculation. Continued research should work to model the combined hazard posed by individual chemicals while considering the effect of dilution as well as incorporate additional index metrics beyond hazard intensity. Fully disclosed index systems, applied with complete knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, provide useful monitoring and communication tools to promote environmental-best practices in the unconventional gas industry.


Hydraulic fracturing Green chemistry Hazard assessment Index Sustainability 

Supplementary material

10098_2015_1054_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 37 kb)


  1. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2012) Water quality indices. Elsevier, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ALL Consulting (2012) The modern practices of hydraulic fracturing: a focus on Canadian resources. ALL Consulting, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur JD, Bohm B, Coughlin BJ, Layne M (2008) Evaluating the environmental implications of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs. ALL Consulting, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandi HS, Daroda RJ, Olinto AC (2014) The use of Canberra metrics to aggregate metric to sustainabilty. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brannon HD, Daulton DJ, Post MA, Hudson HG, Jordan AK (2012) The quest to exclusive use of environmentally responsible fracturing products and systems. SPE 152068, presented at the SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Woodlands, USA, 6–8 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (2012) CAPP’s guiding principles and operating practices for hydraulic fracturing. Accessed 20 July 2014
  7. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2001) Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: CCME water quality index 1.0, Technical Report. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, WinnipegGoogle Scholar
  8. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M (2011) Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17:1039–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cude C (2001) Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(1):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daulton D, Post M, McMahon J, Kuc B, Ake C, Hill D (2012) Global chemical evaluation process review to qualify regulatory and environmental characteristics for oilfield chemical products. SPE 159690, presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonia, USA, 9–10 Oct 2012Google Scholar
  11. dos Santos SF, Brandi HS (2015) Model framework to construct a single aggregate sustainability indicator: an application to the biodiesel supply chain. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1963–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunnette DA (1979) A geographically variable water quality index used in Oregon. J Water Pollut Control Fed 51(1):53–61Google Scholar
  13. Entrenkin S, Evan-White M, Johnson B, Hagenbuch E (2011) Expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol 9(9):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federal Environmental Agency (1999) Classification of substances and mixtures into water hazard classes according to the administrative regulation on the classification of substances hazardous to waters (Verwaltungsvorschrift wassergefährdende Stoffe; VwVwS) of 17 May 1999. Accessed 28 May 2014
  15. Fink J (2012) Petroleum engineer’s guide to oil field chemicals and fluids. Gulf Professional Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Finkel ML, Hays J (2013) The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: a global public health concern. Public Health 127:889–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver A De, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, Frist edit. ed. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM), NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordalla BC, Ewers U, Frimmel FH (2013) Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water? Environmental Earth Sciences 70(8):3875–3893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hepburn K (2012) Development and practical application of a chemical hazard rating system. SPE 160548, presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, USA, 8–10 Oct 2012Google Scholar
  20. House M (1989) A water quality index for river management. Water Environ J 3(4):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inderwildi OR, Siegrist F, Dickson RD, Hangan AJ (2014) The feedstock curve: novel fuel resources, environmental conservation, the force of economics and the renewed east-west power struggle. Appl Petrochem Res 4:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Internation Energy Agency (IEA) (2013) Key World Energy Statistics. ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Intrinsik (2013) A screening level assessment system for classifying hydraulic fracturing fluid additives. Calgary. Accessed 10 April 2014
  24. Jimenez-Gonzales C, Constable DJC (2012) Evaluating the “Greenness” of chemical processes and products in the pharmaceutical industry—a green metrics primer. Chem Soc Rev 41:1485–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan A, Daulton D, Cobb JA, Grumbles T (2010) Quantitative ranking measures oil field chemicals environmental impact. SPE 135517SPE 84576-MS, presented at the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Florence, Italy, 19–22 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  26. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44(15):5679–5684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman P, Penny GS (2008) Critical evaluation of additives used in shale slickwater fracs. SPE 119900, presented at the 2008 SPE shale gas production conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 16–18 Nov 2008Google Scholar
  28. Lee DS, Herman JD, Elsworth D, Kim HT, Lee HS (2011) A critical evaluation of un- conventional gas recovery from the Marcellus shale, northeastern United States. Korean Soc Civ Eng J Civ Eng 15(4):679–687Google Scholar
  29. Manahan SE (2006) Green chemistry and the ten commandments of sustainability, 2nd edn. ChemChar Research, Inc., ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  30. Maule AL, Makey CM, Benson EB, Burrows IJ, Scammell MK (2013) Disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical additives: analysis of regulations. New Solut 23(1):167–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melikoglu M (2014) Shale gas: analysis of its role in the global energy market. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:8172–8176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ott WR (1978) Environmental indices—theory and practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  34. Rivard C, Lavoie D, Lefebvre R, Sejourne S, Lamontagne C, Duchesne M (2014) An overview of Canadian shale gas production and environmental converns. Int J Coal Geol 126:64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rivera JL, Sutherland JW (2015) A design of experiments (DOE) approach to data uncertainty in LCA: application to nanotechnology evaluation. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17:1585–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rozell DJ, Reaven SJ (2012) Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus shale. Risk Anal 32(8):1382–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2007) Probability function based weights for ordered weighted average (OWA) operators: an example of water quality indices. Eur J Oper Res 182(2007):1350–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sadiq R, Haji SA, Cool G, Rodriguez M (2010) Using penalty functions to evaluate aggregation models for environmental indices. J Environ Manag 91:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith DG (1990) A better water quality indexing system for rivers and streams. Water Resour 24(10):1237–1244Google Scholar
  40. Soeder DJ, Sharma S, Pekney N, Hopkinson L, Dilmore R, Kutchko B, Stewart B, Cater K, Hakala A, Capo R (2014) An approach for assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States. Int J Coal Geol 126:4–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swamee PK, Tyagi A (2000) Describing water quality with aggregate index. J Environ Eng 126(5):451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swamee PK, Tyagi A (2007) Improved method for aggregation of water quality subindices. J Environ Eng 133(2):220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Terrado M, Borrell E, de Campos S, Barcel D, Tauler R (2010) Surface water quality indices for the analysis of data generated by automated sampling networks. Trends Anal Chem 29(1):40–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United Nations (2013) Globally harmonized system of classification and labeling of chemicals (GHS), 5th edn. United Nations, New York. Accessed 24 Mar 2014
  45. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2014a) CWA methods: toxic and priority pollutants. Accessed 24 Mar 2014
  46. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2014b) Clean air act requirements and history. Accessed 24 Mar 2014
  47. Vengosh A, Warner N, Jackson R, Darrah T (2013) The effects of shale gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing on the quality of water resources in the United States. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 7:863–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A (2014) A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 48:8334–8348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verslycke T, Reid K, Bowers T, Thakali S, Lewis A, Sanders J, Tuck D (2014) The chemistry scoring index (CSI): a hazard-based scoring and ranking tool for chemicals and products used in the oil and gas industry. Sustainability 6:3993–4009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD (2013) Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340(6134):1235009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Hurley
    • 1
  • Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha
    • 1
  • Alireza Gheisi
    • 1
  • Kasun Hewage
    • 1
  • Rehan Sadiq
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EngineeringThe University of British Columbia Okanagan CampusKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations