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.

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.

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.

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.    

What’s EPA Doing about Fracking?

EPA will be holding a webinar on their fracking studies that includes research approach, status, and next steps if you are interested. The webinar will be presented on two different days, Thursday, January 3rd and Friday, January 4th 2013. Jeanne Briskin, Hydraulic Fracturing Research Coordinator, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development will be the instructor and the webinars are: on January 3, 2013, 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM, EST and January 4, 2013, 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM, EST. Just click through on the links and sign up.

The United States has vast reserves of natural gas within shale and rock formations. During the past decade, extracting that gas has become commercially viable as a result of the advances made in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques. With the rapid increase in fracking has come the increase in concerns about its potential impacts on drinking water. In response to public concern ignited by the film Gasland and protests by anti-fracking groups, the US House of Representatives requested that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) examine the relationship between fracking and drinking water resources in 2009. In 2011, the EPA began a series of research projects into the impacts and potential impacts of fracking on water. Also, in April 2012 EPA released the first federal air rules for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured, specificallyvrequiring operators of new fractured natural gas wells to use “green completion,” which is a series of technologies and practices to capture natural gas and other volatile substance that might otherwise escape the well during the completion period when most volatile release takes place.

Hydraulic fracturing has its own water cycle and 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. Natural gas will flow from pores and fractures in the rock into the wells allowing for enhanced access to the methane reserve. Two to five million gallons of water are typically necessary to frack one horizontal well in a shale formation. Water used for fracturing fluids is acquired from surface water or groundwater in the local area. Wastewaters from the hydraulic fracturing process (flowback or water produced in the well) may be disposed in several ways. The water that flows back after fracturing may be returned underground using injection well, discharged to surface waters after treatment to remove contaminants, or applied to land surfaces. Not all fracturing fluids injected into the geologic formation during hydraulic fracturing 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.  

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.  The steps in the fracking water cycle are:

Water acquisition. Chemical mixing. Pressurized Well injection. Flowback and produced water (collectively referred to as “hydraulic fracturing wastewater”) recovery. Wastewater treatment and disposal. Geology, hydrology and human behavior will produce vastly different outcomes for different regions of the county and different gas companies.

from US EPA

EPA is engaged in a number of research projects that 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. The 2005 energy law exempts fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act based on the 2004 EPA study “Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs.” In that report EPA reviewed 11 major coal basins mined for coalbed methane and saw no conclusive evidence that water quality degradation on underground drinking water supplies had occurred as a direct result of the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids, but fracking of coalbeds generally involves a fraction of the water used in hydraulic fracking of shale gas.

The current fracking projects 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. In addition information on the chemicals and practices used in hydraulic fracturing has been collected from nine companies that hydraulically fractured a total of 24,925 wells between September 2009 and October 2010. Data on causes and volumes of spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater are being collected and reviewed from state spill databases.

Computer models are being developed 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 six 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 radium and other metals. 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. I do not expect that wastewater treatment plants would be able to treat flowback water for the contaminants associated with geological formations and fracking chemicals.

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. Existing toxicology models are being used 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.

Dimock, Gasland and the EPA – Fracking and Water

Last Wednesday, July 25th 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has completed its sampling of private drinking water wells in Dimock, Pa. Based on the outcome of that sampling, EPA has determined that the levels of contaminants present do not require additional action by the Agency, the water with the existing private well treatment systems is safe to drink. Regional Administrator, Shawn M. Garvin, said “The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action.  Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.” The EPA’s news release is intended to end the story of Dimock, but bureaucratic speak is never really clear. So, let’s see if we can bring clarity and accuracy to the end of the story of Dimock, PA.  

The Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA, which is how the EPA looks at water quality, defines a contaminant as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water” (U.S. Code, 2002; 40 CFR 141.2). This is a very broad definition of contaminant includes every substance (including minerals) that may be found dissolved or suspended in water, everything but the water molecule itself. However, the SDWA only has MCLs and secondary standards for 91 contaminants. Groundwater aquifers are potentially vulnerable to a wide range of man-made and naturally occurring contaminants, including many that are not regulated in drinking water under the SDWA. The presence of a contaminant in water does not necessarily mean that there is a human-health concern. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration as well as other factors including the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure. EPA did a final round of testing of the private wells in the Dimock area to make sure that the water from the drinking water wells was safe to consume and all identified contaminants were within the acceptable level as determined by a risk analysis. Most private well owners rarely test their well water quality and very few ever consider testing for the entire suit of contaminants regulated under the SDWA let alone the list of potential contaminants that EPA tested for here.

