Advertisement

Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 39–53 | Cite as

Fuzzy clustering analysis of hydraulic fracturing additives for environmental and human health risk mitigation

  • Guangji Hu
  • Manjot Kaur
  • Kasun Hewage
  • Rehan SadiqEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Chemical additives used in hydraulic fracturing (HF) for unconventional natural gas production can be a risk to environmental and human health (EHH). The EHH risk is affected by three factors: the chemical hazard measured, the certainty of the measured hazard, and the use frequencies of additives. Limited studies have holistically assessed the EHH risks of HF additives. This study qualitatively analyzed the EHH risks of 105 representative HF additives used in British Columbia, Canada, based on the three previously listed factors using a fuzzy clustering analysis approach. The performance of additives on these factors was converted into indices using an indexing system. The indices were grouped into seven clusters according to their relative similarities. The EHH risk of each cluster was interpreted based on the resulting indices. Results show that additives grouped in clusters 7 and 2 have relatively high EHH risks, which require special attention in HF operations. Clusters 4, 1, and 5 were identified as having moderate EHH risks, while clusters 6 and 3 are of low EHH risk concerns. Many iron control agents were classified into cluster 7, indicating that this type of additives is associated with a high EHH risk. Many friction reducers and gelling agents were classified into cluster 4 characterized by the highest hazard uncertainty. Assessment of hypothetical fracturing fluids shows that using additives grouped in clusters with a low risk could help mitigate the EHH impacts posed by HF chemicals.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Fuzzy clustering analysis Hydraulic fracturing Additive Environmental and human health Index 

Abbreviations

BC

British Columbia

CASRN

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number

DAI

Data availability index

DOM (μ)

Degree of membership

EHH

Environmental and human health

FCA

Fuzzy clustering analysis

GHS

Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals

HF

Hydraulic fracturing

HyFFGAS

Hydraulic fracturing fluid greenness assessment system

KDE

Kernel density estimation

RI

Risk index

SI

Safety index

SS

Sum of squares

UFI

Use frequency index

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission (BCOGC) for their technical support and willingness to provide the data for this study. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their help in improving the quality of manuscript.

