Water-Energy Nexus: The Role of Hydraulic Fracturing

  • Ahmed M. MroueEmail author
  • Gabrielle Obkirchner
  • Jennifer Dargin
  • Jordan Muell
Part of the Water Security in a New World book series (WSEC)


This chapter considers some challenges attendant on optimising water-energy trade-offs in hydraulic fracturing, focusing on the interplays between constantly evolving technologies (e.g. use of treated effluent, brackish water or even waterless methods) and regulatory systems, using the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas as a case study. Regulators and higher level policy-makers often have conflicting preferences associated with the specific trade-offs (environmental, economic and social) that come within their purview. Therefore, it is very important to understand the basic trade-offs of the water-energy nexus when addressing nexus issues such as energy resources mining and production, water production, treatment and allocation, power plant construction and environmental impacts.


Water-energy nexus Water security Trade-offs Decoupling Technology Eagle Ford 


  1. Al-Muntasheri GA, Liang F, Hull KL (2017) Nanoparticle-enhanced hydraulic fracturing fluids: a review. SPE Prod Oper 32(2):186–195Google Scholar
  2. Dijk HV, Fischer A, Marvin H, Trijp HV (2015) Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes towards a new technology: nanotechnology applications for food, water, energy, and medicine. J Risk Res 20(2):277–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Scoping materials for initial design of EPA research study on potential relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available at$File/Hydraulic+Frac+Scoping+Doc+for+SAB-3-22-10+Final.pdf
  4. Eyck TAT (2005) The media and public opinion on genetics and biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? Public Underst Sci 14(3):305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fakoya MF, Shah SN (2017) Emergence of nanotechnology in the oil and gas industry: emphasis on the application of silica nanoparticles. Petroleum 3(4):391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franco C, Cortés F, Zabala R (2017) Nanotechnology applied to the enhancement of oil and gas productivity and recovery of Colombian fields: a review. J Pet Sci Eng 157:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanlon P, Madel R, Olson-Sawyer K, Rabin K, Rose J (2013) Food, water and energy: know the nexus. GRACE Communications FoundationGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanson VD (2017) The fracking industry deserves our gratitude. Natl Rev. July 6, 2017) available at Accessed 24 May 2018
  9. Jolly D (2013) France upholds ban on hydraulic fracturing, The New York Times, October 11, 2013Google Scholar
  10. Maguire-Boyle SJ, Huseman JE, Ainscough TJ, Oatley-Radcliffe DL, Alabdulkarem AA, Al-Mojil SF, Barron AR (2017) Superhydrophilic functionalization of microfiltration ceramic membranes enables separation of hydrocarbons from Frac and produced water. Sci Rep 7:12267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manfreda J (2017) The real history of fracking. OilPricecom, 24 Feb 2017Google Scholar
  12. Middleton RS, Carey JW, Currier RP, Hyman JD, Kang Q, Karra S, Jiménez-Martínez J, Porter ML, Viswanathan HS (2015) Shale gas and non-aqueous fracturing fluids: opportunities and challenges for supercritical CO2. Appl Energy 147:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mohtar R, Blake J, Shafiezadeh H (2015) WET Tool (Water-Energy-Transportation application to assess impacts related to hydraulic fracturing in the Eagle Ford Shale).
  14. Moridis, G. (2017) Literature review and analysis of waterless fracturing methods. Energy Geosciences Division. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available at Accessed 11 April 2018
  15. Mroue AM, Mohtar RH, Pistikopoulos EN, Holtzapple MT (2018) Energy portfolio assessment tool (EPAT): sustainable energy planning using the WEF nexus approach – Texas case. Sci Total Environ 648:1649–1664. Elsevier, (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muscat S (2015) US pioneers water saving in fracking, but China’s nascent shale sector lags. China Dialogue. Accessed 12 April 2018
  17. OECD/IEA (2016) Water energy nexus. Excerpt from the World Energy Outlook 2016. Available at Accessed 11 April 2018
  18. Office of Research and Development (2010) Science in action: building a scientific foundation for sound environmental decisions. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  19. Onishi, VC, Reyes-Labarta JA, Caballero JA, Antunes CH (2017a) Wastewater management in shale gas industry: alternatives for water reuse and recycling, challenges and perspectives. EMCEI 2017 – Euro-Mediterranean Conference for Environmental Integration. Available at Accessed 12 April 2018
  20. Onishi VC, Reyes-Labarta JA, Caballero JA, Antunes CH (2017b) Zero-liquid discharge desalination of hypersaline shale gas wastewater: challenges and future directions. EMCEI 2017 – Euro-Mediterranean Conference for Environmental Integration. Available at Accessed 12 April 2018
  21. Poumadère M, Mays C, Le Mer S, Blong R (2005) The 2003 heat wave in France: dangerous climate change here and now. Risk Anal 25(6):1483–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rahm D (2011) Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: the case of Texas. Energy Policy 39(5):2974–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rao P, Kostecki R, Dale L, Gadgil A (2018) Technology and engineering of the water- energy Nexus. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:407–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stillwell AS, King CW, Webber ME (2009) Desalination and long-haul water transfer: a case study of the energy-water Nexus in Texas. In: Proceedings of the ASME 3rd international conference on energy sustainability. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Stillwell AS, Mroue AM, Rhodes JD, Cook MA, Sperling JB, Hussey T, Burnett D, Webber ME (2017) Water for energy: systems integration and analysis to address resource challenges. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep 4:90–98Google Scholar
  26. Texas Railroad Comission (RRC) (2017) Texas energy companies win top national environmental Stewardship Award –Pioneer and Fasken recognized for water conservation efforts. Railroad Commission of Texas. Accessed on 4 Dec 18.
  27. Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) (2016) 2017 Texas state water plan.
  28. Trainor AM, McDonald RI, Fargione J (2016) Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS One 11(9)Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2011) Review of emerging resources: U.S. shale gas and shale oil plays. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
  30. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2012). Eagle Ford oil and natural gas well starts rose sharply in first quarter 2012 – on April 23, 2012. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
  31. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2016) State profile and energy estimates – Texas on September 24, 2015. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
  32. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2018). Crude oil production – Texas on May 13, 2018. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
  33. Webb RM (2017) Changing tides in water management: policy options to encourage greater recycling of fracking wastewater. William Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 42(1):85–144Google Scholar
  34. Wu K, Paranjothi G, Milford JB, Kreith F (2016) Transition to sustainability with natural gas from fracking. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess 14:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed M. Mroue
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabrielle Obkirchner
    • 2
  • Jennifer Dargin
    • 3
  • Jordan Muell
    • 3
  1. 1.Water-Energy-Food Nexus InitiativeTexas A&M UniversityHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Zachry Department of Civil EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations