hydraulic fracturing issues and research needs for the ... · pdf filehydraulic fracturing...

Subject Area: Water Resources and Environmental Sustainability

Hydraulic Fracturing Issues and Research Needs for the Water Community

About the Water Research Foundation

The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.

The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment, distribution, and health effects. Funding for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from close to 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated.

From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s staff directs and supports the efforts of more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.

The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site, Webcasts, conferences, and periodicals.

For its subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool their resources. By applying Foundation research findings, these water suppliers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, the Foundation has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value.

More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web at www.WaterRF.org.



Sponsored by:Water Research Foundation6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098

Published by:

Prepared by:Benjamen A. Wright, Grantley W. Pyke, Thomas J. McEnerneyHazen and Sawyer, P.C., New York, NY 10018

and

Frank J. GetchellLeggette, Brashears, and Graham, Ramsey, NJ 07446


DISCLAIMER

This study was funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation). The Foundation assumes no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for

the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the Foundation.

This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright © 2011by Water Research Foundation

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced

or otherwise utilized without permission.

ISBN 978-1-60573-156-8

Printed in the U.S.A.


v

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................xv CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................1

Process Overview ................................................................................................................ 1 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................. 2 Rates and Densities of Well Development in Shale Formations ........................................ 3 Potential Impacts to Water Resources and Drinking Water Utilities ................................. 5

Land Disturbance, Site Activity, and Truck Traffic ............................................... 5 Water Withdrawals ................................................................................................. 6 Chemical Usage ...................................................................................................... 7 Surface Spills .......................................................................................................... 7 Subsurface Migration .............................................................................................. 8 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ...................................................................... 8

Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2: WORKSHOP PREPARATION AND DISCUSSION ...........................................11

Pre-workshop Activities.................................................................................................... 12 Breakout Group Procedure ............................................................................................... 12

Breakout Sessions ................................................................................................. 12 Plenary Discussion ................................................................................................ 12 Final Discussion and Polling ................................................................................ 13

Workshop Presentations .................................................................................................... 13 Topic 1: Water and Chemical Usage .................................................................... 13 Topic 2: Surface Activities ................................................................................... 14 Topic 3: Subsurface Processes .............................................................................. 15 Topic 4: Wastewater Disposal .............................................................................. 16 Other Presentations ............................................................................................... 16

Breakout Session Discussion Highlights .......................................................................... 18 Water and Chemical Usage ................................................................................... 18 Surface Activities .................................................................................................. 19 Subsurface Processes ............................................................................................ 19 Wastewater Disposal ............................................................................................. 20

CHAPTER 3: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESOURCES FOR WATER UTILITIES ..........21

Ongoing Research Projects ............................................................................................... 21


vi

Reference Materials for Utilities ....................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 4: WORKSHOP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................25

Ranking the Research Ideas .............................................................................................. 25 Descriptions of Proposed Research Projects ..................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................47 APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP MATERIALS ...............................................................................49 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................71 ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................75


vii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Areas of selected major shale gas plays ...........................................................................3 Table 1.2 Individual and cumulative well development estimates for a 1,000 square mile area ....5 Table 4.1 Potential research topics and polling results ..................................................................26


viii


ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 U.S. shale gas plays ........................................................................................................1 Figure 1.2 Annual well completion rates in representative counties of major shale gas plays .......4 Figure 1.3 Well density trends in representative counties of major shale gas plays .......................4 Figure 1.4 Well density in representative counties of major shale gas plays (2010) .......................4


xi

FOREWORD

The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation that is dedicated

to the implementation of a research effort to help drinking water utilities respond to regulatory requirements and address high-priority concerns of the water sector. The research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with Foundation subscribers and other drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella of a Strategic Research Plan, the Board of Trustees and Board-appointed volunteer committees prioritize and select research projects for funding based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work. The Foundation sponsors research projects through the Focus Area, Emerging Opportunities, and Tailored Collaboration programs, as well as various joint research efforts with organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as a means of communicating the results of the water industry's centralized research program but also as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals.

Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation's staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation serves a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver and consultants and manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and fair method for funding research in the public interest.

A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation's research agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably. The true benefits are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation's trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

Roy L. Wolfe, Ph.D. Robert C. Renner, P.E. Chair, Board of Trustees Executive Director Water Research Foundation Water Research Foundation


xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Water Research Foundation

and to WaterRF project manager Kim Linton for supporting this project. The authors also extend sincere and heartfelt thanks to all of the workshop participants

who generously volunteered their time and energy, shared their expertise, and worked hard to develop potential research projects. The authors are especially indebted to the utility representatives and other technical experts who prepared presentations for the technical sessions.

Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the very important contributions of Patrick Field and Kate Harvey (Consensus Building Institute) in final workshop design and workshop facilitation; and Gail Bingham (Civic Dialog Group, LLC) in preliminary workshop design and outreach to workshop participants.


xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project was to identify research topics that could improve

understanding of (a) the potential risks of hydraulic fracturing and associated natural gas development activities to drinking water supplies; and (b) strategies for reducing identified risks.

The research topics identified through this project are an initial step in determining research projects that may be sponsored by the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF). WaterRF is a nonprofit organization that sponsors research into issues of concern for its member agencies in order to help water utilities cost-effectively provide safe drinking water to consumers. WaterRF has been supporting research for over 40 years on a diverse range of topics. As new issues emerge for its members, WaterRF conducts targeted workshops in order to develop information for future Requests for Proposals by its Research Advisory Council.

This report summarizes information collected during the project and discussions conducted during the Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities held on October 27-28, 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. BACKGROUND

Technological advances in horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing have

made it feasible to extract commercially viable quantities of natural gas from shale and other low permeability formations. These advances coupled with rising energy prices have led to a notable increase in natural gas development activity in numerous areas of the U.S. It is expected that development of unconventional natural gas sources will continue to expand in the coming decades.

Increases in natural gas development using high volume hydraulic fracturing have triggered a growing concern over potential negative environmental impacts, particularly with respect to water resources and drinking water supplies. The use of hydraulic fracturing in a drinking water source area or in proximity to water supply infrastructure has raised concern among drinking water utilities about potential negative impacts on their ability to provide sufficient, high quality drinking water. Key areas of concern include:

Water quantity impacts associated with withdrawal of large volumes of surface and/or

ground water; Use of toxic chemicals in the fracturing process and risk of spills and source water

contamination; Increased levels of industrial activity, including heavy truck traffic and land clearing for

roads, drill pads, and pipelines; Potential for risk to critical water supply infrastructure; and Generation of significant quantities of industrial wastewater.

Given the potential for impacts to drinking water resources from widespread

development of natural gas wells throughout large regions of the U.S., WaterRF initiated this


xvi

project to explore information gaps and identify research needs related to hydraulic fracturing and drinking water supplies. APPROACH

The primary focus of this project was organizing and conducting a two-day workshop to

identify potential research topics for WaterRF. The objective of the workshop was to identify research topics that would improve understanding of (a) the potential risks of hydraulic fracturing and associated natural gas development activities to drinking water supplies; and (b) strategies for reducing identified risks.

Workshop participants were drawn from the energy sector, academia, government, and water utilities. A high priority was placed on convening a balanced and knowledgeable group of workshop participants. Invited participants included individuals with expertise in oil and gas exploration and production, well drilling, hydraulic fracturing design, water resources management, oil and gas wastewater treatment, federal and state regulations, geomechanics, hydrogeology, drinking water treatment, and risk assessment. Workshop participants provided input on workshop agenda design and initial discussion topics through a pre-workshop survey. A list of participants is provided in Appendix A.

