Study Reveals Possible Cause of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma

Oklahoma has been the site of thousands of earthquakes associated with the deep injection of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing or more commonly fracking. This induced seismicity, has been puzzling to seismologists because most of the earthquakes have not occurred on known faults, making seismic hazards difficult to estimate, predict or prevent by choosing a "safer" geology. Now, in a recently published study the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey believe that they have identified a potential cause of these earthquakes.

In hydraulic fracking on average 2.5-5 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. While geologists and engineers believe that there is little risk that the fracking itself will cause an earthquake in areas not associated with known faults,  now concern is focused in on the disposal of the flowback water that has be found to induce earthquakes in ways we do not yet fully understand.

Airborne magnetic surveys were conducted in Oklahoma from August 11th, 2017-October 28th, 2017. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) used the airborne magnetic data to image rocks where the earthquakes are occurring miles beneath the surface. The magnetic maps created reveal boundaries or contacts between different rock types, some of which are linear, similar to faults. A number of these types of contacts, are aligned with sequences of earthquakes. This suggests that some of them represent ancient faults that have been reactivated due to wastewater injection, which generates, or “induces” earthquakes.

According to USGS scientist Anji Shah, lead author for the study, the data show that there is a dominant “grain” direction to the magnetic contacts (like wood grain) in the deep rocks where the earthquakes are occurring. This “grain” was formed hundreds of millions of years ago and may be composed in part by faults that are oriented favorably to move in response to natural background stresses within the earth. This alignment of deep features may contribute to the high levels of seismicity occurring in response to the fracking wastewater injection.

According to Dr. Jeremy Boak of the OGS the scientists are hoping to be able to use this data to ultimately find answers to “some of the mysteries of induced seismicity in Oklahoma,” They are hoping to be able “ ... to bring these data to bear on addressing the persistent seismic activity and sharing our interpretations with Oklahomans and other stakeholders regarding this challenging issue.”

Many of the possible deep faults highlighted by the magnetic data are different from those on previous fault maps. According to the USGS this discrepancy is probably because the previous maps reflect relatively young faults in the shallow rocks, whereas the magnetic data image the deeper, older rocks. The USGS attributes the differences in the fault directions between these rock types to the different histories of ancient tectonic and magmatic events that shaped the rocks.

The citing for the research is:

Shah, A.K., and Finn, C.A., 2018, Airborne Magnetic Surveys over Oklahoma, 2017: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZG6RJP

Stop HB 1389

The oil and gas industry has found a champion to prevent the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking oil and gas wells in Virginia. Last week on Tuesday, January 26th a half an hour after adjournment in the 3rd Floor East Conference Room, Delegate Robinson introduced her bill to allow industry to avoid disclosure of the chemicals in fracking fluid. This was submitted after the deadline and introduced in a committee that she sits in on. The bill is HB 1389, carried by Delegate Robinson and you can help us by asking your delegate to vote NO on HB 1389.

HB 1389 summary: “Virginia Freedom of Information Act; record exclusion for trade secrets submitted to the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy. Excludes from the mandatory disclosure provisions of FOIA trade secrets, as defined in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (§ 59.1-336 et seq.), submitted to the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy as part of the required permit or permit modification to commence ground-disturbing activities. The bill provides that in order for such trade secrets to be excluded, the submitting party shall (i) invoke this exclusion upon submission of the data or materials for which protection from disclosure is sought, (ii) identify the data or materials for which protection is sought, and (iii) state the reasons why protection is necessary.”

This raises concerns. Drilling companies use a variety of chemicals in their drilling process, which have been undisclosed in the past because they are considered ‘trade secrets’. Without knowledge of what chemicals are being injected into these well the impact can these chemicals can have on the surrounding environment and populations cannot be judged or easily discovered. Even if some impact is seen or suspected, it is necessary to know what chemicals you are looking for. If there is an accidental spill, first responders need to know what safety equipment and protective clothing are necessary to protect the public and our property. We are beyond the time for these trade secrets, it is more important to protect our water resources, our environment and our people.

As a Director of the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District I have been a member of the Sub-Committee on Fracking for the Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, VASWCD. In a series of regular meetings during the past year we examined the fracking processes in Virginia and the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area and to developed a policy that was ultimately approved by the VASWCD Board and adopted by vote of the membership at our annual meeting in Richmond.

The Fracking Sub-Committee was lead by Chip Jones of Northern Neck and included: Andrew Gilmer, Clinch Valley; Wayne Webb, Lord Fairfax; Deirdre Clark, John Marshall; Kris Dennen, Loudoun; Janet Gayle Harris, Tri-County/City; Elizabeth Ward, Prince William; Henry Snodgrass, Holston River; Nicole Anderson Ellis, Henricopolis; Matt Kowalski, Lord Fairfax; Mark Monson, Thomas Jefferson SWCD; and Harrison Daniel, Northern Neck. We were assisted by the VASWCD staff.

The VASWCD Policy on Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) in the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area supports revision of Virginia Oil & Gas Act managed by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to include:

1. Postponing the issuance of any permits for hydraulic fracturing of gas and/or oil-bearing formations in Virginia/Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area until such a time as a baseline of groundwater flow systems and their relationships to the underlying geology can be conducted, interpreted, and reported. The research and interpretation should be conducted by a group of non-partial professionals with the appropriate expertise (e.g. USGS).

2. Performing a comprehensive review of Virginia regulations concerning resource extraction, specifically updating regulations to incorporate standards for the hydraulic fracturing of gas and/or oil-bearing formations. This review should include consideration of the safe handling and disposal of all products of the fracking process including well cuttings and used fracturing fluids.

3. Strengthening the regulatory process by requiring VDMME & VDEQ to have joint permit approval authority throughout Virginia. If Virginia regulatory authority is structured such that joint permit approval is not feasible, then DMME should not issue fracking permits unless all DEQ recommendations are also required by DMME for issuance of a permit.

4. Requiring certain minimum engineering/management practices (BMPs) to safeguard Virginia citizens and resources, including but not limited to: continuous monitoring, full public disclosure of all chemical ingredients and chemical breakdown products and volumes, and emergency cleanup plans.

5. Require bonding in amounts adequate to address comprehensive oversight of each operation and full site remediation.

6. Ensure that DMME, DEQ, and other regulatory agencies with oversight of the hydraulic fracturing industry are funded and staffed at appropriate levels to monitor all extraction operations and enforce all regulations.

ISSUE: Several leases for oil and gas drilling have been obtained in the Taylorsville Basin, which is located in the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Currently, the region does not have any active wells and has only had exploratory drilling done in the past. Proximity to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, as well as fragile geology of groundwater aquifers, causes concern of possible water contamination during the drilling and hydraulic fracturing process.

CONCERNS:

Hydraulic fracturing requires massive amounts of water, sometimes in the excess of millions of gallons, to create a gas producing well. Where will that water come from?

Procedures for the safe management and /or disposal of waste products, including recovered contaminated injection water, have not been identified. Fracking processes, as well as the post-fracking injection of fracking fluids, have been identified as contributors and/or causes of seismic activity in several states.

d. Drilling companies use a variety of chemicals in their drilling process, which is undisclosed because they are considered ‘trade secrets’. We do not know what impact can these chemicals have by themselves on the surrounding environment and population.

e. If drilling were to be approved in the Taylorsville Basin, the minimum engineering/management procedures that must be implemented are:

1. Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality must have joint approval authority for permits.
2. Monitoring wells must be in place in close proximity to drilling sites to ensure groundwater quality is maintained.
3. All chemicals used in the process must be publicly disclosed with such information being registered with the Virginia Departments of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.
4. All recommendations to the drilling permit application by DEQ MUST be implemented before DMME grants final approval.
5. Surface and ground water cleanup plans shall be developed for the drilling site and all downstream impacts.
6. Sufficient bond, paid by the drilling company, shall be in place to cover any potential cleanup costs of contaminated areas at the drilling site and associated impact areas, and to address the requirements of the surface and groundwater remediation plans. Bonding should also be sufficient to cover physical damage and economic impact from environmental contamination.

The Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts supports postponing the issuance of any permits for hydraulic fracturing of gas and/or oil-bearing formations in the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area until all of the concerns noted above have been addressed and appropriate mechanisms are in place to assure the protection of the environmental quality of the region.

Should there be Fracking in Virginia?

Fracking for natural gas already exists in Virginia.  It is very controversial and proponents and opponents are very emotional in the views. Though it is an old method of enhancing yield from a well, the recent advances in fracking and horizontal drilling for natural gas have resulted in the ability to economically access natural gas reserves in shale that the U.S. Geological Survey estimates are equivalent to twice the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. This is energy security in a turbulent world. The annual production of methane in the United States had increased 30% from 2005 to about 30,171 billion cubic feet of gas a year.

Fracking is the current method of extracting unconventional oil and natural gas that is locked inside impermeable geological formations. Fracking is enabled by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (thus the name fracking). Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected for disposal. Natural gas or oil will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane or oil reserves.

The current debate over fracking centers on the economic benefits, energy security and potential environmental safety of the process. The greenhouse gas emissions from a coal-fired power plant can be reduced by about half and the mercury and sulfur emissions eliminated if the plant is replaced by a natural gas fired power plant. Opponents cite the potential negative health and environmental effects as reasons to ban the practice, while proponents tout its economic benefits, positive environmental impact of cleaner and lower carbon energy than coal, and energy security.

The environmental concerns include air pollution from the operation of heavy equipment, human health effects for workers and people living near well pads from chemical exposure, noise and dust, induced seismicity from the disposal of fracking fluids, and increased greenhouse gas emissions from poor well head control and continued use of hydrocarbons. However, the biggest health and environmental concerns remains the potential for drinking water contamination from fracturing fluids, natural formation waters, and stray gases. If fracking is done carefully and properly the safely extracted gas can reduce air pollution and even water use in electrical generation compared with coal and oil. However, the availability of vast quantities of natural gas is likely to slow the adoption of renewable energy sources and, if fracking is done poorly toxic chemicals from fracking fluid could be released into our water supplies and methane could be release to the air. (See Methane Regulations Coming Our Way and Virginia and EPA’s CO2 Cap)

Virginia has entered this debate, as untapped natural gas deposits are located within certain areas of the Commonwealth. The use of fracking has a long history in Virginia going back to the 1950s. A nitrogen-based foam has historically been used in the fracking process here. Natural gas from conventional reserves and coal bed methane has been produced in the Appalachian plan (in the southwestern area) of the Commonwealth where drilling and coal mining are significant portions of the local economy.

Currently, there are more than 7,700 natural gas wells in the Appalachian plane where drilling required fracking in the extraction process. To date, there have not been any reports of adverse effects on water quality from the fracking. The other environmental impact of an industrial process is not much different from coal mining, dust, constant truck traffic, noise. The expansion of coal bed methane production has been in rural Buchanan and Dickenson counties.

Other areas in Virginia are known to have methane reserves that could be accessed by fracking. The George Washington National Forest is the largest protected forest in the eastern United States at 1.1 million acres in the mountains of Virginia. Approximately half of the forest sits atop the Marcellus shale deposit. The U.S. Forest Service announced November 2014 that it will allow oil and gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing or any other legal and regulatory approved method, but only in the 16% of the forest with existing leases and privately owned oil and gas rights. This final plan reversed a 2011 Environmental Impact Assessment that recommended allowing drilling in 993,000 acres of 1.1-million-acre forest, but banned hydraulic fracking. The finalized plan will allow drilling on 10,000 acres in the forest now leased for energy development and on 167,000 acres whose mineral rights are privately owned. (The government never owned those rights. When the government acquired the land for the forest the owners retained the mineral rights.) Currently, there are no active gas wells in the forest or in surrounding private tracts.

The Taylorsville Basin is located north of Richmond and extends across the Virginia Coastal Plain in the tidewater region of the state. In a 2011 study by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the area could contain up to 1.06 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, not huge, but worthwhile economically. Shore Exploration, a Texas-based energy company, has reportedly leased the mineral rights from more than 80,000 acres in Virginia’s Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula spanning large sections of King George, Caroline, Westmoreland, Essex, and King and Queen Counties.

Currently, Virginia law prohibits drilling in the Chesapeake Bay waters and all of the tidal tributaries, but outlines the path for drilling to proceed in the non-prohibited areas of the tidewater region. Whether or not to allow drilling in areas that are not areas identified as part of the Chesapeake Bay waters and tidal tributaries is a regulatory decision, controlled by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME). Basically, in order to grant a permit, DMME must undertake an environmental impact assessment in consultation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). However, DMME is only obligated to consider the findings of the assessment, and ultimately maintains the full authority to issue the permit. Local communities that might be significantly impacted by truck traffic, there is no pipeline, no source of water for a hydraulic fracturing so thousands of truck loads would have to run on small rural roads.

On average, 3-5 million gallons of water are forced under high pressure into each well. Water must be transported to the fracking site in trucks that normally hold approximately 4,500 gallons of water. This means even with reusing the flowback from other wells hundreds of truckloads of water are required for each well. In addition to the mixing trucks that are necessary for adding the required fracking chemicals.

But the major concern over the water use stems from the “flowback” and “produced water” that resurfaces after the rock has been fractured or is produced from the well. It is typical for about a quarter of the water used to return to the surface over the life of the well. Only a small fraction, about 250,000 returns to the surface in the first weeks after the well is drilled. Still the flowback water must be safely collected, stored and treated. An appropriate regulatory structure for addressing flowback does not really exist in Virginia. Typically, large surface ponds are used to store this water, which is polluted with the various fracking chemicals, naturally occurring salts, and naturally occurring radioactive compounds. If the water meets specific standards after being tested, it can be applied to the local land for disposal. If it fails to meet those standards, it must be safely transported to an approved disposal facility. Unfortunately, there is no approved disposal facility.

There is significant concern that the contaminated water would be improperly stored for extended periods of time and could infiltrate into the ground and ultimately contaminate the Potomac Aquifer, which is the sole water supply for over half a million people in eastern Virginia. In addition, extracting natural gas reserves from the Taylorsville Basin would require drilling through the Potomac Aquifer. The real question is where should fracking be allowed?

Fracking Banned in New York

In 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) requested that the New York State Department of Health (DOH) review and assess DEC’s analysis of potential health impacts of hydraulic Fracturing (fracking). Last week the DOH has issued a 186 page report that finds fracking is a complex activity that could affect many communities in New York State because the Marcellus Shale covers a large portion of the state. The number of well pads could be vast and spread out over a significant portion of the state with different environmental conditions. This increase the risk of equipment failures and human error, and increases the risk for exposure to dust, methane gas, air pollution from the operation of equipment, water pollution and adverse health outcomes. Because of these concerns for potential impact to the environment and citizens of the state, New York has banned fracking.

The major findings of the New York DOH report are that there are potential environmental and human health impacts from fracking that include:

• Increased truck traffic associated with fracking could have air quality impacts that could affect respiratory health due to increased levels of particulate matter, diesel exhaust, or volatile organic chemicals.
• Fracking could contribute to increasing climate change by releasing methane to the atmosphere and making it cheaper to use natural gas to heat homes and make electricity delaying the adoption of renewable energy sources..
• Faulty well construction could allow methane and/or fracking water containing a mix of chemical to contaminate potential drinking water supplies.
• Surface spills potentially resulting in soil and water contamination.
• Surface-water contamination resulting from inadequate wastewater treatment.
• Earthquakes induced during fracturing. (Though federal studies have found that induced earthquakes are associated with deep well disposal of waste water not fracking itself.) 
• Community impacts associated with boom-town economic effects such as increased vehicle traffic, road damage, noise, odor complaints, increased demand for housing and medical care, and stress.

This report from the DOH served more as the argument for the ban rather than a scientific study. A recent study by scientists reviewed all 166 fracking studies that have been performed and peer reviewed to consolidate all that we know about fracking and identify the areas where more research needs to be performed. This paper is  a complete and thorough review of all the risks and benefits and area where more study needs to be performed for the hydrocarbon extraction method known as fracking. The paper: “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking” in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.( Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014. 39:7.1–7.36) by Robert B. Jackson formerly of Duke University and now at Stanford, Avner Vengosh, still at Duke University, J. William Carey, from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Richard J. Davies, from Durham University, Thomas H. Darrah, for Ohio State University, Francis O’Sullivan, from MIT and Gabrielle P´etron from the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Fracking is the current method of extracting unconventional oil and natural gas that is locked inside impermeable geological formations. Fracking is enabled by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (thus the name fracking). Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected for disposal. Natural gas or oil will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane or oil reserves.

From USGS the extent of the Marcellus Shale

Throughout their study the scientist recommend a series of research questions that should be answered to more fully model and understand fracking, but not banning . In addition they emphasize the need for greater transparency from companies and regulating agencies in information and the need for baseline studies prior to drilling is critical to even know if water or human health has been impacted. Predrilling data needs to include measurements of groundwater and surface-water quality and quantity as well as air quality, and human health. The scientists pointed out that there have been virtually no comprehensive studies on the impact of fracking on human health while state regulators and law in some instances allow fracking virtually in people’s backyards. The New York regulators have now banned fracking because it is not completely understood, the risks imperfectly managed and will likely contribute to climate change.

Earthquakes and Water- the Earth’s Plumbing System

In the throes of the worst California drought in recent history rivers and streams across California had been flowing at record low level and some streams were completely dry. Then late August a magnitude 6.0 earthquakes hit the South Napa Valley and a funny thing happened; water began to flow again in some previously dry creaks, rivers and streams. For decades scientists have noted that there is a hydrogeologic response to earthquakes, but understanding of this response is still very limited. In the case of the South Napa Earthquake the flow of springs and groundwater to some streams appears to has increased. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) predict that based on the experience in previous earthquakes the stream and sprig flows will decline again over the next several months if the rains do not return to California.

from USGS

Hydro-geologic responses to earthquakes have been observed to occur both in the area of the earthquake and thousands of miles from the earthquake epicenter. Earthquakes impact groundwater the most commonly observed impact is to water wells. Some well have been observed to become turbid or muddy, some have run dry or had an increase in flow or water level. New springs have formed and the quality of groundwater and surface water has changed. Some of these changes are transitory others appear to be permanent and only time can tell the difference between them. In addition, there have also been surface water responses to earthquakes. Surface-water responses to earthquakes include changes in chemistry, wave oscillations in lakes, increases and sometime decreases in stream, spring, and seep discharge, instances of springs going dry or the appearance of new springs.

According to the USGS the water-level fluctuates in wells in response to seismic waves. The occurrence and size of the water level response of water wells to earthquakes are influenced by a variety of factors such as the magnitude and depth of the earthquake, the distance of the well from the epicenter, the geology surrounding the well, the depth of the well, whether the aquifer is confined or unconfined and the well construction. The most common observed groundwater response to an earthquake is an instantaneous water level offset or step up. An instantaneous increase or decrease in water level. This response is commonly observed because there are hundreds of wells used to monitory water levels nationally. The change and recovery in water level can be so rapid that it is barely detectable, or it may take minutes, hours, days, or months for a well to return to previous water levels. There have also been instances where the well never returned to pre-earthquake levels.

Lots of things can impact the response of a well to a seismic event and scientists cannot predict which wells will be impacted and whether the impact is permanent or transitory. The USGS reports that within 3 months of the 1998 magnitude 5.2 earthquake in northwestern Pennsylvania that over a hundred private water wells in the area went permanently dry. The 2002 Alaskan Denali Fault earthquake which was a magnitude 7.9 caused a 2-foot water-level rise in a well in Wisconsin, more than a thousand miles from the epicenter. That rise also appears to be permanent.

From USGS

What is clear is that groundwater aquifers systems are mechanically connected to the rocks and sediments in which they exist. In addition to hydrogeologic responses to earthquakes, hydrogeologic changes may cause earthquakes or volcanic events. Earthquakes can be induced by the filling of surface reservoirs, or by annual or shorter-term fluctuations in reservoir levels. In addition, earthquakes can be induced by the deep well injection (or withdrawal) of fluids as has been seen in the disposals in the 1960’s at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and more recently in disposal of the waste fracking fluid from hydraulic fracking.

The USGS says that water level offsets in the area of an earthquake because the earthquake “subjects the earth’s crust and its aquifer systems, to stress and permanent strain (deformation). This deformation process results in altered fluid pressure within the aquifer systems, and consequently, a step like change in water level would be expected.” The USGS cites various mechanisms for well water responses based on type of geology. For increased water level in shallow wells, the USGS suggests that compaction of overlying alluvium similar to liquefaction may be the mechanism producing the offset. Fluid-pressure declines are suggested to be caused by the escape of small amounts of dissolved gas from pore spaces in the aquifer in response to seismic waves. In a fractured rock system like the one here and in northwestern Pennsylvania where the wells went dry, permeability of the ground may be changed by the unclogging, widening, or narrowing of fractures, or the creation of new fractures. Similarly, an increase in ground-water discharge though springs, seeps, or to streams could be caused by an increase in the subsurface fluid pressure or permeability of the geologic formation.

There have also been several instances of reported changes in water levels in well before an earthquake. Many of these documented cases come from seismically active Japan where they continue to search for predictors of earthquakes. Many scientists do not believe that groundwater and well response can be used to predict earthquakes; they believe that there are too many other explanations for well water changes. Truthfully in the last couple of years (in my volunteer work with the VAMWON) I’ve seen several instance of what I think of as transitory benign well response where a well level falls dramatically and then recovers seemingly unconnected to precipitation and use. I have also seen transitory turbidity that just seems to pass through and then the well returns to normal. There are many potential explanations for these observations, so I simply note them and test the water quality when it returns to normal to make sure it is safe to drink.

However these episodes make you think about how interconnected the groundwater system is to the earth. Recently Dr. Robert Jackson et al. published an analysis of all the peer reviewed research done on hydraulic fracking. Though there has been documented impact to groundwater from improperly constructed wells, there has been no confirmed impact to groundwater from fracking itself. Rather than testing for direct chemical contamination in areas surrounding a hydraulic fracking maybe scientist should be looking for changes in water quality and quantity in nearby groundwater wells and systems that are more typical in seismic events.


For more information on stream flow and water well responses to earthquakes and discussion of potential mechanisms see research from Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, at Berkeley by Chi-Yuen Wang, Michael Manga and others.

Fracking, Zoning and the Courts

On Monday, June 30th the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, ruled that the state's Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) does not preempt the towns of Dryden and Middlefield from banning fracking under their local zoning laws. At issue in the cases was the supersession clause of the OGSML, which says it “shall supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and solution mining industries; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property tax law.”

The court upheld the right of local governments to ban natural gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing techniques also known as hydrofracking or fracking. The court maintained the home rule capacity of municipalities to pass zoning laws that exclude oil, gas and hydrofracking activities in order to preserve the existing character of their communities. While this decision seems to clearly places the control of fracking in communities within those communities; since 2008 there has been a statewide moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus Shale. The moratorium has dragged on while New York assessed the effects of fracking. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling was released in the fall of 2011 and recommended that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period was extended and the DEC began a revision to the EIS with comments from other agencies that has been on going with no end in sight.

