New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Fracking Wells Can Cut Their Toxic Chemical Use

Biocides, intended to protect pipes, are often not needed

Drilling the Bakken formation in the Williston Basin.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When oil and gas companies extract fuel from the earth via fracking, they routinely add biocides such as glutaraldehyde to the high-pressure water they use to fracture rock formations deep underground. These compounds are a preemptive strike against microbes that produce hydrogen sulfide, which can corrode pipelines.

New research, however, calls into question the across-the-board addition of toxic biocides to water used in fracking. Jason Gaspar and Pedro Alvarez at Rice University and colleagues, including scientists at energy firm Statoil, performed numerous tests at fracking sites in the Bakken Shale Formation in the north-central U.S. and in Canada. There, they found that H2S might be formed in fracking wells by geochemical reactions, rather than microbes (Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett.2016, DOI:10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00075).

At the Bakken sites, the team found, temperatures at the depths that the biocide-laden water is injected run about 120 °C, too hot for sulfogenic microbes to survive. In addition, DNA tests of injected water samples showed no evidence of microbes, and sulfur isotope analysis indicated that H2S recovered from the samples was produced abiotically.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers suggest that the H2S might instead have been produced via the reaction of underground calcium sulfate anhydrite with methane.

H2S problems at other, cooler sites, such as the Marcellus shale formation in the eastern U.S., may still be caused by bacteria.

But, Gaspar says, a well-by-well approach to applying biocides might be more cost-effective. For example, companies could take core samples at each site and share their results in an open-source database.

Thomas Borch of Colorado State University says the discovery that H2S may be produced abiotically is “definitely eye-opening.” However, he’s concerned that the abiotic H2S treatment could involve increased use of corrosion inhibitors.

Radisav Vidic, at the University of Pittsburgh, says the study adds to growing evidence that the blanket use of biocides is unwarranted.

Kyle James Bibby, also at the University of Pittsburgh, agrees. “This work is an important reminder that biocide isn’t the solution to all problems,” he says.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemical & Engineering News (© American Chemical Society). The article was first published on April 7, 2016.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe