Over the last few weeks, numerous articles have appeared touting the residue in wastewater that had been used in hydraulic fracturing operations as a potential source of lithium. (Source 1) (Source 2) (Source 3). Lithium, of course, is a critical mineral needed for battery production. Batteries, in turn, are essential to store electric energy from the renewable sources at which it is captured and produced, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, so that energy can be transmitted to and used where it  is intended to go for consumption.

The excitement is due to a study from researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, (Source), which estimates that up to 40% of the United States' lithium needs can be supplied by extracting the mineral from wastewater created by unconventional drilling operations in Pennsylvania. 

Should the University of Pittsburgh study be confirmed, it would simultaneously: (1) secure a domestic source for one of the most important minerals needed to transition to renewable energy sources; (2) help solve the problem of what to do with the fracking wastewater; and (3) put those who want fracking banned in a quandary, as they would  be retarding our ability to transition away from carbon-based fuels by continuing to oppose the fracking industry.

I have written many times on this issue, noting among other things that currently the largest known source of lithium is in South America on the border of Bolivia, Argentina and Chile. (Source). Bolivia, the country with the world’s largest known lithium reserves, recently gave development rights to that lithium to a Chinese consortium. (Source). This certainly is not a positive development from an American standpoint. 

Could fracking wastewater be the answer and step into the breach now that China has its heel on the world's largest lithium supply? Unfortunately, it is too early to tell. Just because the lithium exists in the wastewater does not mean that, economically, it can be extracted.

It is possible that the story with fracking wastewater is similar to what has been discussed with seawater. It has a bunch of minerals in it, so theoretically interesting, but practically they are really hard to recover. It is hard to tell if the fracking wastewater fits this issue or not.

This caution, expressed by some of the more knowledgeable people in the industry, is important.  Far too many times when it comes to energy transition, policy is made based on incomplete information or wishful thinking, only to discover later that expectations must be dashed when reality steps in the door.  Nevertheless, the possibility that the fracking industry itself – long the bane of the green movement – might end up as a critical ally to that movement by helping the green industry overall to grow, is as intriguing as it is ironic. Indeed, the federal Investment and Jobs Act, which seeks to encourage energy transition overall, requires that raw materials like lithium used in electric vehicle batteries be sourced domestically by 2030. How this is to occur is not specified in that law.

Over the last two decades, policy makers often have gotten ahead of themselves in either issuing mandates requiring certain things or forbidding other things.  Too often these directives  have proven to be unattainable and short-sighted. From the disastrous “Energiewende” policy in Germany about which I have previously written (Source) to the ill-advised decision by New York State prematurely to close most of its nuclear reactors while refusing to permit new pipelines in that State, (Source), public officials have repeatedly had to backtrack once their requirements could not be achieved.

One thing that is certain is the necessity to keep studying the issue and to look for new ways to obtain the minerals needed to implement green energy transition. To that end, the researchers at the University of Pittsburgh are to be commended. Universities, which often have refused to engage in any research about unconventional oil and gas extraction on ideological grounds, should realize the disservice that they do to the planet by taking that position and not engaging in true science that is objectively based.

We need all hands on deck now to study all aspects of the energy equation, without adhering to platitudes and preconceived notions of social policy. Environmental grandstanding for the purpose of mere virtue does little but to retard our ability to understand all of the issues and to move forward in the most pragmatic and scientifically sound manner possible toward a more sustainable and cost-effective energy future for all.