A large swath of southwestern New York sits atop the Marcellus Shale, which is the third-largest natural gas field currently known in the world and underlies significant portions of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. The Marcellus Shale alone is estimated to contain 500-trillion-cubic-feet of gas reserves. This resource could heat our homes for a generation or more, and power our electrical generating plants, even fuel cars either directly or through plug in hybrids. The possible impacts to our economy and environment are far reaching. The potential risks are also far reaching.

In December 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 Commonwealth Court decision striking down portions of Act 13 a 2012 Pennsylvania law that would have created a single statewide zoning for all oil and gas activities, and would in effect have taken away from the municipalities in Pennsylvania the ability to use zoning to exclude fracking of shale gas formations in residential neighborhoods. According to Richard A. Ward, Township Manager Robinson Township, PA, Act 13 turned the entire state of Pennsylvania into one large industrial zone. Robinson Township joined by several other communities challenged Act 13 and won.

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court based its decision not in the property rights of surface landowners, but on Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in its opinion that Act 13’s elimination of zoning and land use planning authority was unconstitutional because that was the primary method through which municipalities act as trustees under the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment of the state constitution. The Court found that the state cannot interfere with the constitutional duty of municipal governments to carry out the Environmental Rights Amendment.

Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of chemicals and water into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking while old has made tremendous advances in the past 15 years that have made it possible to economically access this gas. Hydrofracking has increased our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth. Our knowledge of the impacts from hydrofracking has lagged behind our ability to access the gas.

In hydraulic fracking on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. Each stage of the fracking water cycle is a potential area for impact to drinking water supplies especially from human error and irresponsibly and improperly handling chemicals and contaminated water and poorly managing and protecting our water resources.

Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Billions of gallons of water will be used in each region for fracking. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process (flowback or water produced in the well) needs to be properly treated before it is returned to the waters of the earth. The reality is all water on earth has been here for 4.5 billion years and no new water is being created. The fate of the water that flows back after fracturing has to be addressed, but not all fracturing fluids injected into the geologic formation are recovered. The EPA estimates that the fluids recovered range from 15-80% of the volume injected depending on the site. The long term fate of any residual fluid has just begun to be studied.

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began a series of research projects into the impacts and potential impacts of fracking on water that are scheduled for completion later this year. Data from 333 oil and gas wells from across the United States are being examined to assess the effectiveness of current well construction practices at containing gases and liquids before, during, and after hydraulic fracturing. In addition, computer models are being developed to evaluate the potential risk to water resources from water acquisition, well injection, wastewater treatment and waste water disposal from hydrofracking. The computer models are also being used to explore the possibility of subsurface gas and fluid migration from deep shale formations to overlying aquifers in different scenarios.

The effectiveness of the models will be dependent on how closely the model predicts transport behavior in rock and shale and the similarity in behavior of different formations. These studies will be the basis for future regulations for oil and gas operations. Whether the EPA will regulate oil and gas exploration nationally or leave the oversight in the hands of the states is an open question. There is an argument that water resources and geology are very local phenomena and cannot be generalized over the nation and that hydraulic fracturing should remain under local oversight. This decision from the New York Court of Appeals and the Pennsylvania decision in 2013 clearly state that local municipalities are responsible for deciding if hydrofracking within their communities is in the best interest of their community.

Fracking the Northern Neck of Virginia

DNR Westmoreland State Park

Virginia has gas rich shale deposits. Bet you didn’t know that.Ruby Brabo, a County Supervisor from King George’s County spoke to the Potomac Watershed Roundtable about her concerns about the Virginia Department Mines, Minerals and Energy granting permits to hydraulically fracture in the Virginia Tidewater region, allowing oil companies to lease land and removing control for the fate of the communities effected from local government without adequate protection for the environment and watershed.

During the early Mesozoic Era about 227 million years ago several shale basins formed along the east coast of the United States and Canada. The basins filled with a variety of sediments including boulder beds, coarse-grained sandstones, red siltstones, mudstones, gray and black shale and coal. the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates a potential mean undiscovered natural gas supply of 3,860 billion cubic feet and natural gas liquids of 135 million barrels within five of the East Coast Mesozoic basins: Deep River, Dan River-Danville, Richmond basins, which are within the Piedmont Province of North Carolina and Virginia; the Taylorsville basin, which is almost entirely within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Province of Virginia and Maryland; and the southern part of the Newark basin. The Taylorsville basin is estimated to have a mean gas potential of 1,064 billion barrels.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried in shale deposits beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the pumping of millions of gallons of water and laced with thousands of gallons of chemicals into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Long ignored shale gas is potentially valuable. Until recently there was no economically feasible way to extract this gas. The Taylorsville basin has not been explored using newer fracking techniques so it is not known if we have the technology to exploit these deposits, yet. Nonetheless, according to Ruby Brabo, Shore Exploration and Production Corp. has obtained mineral leases on 84,000 acres of land in Virginia.

Though fracking has been widely used for decades without problems, hydraulic fracturing or hydro fracking has changed in the past 15 years. The oldest type of hydraulic fracturing is coal bed formation fracturing that has been used for more than 65 years. The volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing varies by site and type of formation. Fifty thousand to 350,000 gallons of water may be required to fracture one well in a coal bed formation while two to five million gallons of water injected at much higher pressure may be necessary to fracture one horizontal well in a shale formation. Virginia currently only has gas well in the coal rich Appalachian Plateau. The existing wells are vertical wells that were nitrogen fracked. This is a completely different technology than contemplated for the Taylorsville shale deposit, but apparently the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy is granting permits for these areas seemingly untroubled that the techniques to safely drill and frack this geology has not been demonstrated.

There are other problems and risks with fracking that should be addressed before hydro fracking takes place within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Water used for fracking fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. The Northern Neck of Virginia has only a single source of drinking water the aquifer in the coastal plain. The sediment deposits in the coastal plain is a geology that has never been fracked. Though chemicals typically represent less than 0.5% of the volume of the fracking water, that 0.5% amounts to 15,000 gallons of chemicals in the waste water recovered from the typical hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. The flow back, the recovered fracking fluid mus be properly and safely disposed of.

Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be addressed before fracking is allowed in Virginia. Several of the techniques That have been utilized in other parts of the country to dispose of fracking fluid have proven unsafe and the others may not be viable or safe in Virginia. Techniques that have been tried have included deep well injection, discharged to surface waters after treatment in an waste water treatment plant designed to remove contaminants of concern, or applied to land surfaces where it can seep into the water table which is the sole source of drinking water in the Northern Neck communities. Deep well injection disposal has been associated with earthquakes, but in Virginia may simply sever as a path for contamination of the groundwater. There are no appropriate waste water treatment plants to treat the likely contaminants in Virginia, and surface application of contaminated water may be too direct a route to the aquifer in the coastal plain.

Geologists and engineers believe that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table. The problems seen in drinking water wells near hydro fracking jobs typically occur when fracking fluid seeps into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells. However, there has been no testing of proper well construction in shoreline sediment deposits. Proper well construction and abandonment standards to protect the watershed needs to be developed and enforced. Virginia does not yet have a regulatory structure to ensure proper well construction and protection of drinking water supplies. In addition, the water that is absorbed into rock formations may change the formations and the hydraulic balance in ways we do not understand and drawing large quantities of water in a short period of time may impact the groundwater whose level has been falling for decades from over pumping.

Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads, recreational trails and residential roads and placed on concrete pads. The picture below from the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, shows the amount of equipment involved in a hydro frack. The watersheds must be monitored. Sampling should take place before fracking and at regular intervals after a hydro frack job. We need to proceed slowly to make sure that we are doing it right and protecting our water resources and communities. While landowners have every right to lease their land and obtain gas royalties, We have only a small margin for error our water resources and the regional ecology. The gas will still be there if we take the time to understand fracking adequately to be able to release the gas from the shale formations without significant damage to our water resources and communities.

