When oil and water mix: understanding the environmental impacts of shale development

Transcription

1 When oil and water mix: understanding the environmental impacts of shale development By Daniel J. Soeder, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD, 57701, USA and Douglas Kent, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA USA Supporting Data. Contents. Table S1. Objectives of the most critical areas of research to fill knowledge-gaps identified by the Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin (from HEI, 2015). Table S2. Factors complicating the use of private wells as monitoring wells for groundwater contamination. Table S3. Environmental research conducted on the project: Routes to sustainability for natural gas development and water and air resources in the Rocky Mountain region. Table S4. Environmental research conducted on the project: Evaluating groundwater quality impacts of shale gas extraction within the Marcellus shale play. Table S5. Environmental research conducted at the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site. Table S6. Environmental research conducted at the Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory (MSEEL). Figure S1. Large, modular triple rig drilling the Niobrara Shale in the Denver-Julesburg basin of Colorado in 2015 on a broad, cleared and graded pad area. Nearby vehicles indicate scale. Illustrates landscape disturbance associated with large pads required for UOG development but drilling multiple wells allows extracting crude oil and/or natural gas from several square miles of the target formation(s) from the same pad. Photo by Dan Soeder (at National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy, NETL/DOE, at the time photograph was taken. Now at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, SDSMT). Figure S2. Hydraulic fracturing operation in the Marcellus Shale, Water is being pumped from an impoundment behind the photographer, blended with high-purity silica sand and various chemicals, and then injected down the two wellheads at pressures high enough to fracture the rock. Photo by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT). More at photographs at:

2 allery.aspx (accessed 5/11/18). Figure S3. Shale gas (upper) and tight oil (lower) production trends in the United States. In fewer than ten years, shale has dominated U.S. natural gas supplies, and tight oil has made Texas and North Dakota the two largest petroleum producing states in the U.S. U.S. Energy Information Administration websites. Upper panel: Lower panel: Both were accessed 5/12/18. Figure S4. Conceptual organization of the multiagency UOG program identifying each agency s areas of expertise, and opportunities for collaboration between different agencies (Source: Multiagency Report to the Executive Office of the President, July 18, 2014). Figure S5. Water-based drilling mud leaking from a pit at a Marcellus Shale drill site has migrated through soil and into Indian Run, West Virginia. Photographed by adjacent landowner Doug Mazer in 2010; used with permission. Figure S6. Two large triple drill rigs (second in the far left background) developing the Niobrara Formation in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, eastern Colorado, July Photograph by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT). Figure S7. Bakken Shale tight oil production with multiple oil wells extracting from several square miles of the formation from a single pad, showing: wastewater and crude oil storage tanks; water and gas separators; and produced gases being flared. Photographed by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT) near Williston, North Dakota in Figure S8. Trends over time in the number of active drilling rigs in the Bakken oil (A) and Marcellus gas (B) plays versus the corresponding prices. The arrow in panel B shows the timeframe for the MSEEL project, including planning (dotted); drilling and completion (dashed); and production (solid). Oil price benchmark: West Texas Intermediate crude price at Cushing, Oklahoma. Price data from Energy Information Agency website ( accessed 5/1/18. Rig counts from Baker Hughes website ( accessed 5/1/18.

3 Table S1. Objectives of the most critical areas of research to fill knowledge-gaps identified by the Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin (from HEI, 2015) 1. Stressors and exposure to contamination Objectives: Improve understanding of the compositions of UOG fluids and waste materials and conduct targeted toxicological studies. Why? Addresses the need to determine toxicity of components of fluids and wastes from UOG development that are currently unknown or poorly understood in order to inform decisions to protect human and ecological health. Objectives: Quantify the contribution of UOG development to air pollution. Why? Address the need to determine potential impacts of UOG development on air quality. Objectives: Identify exposures to UOG-development-related human-health stressors and quantify exposures of greatest potential concern. Why? Addresses the need to determine the effectiveness of practices, protocols, and regulations to protect human health. Objectives: Quantify the impact of UOG development on short- and long-term trends in water quality. Why? Addresses the wide-spread public concern regarding potential contamination of water resources by UOG development. Health and well-being assessment Objectives: Identify and quantify ecological risks associated with contributions of UOG development to landscape changes. Why? Addresses the need to understand potential impacts of UOG development on physical and sensory changes to landscapes, which can affect the health and well-being of humans and wildlife. Objectives: Based on improved understanding of potential UOG-development-impacts on air quality, quantify exposures from contaminants of concern and determine whether exposures are associated with health effects. Why? Addresses the need to evaluate air-quality impacts of UOG development on human health and well-being. Objectives: Based on improved understanding of potential UOG-development-impacts on water quality including quantification of exposures, conduct population-based studies of health effects. Why? Addresses the need to evaluate health effects of water pollution resulting from UOG-development. Objectives: Determine whether communities located close to UOG development are at increased risk to health effects from exposures related to UOG development. Why? Addresses the need to decrease uncertainty about health impacts in communities in areas of intense UOG development. Objectives: Determine the extent to which UOG development contributes to changes in well-being of individuals and communities. Why? Addresses the need to understand potential social and psychological impacts of UOG development. Objectives: Understand acute and chronic exposures of concern to UOG-development workers. Why? Addresses the need to evaluate the effectiveness of practices, protocols, and regulations on mitigating health stressors on UOG-development workers.

4 Table S1, continued. Evaluation of most-effective practices Objectives: Understand impacts of accidental releases of fluids and waste materials resulting from UOG development. Why? Addresses the need to evaluate best practices to minimize accidental releases and mitigate their impacts. Objectives: Understand the potential impacts of disposal of waste materials resulting from UOG development. Why? Addresses the need to insure that approaches to dispose of waste materials minimizes impacts on human and ecological health. Objectives: Determine the effectiveness of barriers, technologies, and practices to insure the integrity of wellbores over the full lifecycle of UOG development. Why? Addresses the need to determine whether practices, protocols, and regulations to prevent fluids from escaping the wellbore are effective or can be improved. 1 The report also summarizes recommendations from other organizations, provides an extensive summary of literature on potential impacts of UOG development, and provides a useful glossary of terms used in the UOG-development literature.

5 Table S2. Factors complicating the use of private wells as monitoring wells for groundwater contamination 1. Complicating factors Wells are often open holes, sampling multiple fracture systems, possibly in different formations. Well construction information is often incomplete, complicating determination of e.g., formations being sampled, casing volume. Casing volumes variable, range from ~10 liters to ~1000 liters. Dedicated submersible pump plumbed to pressure tank with sampling at outlet of pressure tank. Water in pressure tank is mixture of groundwater collected over time. Head space and pressure in pressure tank complicate sampling for methane and other dissolved gases. Water may contain corrosion products from plumbing. Natural variability in water quality typically unknown; observed changes may result from natural variability or from new sources of contaminants. 1 Sources: EPA (1973), Molofsky et al. (2016)

6 Table S3. Environmental research conducted on the project: Routes to sustainability for natural gas development and water and air resources in the Rocky Mountain region. AirWaterGas Sustainability Project Title Routes to sustainability for natural gas development and water and air resources in the Rocky Mountain region (AirWaterGas) Major Partners Academic: University of Colorado; Colorado State University; Colorado School of Mines; Colorado School of Public Health Federal: NOAA; NSF Sustainability Various industry collaborators Major Funding NSF Geographical areas studied Primarily Rocky Mountain region and but includes other areas in western US Publications on studies conducted in the Denver-Julesburg basin (Niobara formation) CO; San Juan basin CO; Barnett shale region TX; Unitah basin UT; Upper Green River basin WY; Piceance basin CO Publications include nation-wide syntheses and reviews Timeframe Where to go for current information AirWaterGas.org Research products Air quality: ozone associated with OG development; methane and ethane emissions; VOC s; sensors for monitoring air quality and exposures; H 2 S from OG development; remote sensing Water quality: critical information that should be routinely reported in studies of flowback/produced water quality; produced water compositions, hazards (Niobara fm); fracturing fluid migration in subsurface; surface casing integrity evaluation; impacts on water availability; use of produced water for biofuel crops; risks to groundwater from organic chemicals based on mobility and persistence; evaluating sources of fugitive methane Water treatment: forward osmosis; biological treatment; electrocoagulation; coagulation absorption; methods for identification and quantification of organic compounds hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater Public Health: public health hazards, exposures, health-risk vulnerabilities; evaluation of birth outcomes vs. proximity to gas development in CO Social, political, and economic factors: relationship between housing prices and UOG development; automated analysis of news articles on UOG; community responses to gas development; evaluation of shale-gas development policy conflicts at state and national levels; review of UOG development cost-benefit analysis in US; analysis of disclosure policies; assessments of UOG-development regulations Oil and gas infrastructure (two publications): risk assessment of migration of contaminants from UOG wells to fresh water