Dimock, Pennsylvania is located in Susquehanna County near the New York border, overlies the Marcellus Shale and was an early area that had been developed with hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Dimock had been made famous for its appearance in the Josh Fox movie Gasland.   In Dimock, Mr. Fox met families who demonstrated on camera how they were able to light their running tap water on fire due to the methane gas present in their wells. That was a rather spectacular display. Residents also claimed to be suffering from numerous health issues related to contamination of their well water. Methane is a simple asphyxiant that displaces oxygen from air. Methane released from water into an enclosed environment could cause serious symptoms. Exposure to low oxygen environments produces symptoms of central nervous depression, including nausea, headache, dizziness, confusion, fatigue and weakness. Even if there was no other contaminant of concern present in the water, the symptoms of central nervous depression could be very frightening.

Cabot began natural gas fracking in the Dimock area in 2008. On January 1, 2009, an explosion was reported in an outside, below-grade water well pit at a home located in Dimock. In Pennsylvania private drinking water wells are not regulated and are often the shallow, dug wells that are housed in a pit. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) collected samples from wells that provide drinking water to 13 homes located near the Cabot fracked gas wells, and these samples contained elevated levels of dissolved methane gas. (During the year the number of impacted homes would expand to 18 from 13.) The presence of dissolved methane and/or combustible gas was noted in the private wells within six months of completion of drilling of the Cabot  gas Wells and Cabot was presumed to be responsible for the pollution, pursuant to Section 208(c) of the PA Oil and Gas Act, 58 P.S. §601.208(c). None of the homes dependent on their private drinking water well had done any extensive testing of their water quality before Cabot began fracking in the area and all contaminants found (except for fecal coliform) are sometimes naturally present in groundwater. The two important questions raised were is the water safe to drink and did Cabot cause any change in the water quality by fracking in Dimock. PADEP presumed Cabot responsible and cited them for improper or insufficient cementing of the well casings. In addition there had been several other violations for improper storage of drilling mud, diesel spills, failure to maintain records and driller’s logs.

In November 2009 the PADEP entered into a consent agreement with Cabot for methane and metals removal systems for eighteen private wells in the Dimock area. The agreement was later revised several times. The revised agreement required Cabot to pay the impacted fam­i­lies set­tle­ments worth twice their prop­erty assessed val­ues, deposit the money into an escrow account and notify the residents that the money was available and to install a water treatment system (a filter or ion exchange system) in each impacted home. The agreement calls for each well owner to enter into the agreement with Cabot who was to install water treatment systems in their homes. Until the treatment systems were installed, Cabot was to provide delivered bottled water. There were no plans for confirmation testing to demonstrate the effectiveness of the filtration systems.  There were eighteen private wells that were part of the PADEP /Cabot agreement. By 2011 only six well owners had signed agreements and had water treatment systems installed in their homes. However, most of these were buying bottled water because they did not feel confident that the treatment systems were effective. Water treatment systems are often simple and unimpressive in appearance and verification sampling should have been performed.  Twelve of the private well owners had not signed the agreement Cabot and instead eleven (I could not trace the 12^th ) had filed a civil suit against the company. These owners were being provided delivered water by Cabot. On November 30, 2011, with the approval of the PADEP, Cabot ceased delivering water to these homes. PADEP agreed to stopping the water deliveries because there had been sufficient time for residents to sign the agreement and that a remedy for private well owners had been provided. Clearly, many of the homeowners were not satisfied with the remedy offered.