Don't Frack the Potomac Watershed

The 1.1 million-acre George Washington National Forest sits on the eastern portion of the Marcellus shale formation. Now, as reported in the L.A. Times and Washington Post, the U.S. Forest Service is deciding whether to open up the national forest to oil and gas leases allowing hydraulic fracking at the source of the Potomac River, the lifeblood of our region. The Forest Service proposes to revise the 1993 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Forest. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on file, describes seven alternatives and the Forest Service has identified Alternative G as the Agency’s Preferred Alternative. This alternative as can be seen in the chart below would allow further development of the oil and gas resources in the Forest. This should not happen at this time.

from US Forest Service

The Potomac is the major source of drinking water for more than 4 million people, and the headlands and watershed are within the eastern edge of the forest along the edge of the Marcellus shale formation. The entire Chesapeake Bay region is under a mandated pollution diet from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service is considering allowing activities that could increase sediment runoff and potentially release pollution to the Potomac River.

The Washington Aqueduct Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fairfax County Water Authority and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission furnish about 95% of the metropolitan region's water from the Potomac River. For more than two centuries the waters of the Potomac seemed unlimited, but regional growth, pollution and drought proved that was not true. Congress created the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB, to address the pollution of the river, but now their primary job is to manage the allocation of the Potomac’s Waters especially in times of drought. The idea of diverting millions of gallons of water to be used in hydrofracking and even the smallest risk of pollution to the river from spills and leaks is an unacceptable risk to the water supply for the region.

Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by hydro fracking, using 2-5 million gallons of water mixed with chemicals. For gas to flow out of the shale, all of the water not absorbed by the formation during fracking must be recovered and disposed of. Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals used in fracking represent 15,000 gallons of unknown chemical compostion in the waste water recovered from the typical hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow.

The oil and gas industry has failed to determine proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants. This must be accomplished before even considering expanding fracking into important watersheds. In addition, the impact of so much waste water on our water resources must be monitored and addressed.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently engaged in a review of hydraulic fracking and that should be completed before fracking is further expanded into ecologically sensitive areas.

While geologists and engineers believe that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table, they base this on the “typical” geology where there are thousands of feet between the water table and the fracking location and does not account for any potential impacts from human error or carelessness or on the hydraulic balance in a watershed. The problems seen in drinking water wells near hydro fracking jobs have typically occurred when fracking fluid seeps into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells and from accidental release or improper storage of recovered fracking fluid.

The oil and gas industry has outpaced regulators and knowledge of the consequences from forcing oil and gas from the earth. It is essential to determine the vertical and horizontal separation that is necessary to protect the drinking water aquifers and watersheds from the environmental impacts from fracking before watersheds are damaged or destroyed or the U. S. Forest Service allows vastly expanded development of oil and gas resources in the National Forests. The oil and gas will still be in the ground when we have more knowledge, then fracking can be expanded with increased oversight to ensure that this separation is maintained, improved well-design requirements are developed and ensure their consistent implementation and require the appropriate handling, treatment and recycling of drilling waste water.

The deep well injection commonly used in Texas to dispose of fracking water may have consequences beyond small earthquakes and is not appropriate in all geologies. Sewage treatment plants are designed to separate solids and use bacteria to treat biological waste. They are not equipped to remove or neutralize the contaminants in used hydro fracking fluid. In 2009 and 2010, public sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania directly upstream from drinking-water intake facilities accepted wastewater that contained radionuclides at levels hundred even thousands of times the drinking-water standard despite the fact that these plants (and most sewage plants) were exempt from monitoring for radiation. Local regulators and gas producers believed the waste was not a threat because it would be diluted by treatment in the sewage treatment plants or the river itself, without sampling to verify this. They guessed at the environmental impact and safety of the public drinking water supply. Water resources are primary to life, energy resources are secondary.

Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the equipment, machinery and operation of the oil and gas industry as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural roads and placed on concrete pads changing the runoff quantity, velocity and quality while exposing the watershed to potential sources of hydrocarbon contamination. The watersheds that supply the water that is the life of our region must be protected first and foremost. Over the years there have been reports from several states noting contamination of drinking water wells in association with fracking, though no definitive proof because of lack of adequate testing and difficulties in understanding groundwater, the full extent to which hydro fracking fluids have contaminated or might in the future contaminate groundwater is unknown. However, many cases of associated contamination have been confirmed.

The Potomac River is an irreplaceable source of drinking water for millions of people and should be protected. All of the Potomac River watershed needs to be designated by Congress as withdrawn from availability for oil and gas leasing until such time that we know how to ensure with certainty the availability and purity of the Potomac.

Keystone XL Pipeline Update

On Friday, January 31, 2014, the U.S. Department of State released the eleven volume Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline. If you recall, back on May 4th 2012 TransCanada Corporation made a new application for a Presidential Permit to construct and operate the Keystone XL Pipeline after the Department of State rejected their original 2008 application in January 2012. At the time, the Department of State was under a deadline imposed by Congress and rejected the application because of inadequate time to determine the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline.

TransCanada Corporation turned around and on May 4th 2012 announced a new application for a Presidential Permit to build the northern most section of the Keystone XL pipeline (Phase IV) from the Canadian Border from where Saskatchewan meets Montana using a route that would cross South Dakota and a route (that would be determined later) to cross Nebraska and meet up with the Keystone Phase II which runs from Steel City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma. On January 22, 2013 Governor Heineman of Nebraska signed the recommendation to the U.S. Department of State for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to cross the international border after the Nebraska state regulators recommended approval of the revised route selected (with their guidance) for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

There is currently a pipeline Keystone I that runs east from Hardesty Saskatchewan to Manitoba and then south through the Dakotas to Steel City, Nebraska. It is a less direct route and is a lower volume pipeline. Keystone II runs from Steel City to Cushing, Oklahoma at the Oklahoma storage facilities. Keystone III running from the Cushing Oklahoma to the Nederland, Texas began delivering crude oil from Cushing, OK, to the oil refineries in Texas on Wednesday, January 22, 2014. The Gulf Coast Project, Keystone III, did not require a Presidential Permit because it does not cross an international border.

I did not review the 11 volumes of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. I read the 38 page Executive Summary and though I spent a large portion of my professional career preparing and reviewing environmental reports, my eyes glazed over at reading more than the executive summary. Keystone XL is “unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs and supply-demand scenarios.” In other words, no matter what action the Administration chooses to take on this portion of the pipeline-approve, reject, or stall- the oil sands are not staying in the ground in Canada. There is world demand for heavy crude oil and it will be met. The Texas refineries are optimized for heavy crude either from South America or Canada. The crude oil will come by pipeline, boat, and truck or rail road.

There is strong opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. However, as the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement argues the pipeline will not determine if the oil sands resources in Canada will be mined. To account for uncertainties about oil production, consumption, and transportation, the Environmental Impact Statement modeled 16 different scenarios that combine various supply-demand assumptions and pipeline constraints. Under most scenarios examined in the report whether or not the pipeline is built had limited impact on development of the oil sands. Oil sands production and development will slow or accelerate depending on oil price trends, regulations, and technological developments. The Canadian oil sands have been known for decades, but until oil prices rose and technology improved these oil deposits were too expensive to exploit beyond the limited scope of surface mining. Advances in technology in both oil sand extraction and refining techniques and rising oil prices altered the economics and have made the extraction of oil sand possible. While the advances in extraction techniques have quadrupled recoverable oil reserves and moved Canada into second place in proved world oil reserves, it requires more energy to produce the oil and increases the carbon footprint of the crude as compared to fracked light sweet crude from Montana.