Workshop discussions were organized around four major topic areas: water and chemical usage, surface activities, subsurface processes, and wastewater disposal. Within each of these areas, workshop activities included:

Summary presentation by a research team member to frame the scope of the discussion

and provide an overview of issues and relevant research identified to date, based on participant survey responses and previous research team experience;

Presentation by a utility representative regarding concerns and potential drinking water supply impacts;

Break-out group discussions to identify knowledge gaps and research needs; and Small group sessions to refine potential research topics and draft research project

descriptions. These discussions were augmented by additional presentations by US EPA and by energy

sector participants. The workshop closed with a full-group session in which participants prioritized research topics. FINDINGS

Natural gas development utilizing hydraulic fracturing has the potential to impact water

utilities in many ways. As such, the final list of research ideas was broad and consisted of projects designed to analyze effective regulations, understand risks, predict chemical characteristics, monitor source waters, evaluate infrastructure impacts, conduct emergency planning, improve communication between utilities and the gas industry, and manage wastewater.

Fourteen potential research projects were identified that WaterRF or other agencies may consider funding to better characterize and/or reduce risks to water utilities from hydraulic fracturing and associated natural gas development activities. The projects included:


xvii

1. Analysis of state oil and gas regulations from a water utility perspective and comparison of state regulatory requirements with incident reports

2. Improved methods for predicting chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water (brine)

3. Direct and relative risks associated with unconventional oil & gas development 4. Water supply monitoring protocols/methods and best management practices 5. Pilot study to analyze the potential for water contamination at gas well sites from

spills/leaks 6. Investigation of physical impacts to utility infrastructure from ground movement due to

hydraulic fracturing 7. Natural gas development emergency response planning for water utilities 8. Perception and communication of hydraulic fracturing risks 9. Improving communications between water utility sector and the gas development

industry 10. Identifying the subsurface risks, risk mitigation measures and appropriate areas of

concern for utilities to consider from natural gas production activities 11. Investigation of the potential cumulative and long-term regional impacts to confining

layers from high intensity drilling for natural gas using hydraulic fracturing 12. Survey and evaluation of procedures for monitoring and testing well (casing and cement)

integrity over time, including plugging and abandonment 13. Development of guidance for utilities on impacts to conventional wastewater treatment

plants, collection systems, biosolids, and receiving waters from natural gas wastewater disposal

14. Comparative evaluation of natural gas wastewater management practices and the potential impacts on the water industry In addition to developing potential research projects, the workshop was also an

opportunity for representatives from the water sector and the energy sector to have a constructive dialogue on issues of importance to water utilities and perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. It was generally understood by most participants that, given the shared interest in water resources, some level of coordination or cooperation between water utilities and the oil and gas industry would be needed for a given research project to be successful. As such, this workshop was beneficial in beginning to build relationships and improve communications between individuals closely involved with the energy and water sectors. Ultimately there is a critical need for both sectors to engage with each other and the public in a constructive manner that promotes a sound scientific understanding of what is needed for safe and cost-effective water and energy production.


1

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND Modern technologies such as horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing

have made it commercially viable to extract natural gas from unconventional or "tight" shale formations such as the Marcellus Shale (New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia), the Fayetteville Shale (Arkansas), the Haynesville Shale (Louisiana and Texas), the Barnett Shale (Texas), and other formations nationwide (Figure 1.1). Development of these domestic natural gas resources is expected to have positive regional economic impacts, bolster U.S. energy independence, and help the nation transition to less carbon-intensive energy sources. However, this technology also has the potential to impact the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water supplies and fundamentally alter the character of source watersheds.

Figure 1.1 U.S. shale gas plays PROCESS OVERVIEW

Extraction of natural gas from unconventional shale formations relies on horizontal

drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The process involves drilling vertically to a depth of several thousand feet, and then extending the borehole horizontally through the target formation to a distance on the order of 1,000 to 5,000 feet (USDOE, 2009). Natural gas extraction requires that the shale then be hydraulically fractured along the lateral portion of the well to increase the permeability of the shale and allow gas to flow into the well at economically viable rates. The fracturing process involves pumping approximately three to five million gallons of water and up to 400 tons of chemicals into the well at high pressures over the course of several days (USDOE, 2009; USDOE, 2010b).