7 Table S4. Environmental research conducted on the project: Evaluating groundwater quality impacts of shale gas extraction within the Marcellus shale play. Marcellus Shale-Play Groundwater Quality Impacts Title Chemical and hydrological monitoring in freshwater aquifers and streams in Susquehanna County, PA Major Partners Academic: Yale University (Jim Saiers) Industry: Southwestern Energy (Karen Olson) Major Funding NSF ($150K) Study area Susquehanna County, Marcellus shale-gas play Timeframe Winter 2015 through spring 2017 Where to go for more information Saires and Barth-Naftilan (2016) Research activities Study area: 15 km 2 area with four shale-gas well-pads with 7 laterals completed by fall 2015 Water quality in multilevel groundwater monitoring wells installed near pads (hilltops) and above laterals (valleys) monitored monthly before, during, and after development Water quality monitoring in four streams Groundwater flow field and stream flows monitored Frac fluids, produced water, and hydrocarbon samples collected from production wells to characterize potential contaminant-source materials

8 Table S5. Environmental research conducted at the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site. Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site in the Permian Basin Title Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site (HFTS) Major partners Gas Technology Institute Numerous industry partners Major funding NETL/DOE Multiple industry partners Study area Wolfcamp formation, Permian basin Eleven production wells, over 400 hf stages Timeframe Well-pad preparation: Summer 2015 Drilling: August-September 2015 Stimulation: November 2015 Production began January 2016 Where to go for information Site.aspx Eisenlord and Hayes (2016) Research activities Air quality monitoring (e.g., methane, NOx, VOC s) Water quality monitoring in private wells within 2.5 mile radius of well pad Monitoring produced water composition Evaluation of well-head and casing integrity Implications of topside operations on subsurface microbial populations

9 Table S6. Environmental research conducted at the Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory (MSEEL) 1. Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory Title Marcellus Shale Energy and Environment Laboratory (MSEEL) Major partners Academic: West Virginia University; The Ohio State University Federal: DOE/NETL Industry: Northeast Natural Energy; Schlumberger Major funding DOE Northeast Natural Energy Study area Near Morgantown, WV Two horizontal shale-gas wells in the Marcellus formation Vertical well between horizontals for data collection Timeframe Drilling began June 2015 Hydraulic fracturing began November 2015 Production began December 2015 Where to go for more information MSEEL.org Research activities Air quality monitoring and impacts Produced water/wastewater monitoring Releases from drill cuttings Greenhouse gas emissions Geologic and engineering studies of new hydraulic fracturing technologies (low-voc drilling mud; procedures designed to diminish full-cycle GHG emissions) Surface seismic monitoring. Note: impacts on shallow groundwater will be difficult to determine owing to long history of soil and water contamination resulting from industrial activities that predate gas development. 1 Two Marcellus shale wells installed by Northeast Natural Energy (NNE) near Morgantown, WV in 2012 sparked major local protests. In 2014, before drilling began on additional wells, NNE approached West Virginia University to discuss monitoring and characterizing the potential environmental impacts of UOG development at the site, leading the establishment of the MSEEL project.