Now that the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is complete the Presidential Permit review process will now focus on whether the Keystone XL Pipeline serves our national interest. The Department of State is opening a 30 day comment period on February 5, 2014 where members of the public and other interested parties can submit comments on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Though under the executive order currently in place, Secretary Kerry is empowered to make the final decision, the next step requires consideration of: energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant federal regulations and issues. During this time, the Department will consult with, at least, the eight agencies identified in the executive order: the Departments of Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meanwhile, TransCanada’s proposed pipelines to Canada's West Coast, the Northern Gateway, would carry crude oil from Alberta to the Pacific port of Kitmat, for export to Asia is also facing opposition from environmentalists and the aboriginal Yinka Dene Alliance and Coastal First Nations. TransCanada is also moving forward with an east-west pipeline, the Energy East Pipeline project. The Energy East Pipeline project would convert a redundant 1,864 mile portion of the TransCanada's Canadian Mainline natural gas distribution pipeline to a crude oil pipeline and build the additional 870 miles of new pipeline to reach the port in Saint John, New Brunswick. This pipeline has more public support after the Lac-Mégantic train disaster that killed 47 and obliterated sections of the town last year and the incident this month when 19 cars derailed in New Brunswick.

The cylindrical DOT-111 rail cars used to transport oil have come under scrutiny in recent years for some of their design flaws. Last month the Canadian Minister of Transport announced proposed regulatory amendments to improve the safety of transporting oil by rail. She announced plans to alter DOT-111 regulations, requiring that all new cars be built with thicker steel, include a reinforced top fitting, and a head protection shield to lessen the risk of puncture. The new regulation does not require that older tank cars be retrofitted to come into line with new regulations, but that is expected to happen gradually. DOT-111 tank cars are non-pressurized, cylindrical railcars designed to transport a variety of liquids. They are also the most common tank cars in service with an estimated 265,000 of them operating in Canada and the United States.

PA Court Rules Zoning Can Be Used to Prevent Fracking

On Friday, December 20th 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 Commonwealth Court decision striking down portions of Act 13 that would have created a single statewide zoning for all oil and gas activities, and would in effect have taken away from the towns the ability to use zoning to exclude hydraulic fracturing of shale gas formations (fracking) in residential neighborhoods. According to Richard A. Ward, Township Manager Robinson Township, PA, Act 13 turned the entire state of Pennsylvania into one large industrial zone. No zoning could exclude fracking wells and shale gas processing in any location. Robinson Township joined by several other communities had challenged Act 13.

In 2012, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, ruled in favor of Robinson Township and the other municipal Plaintiffs. That Court struck down portions of Act 13, that they ruled were a constitutional violation of the property rights of surface landowners who would be affected by the Act’s elimination of municipal zoning authority. However, while affirming the decision, the state Supreme Court based its decision not in the property rights of surface landowners, but on Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated in its opinion that Act 13’s elimination of zoning and land use planning authority was unconstitutional because that was the primary method through which municipalities act as trustees under the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment. The Supreme Court found, the State cannot interfere with the constitutional duty of municipal governments to carry out the Environmental Rights Amendment.

This decision seems to grant higher zoning and land use authority to the municipalities than the state. While, the health and welfare of communities are best protected by local zoning, and geology and watershed characteristics vary by location, this ruling grants tremendous power in determining property rights and value to the municipalities. Land ownership is simply a bundle of rights; use rights, development rights and mineral rights. Fee simple ownership is owning the entire bundle of rights. In Pennsylvania, ownership of surface rights and ownership of minerals rights are often separated. In addition, mineral rights on the same tract may be separated from each other - oil, gas, coal, hard rock minerals, etc. may all be owned by separate companies. This decision effects the value of those rights.

The mineral rights were usually separated and sold before land was developed so that an individual or corporation may own the rights to an entire neighborhood. Pennsylvania does not maintain ownership records of mineral properties in a central location nor do they have property tax records for the mineral rights because they do not pay property taxes on those rights. Rather; county governments maintain the old transfer records that contain this information and suburban homeowners were often surprised to find that they did not own the oil and gas under their land.

All surface and mineral owners have property rights under the law. Pennsylvania recognizes both the mineral owner's right to recover the mineral, and the landowner's right to protection from unreasonable encroachment or damage. This decision in effect grants superior rights to the owner of the surface rights, the local voter; and may have long term consequences on real estate values. Under this decision, the Municipalities Planning Code can be used to regulate hydraulic fracturing, other oil and gas extraction, forestry, coal mining, and possibly industrial farming under the ACRE, Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment Act.

This will serve to slow down shale gas development in the state and allow adequate time to evaluate the long term environmental and geological impacts from fracking. Drilling requires large amounts of water to create a circulating mud that cools the bit and carries the rock cuttings out of the borehole. After drilling, the shale formation is then stimulated by fracking, where on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals and water are pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. For gas to flow out of the shale, all of the water not absorbed by the formation during fracking must be recovered and disposed of.

Though less than 0.5% by volume, the proprietary chemicals represent 15,000 gallons in the waste water recovered from the typical hydro fracking job. The chemicals serve to increases the viscosity of the water to a gel-like consistency so that it can carry the propping agent (typically sand) into the fractures to hold them open so that the gas can flow. Determining the proper methods for the safe disposal of the large quantities of this fracking fluid that may also contain contaminants from the geological formation including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants and monitoring the impact from this disposal must also be done. 

Geologists and engineers believe that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table. The problems seen in drinking water wells near hydro fracking jobs typically occur when fracking fluid seeps into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells (a large number of the problems have occurred in older coal bed areas). Proper well construction and abandonment standards to protect watersheds need to be developed and enforced. The water that is absorbed into rock formations may change the formations and the hydraulic balance in ways we do not understand and drawing large quantities of water in a short period of time may impact rivers and groundwater.

Finally, care must be taken to avoid degradation of watersheds and streams from the industry itself as large quantities of heavy equipment and supplies are moved on rural (and potentially residential) roads and placed on concrete pads. The picture below from the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, shows the amount of equipment involved in a hydro frack. The watersheds must be monitored. Sampling should take place before fracking and at regular intervals after a hydro frack job. We need to proceed slowly to make sure that we are doing it right and protecting our water resources. We have only a small margin for error. The gas will still be there if we take the time to understand fracking adequately to be able to release the gas from the shale formations without significant damage to our water resources and communities.

NETL Fracking Research Does Not Find Contamination

On Friday a statement was released by the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Pittsburgh, PA about the preliminary findings of their Pittsburgh fracking study. NETL has been conducting research at a sight in the Marcellus Shale formation southwest of Pittsburgh to determine (amongst other things) if hydraulic fracturing in this geology can contaminate groundwater. According to a statement from NETL, they are still in the early stages of collecting, analyzing, and validating data from this site, but preliminary analysis did not find any of the fracking fluid within 5,000 feet of the surface. The results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims at this time and NETL expects to issue a final report on the results by the end of 2013.

In the NETL study a hydraulically fractured shale gas well was injected with four different man-made tracers at different stages of the fracking process. The preliminary results did not find any of the tracers above the 5,000 foot depth. This study is important because it adds to our knowledge of the impact of fracturing on geology, but geology varies across the Marcellus shale formation and from shale formation to formation so these results may apply only to this section of the Marcellus shale formation. In addition, the wells at the research site are likely to have been completed “by the book.”

How a well is completed may be one of the most important determinates if there will be any shallow impact from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is more commonly known. When a well is fracked fluids made up of mostly water and chemical additives are injected at high pressure into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected in some geologies. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve. The NETL study is also performing seismic monitoring to understand the fracturing process and how naturally occurring fractures are impacted by fracking.