Very public protests took place aided by environmental groups and anti-fracking grass roots groups and  resulted in the EPA stepping in and reviewing all the data for the 18 wells. In their summery EPA notes that based on the maximum contaminant sampling results for the 18 wells sampled, levels of coliform bacteria, methane, ethylene glycol, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 2-methoxyethanoI aluminum were present.  Coliform bacteria were found in half the wells and typically indicate a pathway exists for disease causing bacteria to contaminant the water supply, though it . E. coli bacteria and fecal bacteria are a subset of coliform bacteria that only occur in animal and human waste and are a threat to human health. The level of coliform bacteria found in two of the wells was too high to measure. After reviewing all the sample data, information and residents’ concerns by the EPA and ATSDR (a part of the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services) the regulators identified a significant group of private wells in the nearby area that had not been tested and were not part of the existing PADEP /Cabot agreement. In addition, the level of concern and frustration of the residents who were party to the PADEP /Cabot agreement prompted EPA to temporarily supply water to four homes and perform follow up environmental monitoring and water sampling and have ATSDR perform a full public health evaluation on the data from the site area. Because many of these compounds affect the same organ systems, ATSDR used suitable methods to evaluate the potential for synergistic actions and the cumulative concentration of all substances, and dissolved combustible gases was considered to protect against the buildup of explosive gases in all wells in the area.

Between January and March of 2012 EPA collected 61 separate groundwater samples, 6 duplicates for quality control testing and performed188 analyses for each sample, in some instances the samples were filtered and retested. These samples covered the water supply to 64 homes, and two rounds of sampling at four wells where EPA was delivering temporary water supplies because prior sampling data found elevated levels of contaminants in those wells. EPA found an elevated level of manganese in untreated well water at one of the wells. Two homes that obtain their water from that well have water treatment systems that can reduce manganese to levels that according to the EPA do not present a health concern.

Many of the perceived problems with well water are caused by the presence of iron and manganese. Iron and manganese can give water an unpleasant taste, odor and color. Manganese causes brownish-black stains on household items washed with the water. In addition, water contaminated with iron and manganese often contains iron or manganese bacteria which feed on the minerals. These bacteria do not cause health problems, but can form a reddish brown or brownish black slime in toilet tanks and clog filters. Iron and manganese often occur together and are naturally occurring elements commonly found in groundwater in many parts of the country. At  levels naturally present in groundwater iron and manganese do not usually present a health hazard. However, their presence in well water can cause unpleasant taste, staining and accumulation of mineral solids that can clog water treatment equipment and plumbing. In addition, a persistent coliform (non-fecal) bacteria problem may be caused by iron bacteria. Under guidelines for public water supplies set by EPA, iron and manganese are considered secondary contaminants. The standard Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for iron is 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L or ppm) and 0.05 mg/L for manganese. This level of iron and manganese are easily detected by taste, smell or appearance and thumbing through the results of the EPA sampling I saw manganese levels high enough to see and taste in drinking water.

In addition, to the elevated manganese, there were elevated levels of sodium not beyond what can occur naturally, elevated levels of arsenic not beyond what can naturally occur, but in at least one case significantly elevated over the other samples and above the SDWA MCL. Methane was present in several samples and can also be naturally occurring. Fecal coiform bacteria indicative of contamination from a septic system was present in one sample (that water is NOT safe) and coliform bacteria was present in several samples. Only one of their sodium levels was higher than mine which is naturally occurring, safe to drink and tastes good.   

ATSDR performed the risk analysis on the results. Overall during the sampling in Dimock, EPA found elevated arsenic, barium or manganese, all of which are also naturally occurring substances, in well water at five homes at levels that could present a health concern according to ATSDR. In all cases the private wells either now have or will have their own treatment systems that can reduce concentrations of those metals to acceptable levels at the tap.  EPA provided all the residents their sampling results and has no further plans to conduct additional drinking water sampling in Dimock or continue to provide drinking water. The water supply to these homes with their treatment systems is deemed to be safe by the EPA.

The bottom line is we really do not know definitively what impact if any Cabot caused to the groundwater. Cabot agreed that they failed to properly grout the gas wells and certainly they did not properly store and contain the fracking fluid. Publicized photos show jugs of dirty looking water reportedly from wells in the area and could be manganese and iron, fecal contamination, or dirt that entered the groundwater through surface infiltration of loosening of fines within the aquifer. EPA sampling is silent on water appearance. PADEP concluded that surface spills and shoddy construction practices by Cabot allowed natural gas from a shallow deposit above the Marcellus to drift into the drinking-water wells of residents. The non-quantified traces of chemicals that are sometimes used in fracking, and antifreeze and are common in fuel that had been reported in previous sampling were not found the EPA water samples. EPA found only naturally occurring heavy metals at levels of any concern.