2

Once fracturing operations are complete, some portion of the injected water returns to the surface. The volume of water can vary widely depending on fracture design and local geology. The fluid typically consists of a mixture of fracturing fluids returned to the surface (flowback) and naturally occurring formation water (produced water), which can potentially include high total dissolved solids along with hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and radionuclides (NYSDEC, 2009). Drilling wastewater is not generally amenable to conventional treatment processes and must be disposed of at underground injection wells, industrial treatment facilities, or municipal wastewater plants equipped with appropriate pre-treatment (USDOE, 2009).

The fracturing process generally requires fresh or low salinity water; this is typically drawn from ground or surface water sources and trucked or piped to the drill site. Operators are, however, becoming more successful at re-using high salinity wastewater to hydraulically fracture wells (Papso et al., 2010). Hauling water, wastewater, and equipment to and from the drill site requires on the order of 1,000 or more heavy truck trips per well. The entire process, from initial site development through completion, takes approximately four to ten months for one well. Multiple horizontal wells are typically constructed from a common well pad and are often drilled in sequence, such that sites may experience a relatively constant level of heavy industrial activity for several years. REGULATORY CONTEXT

Many of the activities associated with natural gas development have the potential to

pollute air or water and therefore fall under the nominal jurisdiction of a number of federal environmental regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Toxic Release Inventory reporting requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. However, each of these regulations contains important exemptions that effectively limit the extent of regulatory authority over many activities associated with hydraulic fracturing. In recent years several bills have been introduced to regulate chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and strengthen regulatory oversight over fracturing-related activities, but to date none have become law. In 2010 Congress did direct EPA to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The study is anticipated to be completed in 2012 to 2013.

In addition to federal regulations oil and gas development is regulated at the state level. State regulations are generally designed to protect environmental resources and human health while allowing for the efficient development of oil and gas resources. Each state’s regulations vary but typically include well construction and abandonment standards, well siting and spacing restrictions, permit requirements, waste management criteria, pollution control measures, inspection protocols, and other administrative procedures.

Additional information on state oil and gas environmental regulatory programs can be obtained from State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. (STRONGER). STRONGER (www.strongerinc.org) is a public-private partnership that “assists states in documenting the environmental regulations associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas.” States can voluntarily participate in a review process whereby teams of stakeholders (industry, regulatory, and public interest members) compare oil and gas environmental regulations against standard guidelines and provide recommendations for improvements. In 2009 STRONGER developed regulatory


3

guidelines specific to hydraulic fracturing and has been working since to conduct up-to-date state regulatory reviews. Additional sources of information on regulations can be found in Chapter 3. RATES AND DENSITIES OF WELL DEVELOPMENT IN SHALE FORMATIONS

The potential for hydraulic fracturing to impact drinking water resources is influenced by

the intensity of well development in a region. In order to evaluate the potential for impacts to water resources from hydraulic fracturing, estimates of rates and densities of development were calculated for four major shale gas plays: Barnett (Texas), Fayetteville (Arkansas), Haynesville (Louisiana), and Marcellus (Pennsylvania). These formations are all gas-bearing shales that require hydraulic fracturing for economic production and have been developed using a combination of horizontal and vertical wells. Salient features of these formations and the counties selected for comparison are summarized in Table 1.1.1

Well development rates and densities for the representative counties in the four shale gas formations are summarized in Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3, and Figure 1.4. Figure 1.2 shows the annual rate of development in the shale gas plays. Figure 1.3 depicts the density trends observed over the past decade, and Figure 1.4 presents county-level well densities as of 2010. Development of the Barnett formation is the most mature to date and data indicate that annual rates of development can be sustained at 200 to 300 wells per 1,000 square miles, with peak annual rates as high as 700 wells per 1,000 square miles. The average density of development can reach 3,000 wells per 1,000 square miles with localized densities being much higher.