10 Figure S1. Large, modular triple rig drilling the Niobrara Shale in the Denver-Julesburg basin of Colorado in 2015 on a broad, cleared and graded pad area. Nearby vehicles indicate scale. Illustrates landscape disturbance associated with large pads required for UOG development but drilling multiple wells allows extracting crude oil and/or natural gas from several square miles of the target formation(s) from the same pad. Photo by Dan Soeder (at National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy, NETL/DOE, at the time photograph was taken. Now at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, SDSMT).

11 Figure S2. Hydraulic fracturing operation in the Marcellus Shale, Water is being pumped from an impoundment behind the photographer, blended with high-purity silica sand and various chemicals, and then injected down the two wellheads at pressures high enough to fracture the rock. Photo by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT). More at photographs at: allery.aspx (accessed 6/6/18).

12 Figure S3. Shale gas (upper) and tight oil (lower) production trends in the United States. In fewer than ten years, shale has dominated U.S. natural gas supplies, and tight oil has made Texas (TX) and North Dakota (ND) the two largest petroleum producing states in the U.S. Other state abbreviations: Pennsylvania (PA), West Virginia (WV), Ohio (OH), New York (NY), New Mexico (NM), Louisiana (LA), Arkansas (AR), Oklahoma (OK), Montana (MT), Michigan (MI), and Indiana (IN)). One billion cubic feet equals approximately 28 million cubic meters. One barrel of oil (abbreviated bbl) equals 42 US gallons, which equals approximately 160 liters. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration websites. Upper panel: Lower panel: Both were accessed 6/6/18.

13 Figure S4. Conceptual organization of the multiagency UOG program identifying each agency s areas of expertise, and opportunities for collaboration between different agencies (Source: Multiagency Report to the Executive Office of the President, July 18, 2014).

14 Figure S5. Water-based drilling mud leaking from a pit at a Marcellus Shale drill site has migrated through soil and into Indian Run, West Virginia. Photographed by adjacent landowner Doug Mazer in 2010; used with permission.

15 Figure S6. Two large triple drill rigs (second in the far left background) developing the Niobrara Formation in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, eastern Colorado, July Photograph by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT).

16 Flare Wastewater Oil Separators Pump jacks Figure S7. Bakken Shale tight oil production with multiple oil wells extracting from several square miles of the formation from a single pad, showing: wastewater and crude oil storage tanks; water and gas separators; and produced gases being flared. Photographed by Dan Soeder (at NETL/DOE at the time photograph was taken, now at SDSMT) near Williston, North Dakota in 2017.

17 Figure S8. Trends over time in the number of active drilling rigs in the Bakken oil (A) and Marcellus gas (B) plays versus the corresponding prices. The arrow in panel B shows the timeframe for the MSEEL project, including planning (dotted); drilling and completion (dashed); and production (solid). Oil price benchmark: West Texas Intermediate crude price at Cushing, Oklahoma. Price data from Energy Information Agency website ( accessed 5/1/18. Rig counts from Baker Hughes website ( accessed 5/1/18. B

18 References Eisenlord, S.D., and Hayes, T., 2016, Environmental monitoring of a hydraulically fractured field site, Paper 122-1, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 48, n. 7, doi: /abs/2016AM , last accessed June 6, EPA, 1973, Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA , 155 p. HEI, 2015, Special Scientific Committee on Unconventional Oil and Gas Development in the Appalachian Basin, Strategic research agenda on the potential impacts of 21st century oil and natural gas development in the Appalachian region and beyond, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA, United States, last accessed June 6, Molofsky, L.J., Connor, J.A., McHugh, T.E., Richardson, S.D., Woroszlyo, C.; Alverez, P.A., 2016, Environmental factors associated with natural methane occurrence in the Appalachian Basin, Groundwater v. 54, n. 7, p Saiers, J.E., and Barth-Naftlan, E., 2016, Evaluating changes in freshwater quality in areas of natural-gas development within the Marcellus Shale play, Paper 122-5, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 48, n. 7, doi: /abs/2016AM , last accessed June 6, 2018.