For the past decade and a half, the US Geological Survey, USGS, has been studying groundwater quality in the United States. The presence of a contaminant in water does not necessarily mean that there is a human-health concern. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration in drinking water. Other factors include the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure that is why the ATSDR performed their risk analysis.  In their survey testing of groundwater in the United States the USGS has found most man-made contaminants at both trace and concentrations exceeding human health screening levels or MCLs in groundwater samples from unconfined aquifers. These man-made contaminants originate at the surface and the unconsolidated aquifers provided little natural protection from surface infiltration. 

The shallow drinking water wells in Dimock make them particularly susceptible to contamination. The residents of Dimock did not regularly test their water quality historically. The bacterial concentrations found in early rounds of testing were troubling, though unlikely to have been caused by the fracking, but were indicative of susceptible and potentially poorly maintained or constructed wells. The fecal bacteria found in one well was a health hazard very unlikely to have been caused by fracking, but likely to be caused by a failing septic system. Prior studies of private well water in Pennsylvania have found that approximately one third of private wells test positive for total coliform bacteria (Swistock et al 2009). The highest incidence of coliform bacteria tends to occur with snow melts and rains that carry the bacteria from the surface, but can also occur with iron and manganese. Regularly testing your drinking water and maintaining any water treatment system in your home is an essential part of private well ownership. 

Hydraulic Fracking Poses Almost No Risk for Causing Earthquakes

The latest word from the NationalResearch Council is hydraulic fracking whether in shale deposits or as a secondary stimulation for a traditional gas or oil well has very low risk for inducing earthquakes that can be felt by people, but underground injection of wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing and geothermal wells have a somewhat higher risk of causing earthquakes.  Although the vast majority of earthquakes that occur in the world each year have natural causes, earthquakes can be created by mankind.  Induced earthquakes have been documented since at least the 1920s when the first man-made large reservoirs were created behind dams. Other activities that can create (and have created) earthquakes are; controlled explosions used in mining or construction, underground nuclear tests, and energy technologies that involve injection or withdrawal of fluids from the subsurface can also create earthquakes. Man-made earthquakes are caused by changes in pore pressure within the rock due to the impounding of billions of gallons of water or injecting or extracting fluid from a well that may change the stress acting on a nearby fault. This change in stress may result in slip or movement along that fault creating a seismic event.

Historically man-made earthquakes have not been very large nor have they resulted in significant structural damage, but our ability to cause seismic events has increased over time as our technology to drill, pump and explode has advanced. To quantify the hazard and risk from man-made earthquakes requires probability assessments, which may either be statistical (based on data) or analytical (based on scientific and engineering models). Although the general mechanisms that create induced seismic events are well understood, current computer modeling techniques cannot fully address the complexities of natural rock systems in large part because the models generally lack information on local crustal stress, rock properties, fault locations and properties, and the shape and size of the reservoir into which fluids are injected or withdrawn. Geology cannot be simplified or generalized to model earthquake probability which is very specific.

So the National Research Council Board of Life and Earth Studies report titled: Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies is a data based analysis of earthquakes induced by mankind. This study compiling and analyzing all the data available was requested by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Senate to assess the potential to cause earthquakes by energy production and related activities after small seismic events reported in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, appeared to be related to hydraulic fracturing, energy development and (true) geothermal energy production. The National Research Council is a nonprofit based in Washington that provides scientific information for government decision-makers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. Its reports are based on data and analysis gathering and scientific analysis of the information gathered.

The report examines the potential for energy technologies -- including shale gas recovery using fracking, carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy production, and conventional oil and gas development -- to cause earthquakes. Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, extracts natural gas by injecting huge volume of water mixed with sand, and chemicals in short bursts at very high pressure into deep underground wells. The process cracks the shale rock formation and allows natural gas to escape and flow up the well, along with some wastewater. The wastewater can be discarded in several ways, including injection of the wastewater at a separate disposal well. True geothermal energy harnesses natural heat from within the Earth by capturing steam or hot water from underground. The basic mechanisms that can induce earthquakes from these wells are fluid injection and extraction that are presently well understood. The report examined the data from over 35,000 fractured wells, 108,000 secondary oil and gas recovery wells, 13,000 tertiary oil and gas recovery wells, 6,000 hydrocarbon withdrawal wells, 30,000 waste water disposal wells, 23 liquid dominated geothermal well fields and 1 vapor dominated geothermal field.