Table 1.1

Areas of selected major shale gas plays

1 Marcellus data from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection as of 12/8/10 (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/RIG10.htm, accessed 2/1/11). Haynesville data from Louisiana Department of Natural Resources SONRIS Well Data as of 2/1/11 (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/haynesvilleshale/haynesville_20110127.xls, accessed 2/3/11). Fayetteville data from Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission B-43 Field Well Completions as of 1/15/11 (http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/Fayprodinfo.htm, accessed 2/3/11). Barnett data from Texas Railroad Commission as of 11/29/10 (http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/barnettshalewellcount1993-2009.pdf, and http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/fielddata/barnettshale.pdf, accessed 2/1/11). Note that historical well data by county is not readily available for Texas, so annual development rates are calculated for the entire Newark, East Field.

Formation (State) Approximate # Years under Development

Total Formation Area (mi2)

Representative Counties Area (mi2)

% of Formation Area in Selected

Counties

Barnett (TX) (Newark East field)

14 5,000 Denton, Johnson, Tarrant, Wise

3,512 70%

Fayetteville (AR) (B-43 field)

7 9,000 Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Van Buren, White

3,589 40%

Haynesville (LA) 4 9,000 Bossier, Caddo, De Soto, Red River

3,100 34%

Marcellus (PA) 3 95,000 Bradford, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga

4,374 5%


4

Figure 1.2 Annual well completion rates in representative counties of major shale gas plays

Figure 1.3 Well density trends in representative counties of major shale gas plays

Figure 1.4 Well density in representative counties of major shale gas plays (2010)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1993‐2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Well completions/year/1,000 sq mi

Barnett(Newark, East Field)Fayetteville(Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Van Buren, White counties)Haynesville(Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Red River counties)Marcellus(Bradford, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga counties)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1993‐2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Well completions/1,000 sq mi Barnett

(Newark, East Field)Fayetteville(Cleburne, Conway, Faulkner, Van Buren, White counties)Haynesville(Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto, Red River counties)Marcellus(Bradford, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga counties)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Lycoming

Susquehanna

Tioga

Bradford

Bossier

Caddo

Red River

De Soto

Faulkner

Cleburne

White

Conway

Van

Buren

Wise

Denton

Tarrant

Johnson

Marcellus (PA)(~3 yrs under development)

Haynesville (LA)(~4 yrs under development)

Fayetteville (AR)(~7 yrs under development)

Barnett (TX)(~14 yrs under development)

Wells per 1,000 sq mi


5

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES AND DRINKING WATER UTILITIES

Table 1.2 provides estimates for several typical activities that occur during well drilling

and fracturing operations. Estimates for each of these activities are presented for an individual well based on available summary data. Individual well estimates have been used to develop order of magnitude estimates of cumulative quantities at an assumed annual rate of development, and for full build-out of a 1,000 square mile area at a density of 3 wells per square mile.

Table 1.2

Individual and cumulative well development estimates for a 1,000 square mile area

Parameter (units) Estimate (source)

Quantity Range for One Well

Annual Well Development (Quantity/year) Full Build-out

(3,000 wells) 2 Low (20) High (500)

Site Disturbance (acres) (NYSDEC, 2009;USDOI, 2008)

7 ac/pad; 5 wells per pad

28 700 4,200

Water Consumption (MG) (USDOE, 2010b)

3 to 5 60 2,500 9,000

Chemical Usage (tons) 0.5 to 2% of fracture fluid (USDOE, 2009)

60 to 400 1,200 200,000 180,000

Flowback and Produced Water (MG) 10 to ~70% of fracture fluid (NYSDEC, 2009; NETL, 2009; USDOE, 2009)

0.4 to 2.8 8 1,400 1,200

Truck trips (NYSDEC, 2009)

900 to 1300 18,000 650,000 2.7 million

Land Disturbance, Site Activity, and Truck Traffic

Site development for a natural gas well begins with clearing and grading land for the well

pad, water and wastewater storage area, access road, and utility corridor. The total site disturbance including pad and related features such as roads and pipelines is estimated at seven acres per well pad (USDOI, 2008). Impacts associated with site development activities include habitat loss and fragmentation, increases in gravel or other low permeability compacted material, and increases in stormwater runoff and erosion potential due to reduced infiltration rates, increased flow velocities, and lack of vegetative cover.