As has been shown by research performed at other locations and by Duke University and other researchers, how carefully a well is completed and the surrounding geology determines the potential for fracking to impact groundwater. In the study in Northeast Pennsylvania the Duke scientists found that natural gas, derived both naturally and at least in part from the shale gas was present in some of the shallow groundwater wells less than a mile away from natural gas wells. Dr. Rob Jackson the lead author pointed out that the two simplest explanations for the higher dissolved gas concentrations measured in the drinking water were faulty or inadequate steel casings and/or imperfections in the cement sealing (also known as the grouting) between casings and rock that keep fluids from moving up the outside of the well. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued 90 violations for faulty casing and cementing on 64 Marcellus shale gas wells; 119 violations were issued in 2011.

In another study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey no evidence of drinking water contamination from methane from shale gas was found in a part of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas (2). That shale has a less fractured geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water aquifers.

In Wyoming where the water table is deep and the shale gas shallow the drinking water has been impacted, but the cause of the impact is still under investigation. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, reported in 2011 that they found glycols, alcohols, methane and benzene in a well drilled to the water aquifer in Wyoming within the Pavillion field. Initially EPA reported that the contaminants found were consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids and likely due to fracking, but has since backed off that conclusion stating “the source of those contaminants has not been determined.” EPA now states that their efforts to evaluate potential migration pathways from deeper gas production zones to shallower domestic water wells in the Pavillion gas field are inconclusive. EPA has turned the investigation over to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission who will assess the need for any further action to protect drinking water resources.

EPA does not plan to finalize or seek peer review of its draft Pavillion groundwater report released in December, 2011. Nor does the agency plan to rely upon the conclusions in the draft report and is backing away from a report that initially claimed to show fracking contaminated groundwater. EPA is moving forward on a major research program on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water in different areas of the country and will release a draft report in late 2014. EPA will look to the results of that national program as the basis for its scientific conclusions and recommendations on hydraulic fracturing.

Meanwhile the NETL preliminary results are all over the news as the final word instead of simply another piece of knowledge in a recent slew of studies. Ultimately, we need to understand why, in some cases, shale gas extraction appears to contaminate groundwater and how to ensure that contamination does not happen with a high level of certainty in susceptible geology. Well construction and maintenance needs to be studied, optimized and carefully regulated before further expansion of shale gas development.

1. Jackson, RB, Vengosh, A, Darrah, TH, Warner, NR, Down, A, Poreda, RJ, Osborn, SG, Zhao, K, Karr, JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print June 24, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1221635110

2. Kresse TM, et al. (2012) Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 (USGS), US Geological Survey Scientific Report 2012–5273 (Lafayette Publishing Service Center, Lafayette, LA).

New Research on Fracking and Contamination of Drinking Water

Scientists have found and investigated methane in drinking water wells near fracked gas wells in the Marcellus Shale. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing as it is more properly known involves the pressurized injection of fluids commonly made up of mostly water and chemical additives into a geologic formation. The pressure used exceeds the rock strength and the fluid opens or enlarges fractures in the rock. As the formation is fractured, a “propping agent,” such as sand or ceramic beads, is pumped into the fractures to keep them from closing as the pumping pressure is released. The fracturing fluids (water and chemical additives) are partially recovered and returned to the surface or deep well injected. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve.

Over the past few years, the use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction has increased and has expanded over a wide diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations beyond its original use in old oil and gas fields to revitalize them. By January of 2013, the daily production of methane (CH4) in the United States had increased 30% from January 2005 to about 70 billion cubic feet of gas each day. As fracking has expanded at what seems a breakneck speed in some regions, so has a public and regulatory concern about the possible environmental consequences of fracking and horizontal drilling. These concerns include air pollution from the operation of heavy equipment, human health effects for workers and people living near well pads from chemical exposure, noise and dust, induced seismicity from the disposal of fracking fluids, and increased greenhouse gas emissions from poor well head control and continued use of hydrocarbons.

However, the biggest health concern remains the potential for drinking water contamination from fracturing fluids, natural formation waters, and stray gases. While geologists and engineers believed that in hydraulic fracturing the intervening layers of rock prevent a fissure from extending into the water table, this had not been studied and there were reported instances of contamination of drinking water wells in areas that had been fracked. Only in the past three years has the potential to contaminate drinking water wells been studied. In a small group of studies (listed below) that were primarily in the Marcellus region of Pennsylvania, peer-reviewed studies found no evidence of salts, metals, or radioactivity beyond naturally occurring concentrations in drinking water wells near shale gas wells. However, in the latest studies they did find increased levels of methane in groundwater wells.

Methane gas occurs naturally in groundwater aquifers in most geological sedimentary basins. Methane gas exists in a dissolved state in the groundwater underground and will “bubble out” when pumped to the surface. For those on private water well supplies, spurting taps is a typical indication of this phenomenon. Methane present in groundwater can be a result of biogenic activity or can be from coal gas beds or from deeper shale gas. Biogenic methane is produced by subsurface bacteria and commonly occurs naturally in groundwater aquifers used for water well supplies. Thermogenic methane gas is produced at greater depths through high pressure and temperature processes and is characteristic of deep oil and gas reservoirs that conventional and shale gas wells tap into. Methane gas typically contains trace amounts of ethane. The proportion of methane to ethane in a gas can help determine its origin. Biogenic gas typically contains above 1,000 times more methane than ethane, but thermogenic gas has higher levels of ethane. In addition, isotope data can also be used to help determine whether a gas is biogenic or thermogenic. In the most recent research paper from the scientists at Duke University, University of Rochester and California State Polytechnic University (1) used these ratios to examine the occurrence and source of methane in drinking water wells in northeastern Pennsylvania.

A total of 81 samples from drinking water wells were collected in six counties in Pennsylvania (Bradford, Lackawanna, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wayne, and Wyoming), and results were combined with 60 previous samples from a 2011 study by Stephen G. Osborn et al. (2). Dissolved methane was detected in the drinking water of 82% of the houses sampled (115 of 141 samples). Methane concentrations in drinking water wells of the homes closest to the gas wells were six times higher on average than concentrations for homes farther away. All of the 12 houses where CH4 concentrations were greater than 28 mg/L (the threshold for immediate remediation set by the US Department of the Interior) were well within a mile of an active shale gas well. Concentrations of ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8) were also higher in drinking water of homes near the shale gas wells.

The scientists concluded that the combined results suggest that natural gas, derived at least in part from thermogenic sources (the shale gas) was present in some of the shallow water wells less than a mile away from natural gas wells. The scientist pointed out that the two simplest explanations for the higher dissolved gas concentrations measured in the drinking water are faulty or inadequate steel casings and/or imperfections in the cement sealing (also known as the grouting) between casings and rock that keep fluids from moving up the outside of the well. In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued 90 violations for faulty casing and cementing on 64 Marcellus shale gas wells; 119 violations were issued in 2011.

The scientist believed based on their isotopic analysis and previous studies that the cause of the elevated levels of methane (CH4) in the groundwater was due to imperfections in the cement grouting on the wells. Faulty cement grouting can allow methane and other gases from intermediate layers to flow into, up, and out of the void between the steel casing and the grouting into shallow drinking water layers. The geochemical and isotopic compositions of stray gas contamination in this scenario would not fully match the target shale gas, and no fracturing chemicals or deep formation waters would be expected, because a direct connection to the deepest layers does not exist; and this is consistent with their findings. Faulty grouting is believed to be the most likely cause of the scientists’ findings. Legacy or abandoned oil and gas wells (and even abandoned water wells) though a potential source of contamination, were unlikely to be the cause in this instance. Historical drilling activity was negligible within the study area making this mechanism unlikely there. Though, in 2000, the Pennsylvania DEP estimated that it had records for 141,000 of the 325,000 oil and gas wells that had historically been drilled in the state.

In another study by Duke University and the US Geological Survey no evidence of drinking water contamination from methane from shale gas was found in a part of the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas (7). That shale has a less fractured geology than the Marcellus and good confining layers above and below the drinking water aquifers. Ultimately, we need to understand why, in some cases, shale gas extraction contaminates groundwater and how to ensure that contamination does not happen with a high level of certainty in susceptible geology. Well construction and maintenance needs to be studied, optimized and carefully regulated before further expansion of shale gas development.