Analysis of the data collected at all these sites showed that the net fluid balance (total balance of fluid injected and withdrawn) appears to have the most direct impact on changing pore pressure within the ground. Oil, gas and geothermal wells are typically designed to maintain a balance between the amount of fluid being injected and the amount of fluid being withdrawn to prevent not only earthquakes, but to maximize the well life.  Geothermal wells appeared most likely to induce earthquakes especially the wells in the vapor dominated Geysers site which had 300-400 earthquakes per year (it is in California). In fluid geothermal wells maintaining a constant fluid balance results in a fairly constant reservoir pressure, reducing the number of induced earthquakes significantly. The 23 fluid dominated geothermal well locations experienced 10-40 earthquakes per year.

Only a very small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of oil and gas wells in the United States have induced earthquakes at levels that are noticeable to the public. An increase of  rock pore pressure above ambient levels due to injection of fluids or a decrease in pore pressure below ambient levels due to extraction of oil and gas have the potential to produce earthquakes. However, analysis of the data showed that to create an earthquake, a combination of conditions has to exist simultaneously:

    A. Significant change in net pore pressure in a reservoir,

    B. A pre-existing near-critical state of stress along a fracture or fault, and

    C. Fault rock susceptible to brittle failure.

Oil and gas wells are designed to maintain a balance between the amount of fluid being injected and the amount of fluid being withdrawn to extend the life of the well. This fluid balance helps to maintain fairly constant reservoir pressure and reduces the potential for induced earthquakes. In a conventional oil or gas reservoir the hydrocarbon fluids and associated aqueous fluids in the pore spaces of the rock are usually under significant natural pressure. Fluids in the oil or gas reservoir flow to the surface when penetrated by a well bore aided by pumping once the well is fully developed. The well or wells will produce until reservoirs reach a point when insufficient pressure, even with pumping, exists to allow the wells to continue to produce at commercial volume. To extend the life of a spent well various secondary and tertiary recovery technologies referred to as enhanced oil recovery technologies can be used to extract some of the remaining oil and gas. Secondary recovery and enhanced oil recovery technologies both involve injection of fluids into the subsurface to push more of the trapped hydrocarbons out of the pore spaces in the reservoir and to maintain reservoir pore pressure. Secondary recovery often uses water injection or “water flooding” and tertiary technologies often inject carbon dioxide (CO2). Of the 108,000 oil and gas wells that used water flooding only 18 have had one or more earthquakes. Of the 13,000 CO2 injected sites none have experienced earthquakes.

Shale formations can also contain hydrocarbons either gas or oil or both depending on the formation. The extremely low permeability of these rocks has trapped the hydrocarbons as they developed in the rock and largely prevented them from migrating out of the rock over geologic time. These unconventional gas and oil reservoirs are developed by drilling wells horizontally through the rock and using hydraulic fracturing techniques to create new fractures in the reservoir to allow the hydrocarbons to migrate up the well bore. The water used to fracture the well is quickly released from the reservoir and does not impact the fluid balance. About 35,000 hydraulically fractured shale gas wells exist in the United States; only one instance of an induced earthquake has been identified in which fracking to access the shale gas is suspected, but not confirmed, as the cause.

Overall, hydraulic fracturing or fracking and traditional oil and gas well have a very low risk of creating earthquakes. The waste water disposal wells associated with fracking and secondary well development have been associated with 8 known earthquakes, though there are a total of about 30,000 disposal wells in use, but these earthquakes have captured the headlines and public concern. Wells used only for the purpose of waste water disposal normally do not have a detailed geologic review performed prior to injection and the data are often not available to make a detailed review of these sites possible.  The overall risk turns out to be small, but limited knowledge about the geology prevents modeling. Attempts at modeling of pore pressure, temperature, and rock stress changes induced by injection and extraction to predict producing earthquakes have not been successful except where detailed knowledge of stress changes, pore-pressure changes, and fault characteristics are available for input and that data is almost always not available for disposal wells. The permanent addition of fluid to the subsurface without any fluid removal and the heat gradient associated with geothermal appears to have the most direct impact on changing pore pressure in the subsurface over time and the creation of earthquakes.