Supplementary material

10098_2018_1614_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (83 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 82 kb)
10098_2018_1614_MOESM2_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Akob DM, Mumford AC, Orem W et al (2016) Wastewater disposal from unconventional oil and gas development degrades stream quality at a west Virginia injection facility. Environ Sci Technol 50:5517–5525.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ALL Consulting (2012) The modern practices of hydraulic fracturing: a focus on Canadian resources. ALL Consulting Inc., TulsaGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudet H, Clarke C, Bugden D et al (2014) “Fracking” controversy and communication: using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy 65:57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton TG, Rifai HS, Hildenbrand ZL et al (2016) Elucidating hydraulic fracturing impacts on groundwater quality using a regional geospatial statistical modeling approach. Sci Total Environ 545–546:114–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camarillo MK, Domen JK, Stringfellow WT (2016) Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment. J Environ Manage 183:164–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen H, Carter KE (2017) Characterization of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids for wells located in the Marcellus Shale Play. J Environ Manage 200:312–324.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Čokorilo O, De Luca M, Dell’Acqua G (2014) Aircraft safety analysis using clustering algorithms. J Risk Res 17:1325–1340.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.879493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Comet (2015) Material safety data sheet: hydrotreated light distillates (petroleum). Comet Chemical Company Ltd. http://www.cometchemical.com/MSDS/ComsolD-40EN.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2017
  9. Cox E (2005) Fuzzy clustering. In: Fuzzy modeling and genetic algorithms for data mining and exploration, 1st edn. Elsevier, London, pp 207–263Google Scholar
  10. Cozzarelli IM, Skalak KJ, Kent DB et al (2017) Environmental signatures and effects of an oil and gas wastewater spill in the Williston Basin, North Dakota. Sci Total Environ 579:1781–1793.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ECCC (2017) Environment and climate change Canada, domestic substances list (DSL): search engine for substances on the DSL. http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/subs_list/DSL/DSLsearch.cfm. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
  12. ECHA (2017) European Chemicals Agency, C&L inventory: substance information database. https://echa.europa.eu/search-for-chemicals. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
  13. Elliott EG, Ettinger AS, Leaderer BP et al (2017) A systematic evaluation of chemicals in hydraulic-fracturing fluids and wastewater for reproductive and developmental toxicity. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27:90–99.  https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2015.81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferrari F, Giacomini A, Thoeni K (2016) Qualitative rockfall hazard assessment: a comprehensive review of current practices. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:2865–2922.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-0918-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FracFocus (2014) FracFocus chemical disclosure registry. http://fracfocus.ca/chemical-use/chemicals-public-disclosure. Accessed 1 Jan 2014
  16. Gandhi H, Sadiq R, Hu G, Hewage K (2018) Ecological risk assessment of accidental release of flowback water: a conceptual framework. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 24:398–426.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2017.1385384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hepburn K (2012) Development and practical application of a chemical hazard rating system. In: SPE 160548, the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. San Antonio, USA, pp 8–10Google Scholar
  18. Hu G, Kaur M, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018a) An integrated chemical management methodology for hydraulic fracturing: a fuzzy-based indexing approach. J Clean Prod 187:63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu G, Liu T, Hager J et al (2018b) Hazard assessment of hydraulic fracturing chemicals using an indexing method. Sci Total Environ 619–620:281–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hurley T, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Gheisi A et al (2016) Characterizing hydraulic fracturing fluid greenness: application of a hazard-based index approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:647–668.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-1054-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iliadis LS, Vangeloudh M, Spartalis S (2010) An intelligent system employing an enhanced fuzzy c-means clustering model: application in the case of forest fires. Comput Electron Agric 70:276–284.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Intrinsik (2013) A screen-level assessment system for classifying hydraulic fracturing fluid additives. Intrinsik Environmental Sciences Inc., Calgary, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  23. Iwańkowicz RR, Rosochacki W (2014) Clustering risk assessment method for shipbuilding industry. Ind Manag Data Syst 114:1499–1518.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-06-2014-0193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenner S, Lamadrid AJ (2013) Shale gas vs. coal: policy implications from environmental impact comparisons of shale gas, conventional gas, and coal on air, water, and land in the United States. Energy Policy 53:442–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan A, Daulton D, Cobb JA, Grumbles T (2010) Quantitative ranking measures oil field chemicals environmental impact. In: the SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Florence, Italy, pp 19–22Google Scholar
  26. Kahrilas GA, Blotevogel J, Stewart PS, Borch T (2015) Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: a critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 49:16–32.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es503724k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:5679–5684.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es903811p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kassotis CD, Iwanowicz LR, Akob DM et al (2016) Endocrine disrupting activities of surface water associated with a West Virginia oil and gas industry wastewater disposal site. Sci Total Environ 557–558:901–910.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kassotis CD, Tillitt DE, Davis JW et al (2017) Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology 155:897–907.  https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2013-1697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li J, Huang GH, Zeng G et al (2007) An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. J Environ Manage 82:173–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li R, Zou Z, An Y (2016) Water quality assessment in Qu River based on fuzzy water pollution index method. J Environ Sci (China) 50:87–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.03.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lu R, Lo S, Hu J (1999) Analysis of reservoir water quality using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 13:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luek JL, Gonsior M (2017) Organic compounds in hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewaters: a review. Water Res 123:536–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers T (2012) Potential contaminant pathways from hydraulically fractured shale to aquifers. Ground Water 50:872–882.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00933.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noiva K, Fernández JE, Wescoat JL (2016) Cluster analysis of urban water supply and demand: toward large-scale comparative sustainability planning. Sustain Cities Soc 27:484–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orem W, Varonka M, Crosby L et al (2017) Applied geochemistry organic geochemistry and toxicology of a stream impacted by unconventional oil and gas wastewater disposal operations. Appl Geochemistry 80:155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richard AK (2010) Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science 80(328):1624–1626Google Scholar
  38. Rivard C, Lavoie D, Lefebvre R et al (2014) An overview of Canadian shale gas production and environmental concerns. Int J Coal Geol 126:64–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rozell DJ, Reaven SJ (2012) Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the marcellus shale. Risk Anal 32:1382–1393.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01757.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SA (2017) Material safety data sheet database. Sigma-Aldrich Co. LLC. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/safety-center.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
  41. Sadiq R, Kleiner Y, Rajani B (2007a) Water quality failures in distribution networks - Risk analysis using fuzzy logic and evidential reasoning. Risk Anal 27:1381–1394.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00972.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sadiq R, Rodriguez MJ, Imran SA, Najjaran H (2007b) Communicating human health risks associated with disinfection by-products in drinking water supplies : a fuzzy-based approach. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:341–353.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0069-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadiq R, Rodríguez MJ, Tesfamariam S (2010) Integrating indicators for performance assessment of small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Expert Syst Appl 37:4881–4891.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sánchez-Pérez L, Acosta-Gío AE, Méndez-Ramírez I (2004) A cluster analysis model for caries risk assessment. Arch Oral Biol 49:719–725.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2004.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soeder DJ, Sharma S, Pekney N et al (2014) An approach for assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States. Int J Coal Geol 126:4–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2014.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stringfellow WT, Domen JK, Camarillo MK et al (2014) Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of compounds used in hydraulic fracturing. J Hazard Mater 275:37–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stringfellow WT, Camarillo MK, Domen JK et al (2017) Identifying chemicals of concern in hydraulic fracturing fluids used for oil production. Environ Pollut 220:413–420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.09.082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tibshirani R, Walther G, Hastie T (2001) Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Statistical Methodol) 63:411–423.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. United Nations (2015) Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS), Rev. 6, 2015. Regulation.  https://doi.org/10.1265/jjh.65.5
  50. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N et al (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 48:8334–8348.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es405118y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verslycke T, Reid K, Bowers T et al (2014) The chemistry scoring index (CSI): a hazard-based scoring and ranking tool for chemicals and products used in the oil and gas industry. Sustain 6:3993–4009.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su6073993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM et al (2013) Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 80(340):1235009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringThe University of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelownaCanada

Personalised recommendations