A Status Update on the MSC Dissolved Methane Method Study. Ground Water Protection Council UIC Conference February 2015

Transcription

1 A Status Update on the MSC Dissolved Methane Method Study Ground Water Protection Council UIC Conference February 2015

2 OVERVIEW What led to recognition that there are issues when comparing dissolved methane results Round Robin Study THANK o YOU Study design o Goals o Timeline Identify study partners and other interested groups Current status and preliminary observations What next?

3 HISTORY During the development of the Marcellus Shale resource that has been occurring since 2009 Operator members of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) have encountered: Disparate dissolved methane results when samples taken from domestic water wells were tested and samples were split between two or more certified environmental testing laboratories. Differences between split sample results appeared to be less at lower dissolved methane concentrations and increase as dissolved methane concentrations approach or exceed the saturation level. (2-3X higher in some cases) This is particularly problematic when: o o Addressing water source complaints with a regulatory agency, or Dealing with public scrutiny.

4 Shortly after resource development began the MSC was tasked by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Office of Oil & Gas (PADEP) with development of numerous Best/Recommended Practices, which included: Pre-drill sampling Stray gas investigation In 2012, the MSC determined that the Pre-Drill Water Supply Surveys Recommended Practice should be further defined by development of a robust Pre-Drill Water Supply Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). The SAP was approved and rolled out at the MSC 2012 Fall Shale Insight Conference at a Pre-Conference 4-hour, hands-on Workshop. The SAP included a detailed procedure for collection of dissolved methane samples. EARLIER HISTORY

5 MSC Dissolved Methane Method Workgroup Formed to study this issue in early 2013 WORKGROUP Compared notes and reviewed data/information: o Dissolved methane split sample data o Laboratory analytical protocols o Brainstormed as to cause Requested funding from the MSC Board for a Round Robin Study Engaged Environmental Standards, Inc. ( ESI ) to conduct the Study

6 ROUND ROBIN STUDY Study elements: Identified appropriate locations to collect samples o Utilize MSC Recommend Practice and SAP for sample collection o 2 locations in NE Pennsylvania 1 sampling event Identified willing MSC Associate Member Laboratory (and outside ) volunteers o 15 participating laboratories o Includes the PADEP Bureau of Laboratories o Labs to analyze samples, complete analysis questionnaire and provide SOP

7 STUDY GOALS Assess variability in dissolved methane data using graphic and statistical techniques to compare and contrast data. Determine common elements in labs analytical procedures that lead to reproducible data (or not). Conduct Study in a manner that meets scientific standards for this type of evaluation. Develop/expand methodology for dissolved methane analysis that will result in comparable data. Present findings to MSC members and other interested parties. Publish results in peer-reviewed journals.

8 TIMELINE October 2014 Kick-off meeting with labs Draft SAP to MSC Finalize SAP Sample wells Results from laboratories Initiate data analysis THANK November YOU 2014 December 2014 Mid project meeting with MSC Spring 2015 Draft report to MSC Present results in meeting with MSC Final report to MSC

9 OTHER INTEREST GROUPS Study Partners Ground Water Protection Council PADEP Bureau of Laboratories ASTM Interested Parties EPA RPSEA Project: o GSI Environmental, o Texas A&M Global Petroleum Research Institute, and o Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources

10 CURRENT STATUS Samples were collected on November 17, 2014 from both sources. All samples were analyzed within 48 hours of receipt. Lab analytical reports and questionnaires have been received by ESI. Data analysis is ongoing: o Samples from both study wells exhibited elevated concentrations of methane both averaging over 20 milligrams per liter. o There was a significant variance observed across all laboratories. o Within laboratory variance is less than 20% RSD for the majority of the laboratories. No obvious Smoking Gun.

11 NEXT STEPS Draft report for MSC review anticipated this month. Finalize report for presentation to MSC Membership. Communicate study results with participating laboratory volunteers. o Allows each one to see their performance compared to others. o Potential learning tool for any outside the normal pattern. Communicate study results with Study Partners: o Explore opportunities to move forward collaboratively. Communicate study results with others: o Upcoming meetings/seminars Abstract submitted for NEMC, July 2015 o Publish in peer-reviewed journals

12 Standardize method to result in comparable data. Identify need for additional study: o o Repeat study on larger scale Assess wells at lower concentrations Revisit other sources for data variability THANK o YOU o Develop consensus for best sampling protocol with global roll out Can commercially-available calibration/check standards be developed? Continue to review work currently underway by study partners and others Consider whether an alternate procedure for assessing methane incursion into water wells is viable or possible if a sound, reproducible analytical method is not achievable. Other? WHAT NEXT?

13

14 ! Debby Yost Chesapeake Energy