1. Jackson, RB, Vengosh, A, Darrah, TH, Warner,  NR, Down, A, Poreda, RJ, Osborn, SG, Zhao, K, Karr,JD (2013) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction PNAS 2013 ; published ahead of print June24, 2013, doi:10.1073/pnas.1221635110
2. Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(20):8172–8176.
3. DiGiulio DC, Wilkin RT, Miller C, Oberley G (2011) Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming (US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, OK), p 74820.
4. Warner NR, et al. (2012) Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(30):11961–11966.
5. Chapman EC, et al. (2012) Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46(6):3545–3553.
6. Boyer EW, et al. (2012) The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies (The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA)
7. Kresse TM, et al. (2012) Shallow Groundwater Quality and Geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale Gas-Production Area, North-Central Arkansas, 2011 (USGS), US Geological Survey Scientific Report 2012–5273 (Lafayette Publishing Service Center, Lafayette, LA).

New York Fracking Report Leaked to the New York Times

Extent of Marcellus Shale within the Devonian Shale of the Northeast- USGS

Last Thursday the New York Times reported that an analysis on fracking prepared in early 2012 was leaked to their paper. This analysis was prepared last year after the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2011 draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling comment period was closed and might have been prepared in response to the comments received. The 8 pages obtained by the New York Times were characterized by the paper as containing an analysis that showed that hydraulic Fracturing, or fracking, could be safely done in New York by implementing the proper mitigation measures. The report, obtained by the New York Times from and “expert who did not believe it should be kept secret,” was characterized by State Department of Environmental Conservation, DEC, as an out of date summary that was nearly a year old and will undergo significant changes. The revised version of the Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been completed or released and the DEC’s health assessment is being reviewed by three outside experts. I think someone may have violated the terms of their consulting contract.

The report (or summary) the New York Times had seems to be in agreement with the recommendations made in the report of the Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board in 2011. That report had a rational approach to regulation recommending disclosure, testing, evaluation and modification of regulation and practices based on the information and data obtained. It assumes information and data will be gathered and analyzed and seems to be the accepted view, but fracking is a highly complex issue whose greatest risks are to our water resources. There needs to be much more data collected over time and analyzed. That has not being done in the past and until extensive data is collected and studied we will not truly know. The data needs to be collected on a state by state basis and provided to the US Geological Survey (USGS) and US EPA to consolidate on a national level. It is essential that the USGS be involved because of the unique expertise and research in geology and water resources.

In 2011, the EPA began a series of research projects into the impacts and potential impacts of fracking on water that are scheduled for completion in late 2014. These projects will be the basis of their actions and future regulations for oil and gas operations. Whether the EPA will regulate oil and gas exploration nationally or leave the oversight in the hands of the states is an open question. There is an argument that water resources and geology are very local phenomena and cannot be generalized over the nation and that hydraulic fracturing should remain under local oversight. According to the New York Times the leaked report rejects performing a quantitative risk assessment because such an assessment would ‘involve making a large number of assumptions about the many scenario-specific variables that influence the nature and degree of potential human exposure and toxicity.”

The EPA research projects may help with that though all the answers will not be known in 2014.  The current fracking projects at the EPA are a series of studies. Existing Data from multiple sources have been obtained for review and analysis. Well construction and hydraulic fracturing records provided by well drillers are being reviewed for 333 oil and gas wells across the United States; data within these records are being examined to assess the effectiveness of current well construction practices at containing gases and liquids before, during, and after hydraulic fracturing.

Computer models are being developed (or expanded) to identify conditions that may lead to impacts on drinking water resources from hydraulic fracturing. The EPA has created hypothetical scenarios for water acquisition, well injection, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal stages of the water cycle that they hope to have the models evaluate. Computer models are also being used to explore the possibility of subsurface gas and fluid migration from deep shale formations to overlying aquifers in different scenarios. The effectiveness of the models would be dependent on how closely the model predicts transport behavior in rock and shale and the similarity in behavior of different formations.

Laboratory studies are being performed to identifying potential impacts of inadequately treating hydraulic fracturing wastewater and discharging it to rivers. Experiments are being designed to test how well common wastewater treatment processes remove selected contaminants from hydraulic fracturing wastewater, including brines, heavy metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants. Since wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove more than biological waste and bacteria, any removal of fracking chemicals and contaminants would be incidental.

The EPA has identified chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005 to 2011 and chemicals found in flowback and produced water. The EPA is performing toxicity assessments based on chemical, physical, and toxicological properties for chemicals with known chemical structures and using exiting toxicology models to estimate properties in cases where information is not available. The important thing that EPA is doing is bringing together all the data and previous work to get as complete picture of what we know about how hydraulic fracturing may be impacting our water resources and that would allow a broad quantitative health risk assessment to be performed along the identified routes of exposure.  

New York placed a moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus Shale in 2010 while it assessed the effects of fracking. New York DEC’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on drilling was released in the fall of 2011 and recommended that drilling be permitted, but with conditions. The comment period was extended and the DEC began a revision to the EIS that has been going on for over a year. The leaked report indicates that the DEC is recommending lifting the ban on hydro fracking in New York, but that is not certain and fracking remains controversial for good reason.

A large swath of southwestern New York sits atop the Marcellus Shale, which is the third-largest natural gas field currently known in the world. The Marcellus Shale alone is estimated to be 500-trillion-cubic-feet of gas reserve. This resource could heat our homes for a generation or more, and power our electrical generating plants, even fuel cars either directly or through plug in hybrids. The possible impacts to our economy and environment are far reaching. The potential risks are also far reaching.

Our ability to recover natural gas buried a mile or more beneath the earth has increased. Advances in horizontal drilling which allows a vertically drilled well to turn and run thousands of feet laterally through the earth combined with advances in hydraulic fracking, the pumping of millions of gallons of chemicals and water into shale at high pressure have increased our ability to recover natural gas from shale. Hydraulic fracking while old has made tremendous advances in the past 15 years have made it possible to economically access this gas. Our knowledge of the impacts from fracking has lagged behind our ability to access the gas.

 

In hydraulic fracking on average 2-5 million gallons of chemicals and water is pumped into the shale formation at 9,000 pounds per square inch and literally cracks the shale or breaks open existing cracks and allows the trapped natural gas to flow. Each stage of the fracking water cycle is a potential area for impact to drinking water supplies especially from human error and irresponsibly and improperly handling chemicals and contaminated water and poorly managing and protecting our water resources. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Billions of gallons of water will be used in each region for fracking. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process (flowback or water produced in the well) needs to be properly treated before it is returned to the waters of the earth. The reality is all water on earth has been here for 4.5 billion years and no new water is being created. The fate of the water that flows back after fracturing has to be addressed, but not all fracturing fluids injected into the geologic formation are recovered. The EPA estimates that the fluids recovered range from 15-80% of the volume injected depending on the site. The long term fate of any residual fluid has not been studied.

 There have been documented cases of seepage into drinking water wells through improperly sealed or abandoned drilling wells.  An ongoing monitoring and data collection program needs to be part of the permitting process. Potential impacts to our water supply from hydraulic fracking needs to be studied over time and regulations modified to better protect our water supplies and natural resources as fracking expands in the region. Our water resources are sacred and irreplaceable. The gas will be there when we know how to access it safely.  The least risky course might be to delay lifting the moratorium until the US EPA finishes its research in late 2014 and then slowly allow a limited number of wells that will include monitoring over decades of the groundwater resources in the area with all the data given to the USGS for analysis.  Any area in consideration for fracking should have several years of quarterly groundwater testing and analysis before fracking begins to establish a base line for groundwater study. Now would be a good time to start developing groundwater monitoring programs.