Though well sites and associated disturbance are generally described as temporary impacts, it is important to note that sites will remain active for much longer than the nominal four to eight weeks required to drill and fracture one well. When the time required for initial pad construction, mobilization and demobilization of drill rigs and other equipment, water delivery, flowback time, and waste disposal is considered, the total duration of pre-production activities during which a drill site can be considered active is on the order of four to ten months for one well, depending on site-specific circumstances (NYSDEC, 2009). During this time, activities may be staged so that multiple wells are under various stages of concurrent development at any 2 It is uncertain as to how many wells could ultimately be expected at full build-out, because the shale plays are still under development. Final well density will largely depend on available technology, regulations, economics, and the quality of the natural gas resources.


6

given time. Multi-well pads may undergo a constant level of activity for a number of years until all the wells have been drilled. Afterwards, some level of activity can be expected to recur periodically over the life of the well for maintenance.

Development of natural gas resources is typically accompanied by a significant increase in the level of heavy truck traffic. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) estimates the number of truck trips per well at roughly 900 to 1,300, approximately two-thirds of which are for water and wastewater hauling. The increased number of travel cycles in the area can be expected to increase the risk of accidents. The use of pipelines for water and wastewater transmission in some areas has successfully reduced the number of truck trips per well.

In addition to development of individual drill pads and trucking activity, gas well development is accompanied by equipment and material supply systems (warehouses, garages, and support services), gas gathering and pipeline systems, compressor stations, waste disposal systems, and other infrastructure, all of which increases the footprint of surface activities.

Surface activities that occur during natural gas development using hydraulic fracturing are not unique and overlap with other methods for oil and gas development, as well as forestry, agriculture, and general construction. Best management practices (BMPs) for these activities have been studied extensively, and numerous guidance documents are available (e.g. Bureau of Land Management Gold Book, state BMP guides, industry standards, etc.) for designing and implementing BMPs. Current research that includes surface activity impacts typically focuses on decision-support systems or other procedures for limiting overall environmental impact from oil and gas development. Water Withdrawals

The volume of water required to fracture a horizontal well depends on a variety of

factors, including characteristics of the target formation, the length of the lateral, and the fracture design. On the order of three to five million gallons of water may be required to fracture a horizontal shale gas well. Excessive surface water withdrawals could reduce streamflow at water supply intakes, reduce inflow to public supply reservoirs, decrease the probability of refilling reservoirs prior to drawdown, or require increased releases to maintain environmental flows downstream of reservoirs. Excessive groundwater withdrawals could lower the water table and impact water supply wells as well as resulting in reduced baseflow to streams or wetlands. The severity of such impacts will depend heavily on the total amount of withdrawals from a watershed, as well as the timing. Withdrawals during periods when reservoirs are full and spilling would likely have little or no impact. In contrast, withdrawals during dry periods could increase the length of time spent under drought restrictions for the utility. Proper monitoring and control of withdrawals could limit potential impacts. The specific water rights structures, withdrawal regulations, and level of use/appropriation within a basin will influence potential for risks from additional withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing.

Two current research projects that may address some of these issues are currently underway. The U.S. Department of Energy has funded project number DE-FE0000797 Lifecycle Planning and Management for Addressing Shale Gas Development Water Issues in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which includes the development of a regional water management modeling system. The U.S. EPA is currently planning its study on hydraulic


7

fracturing and drinking water resources that will analyze the full life cycle of water and chemical usage in the hydraulic fracturing process. Chemical Usage

Fracturing fluid mixtures are commonly reported to consist of 98 to 99.5 percent water

and sand, with the remaining 0.5 to 2.0 percent consisting of an array of chemical additives used to control fluid properties during the various stages of the fracturing process (Arthur et al., 2008; USDOE, 2009). Though the proportion of chemicals in fracturing fluid is low relative to the large amount of water required, meaningful assessment of potential water quality impacts requires that chemical additives be expressed on a mass basis. For a four million gallon frac mix comprised of one to two percent chemicals, the mass of chemical additives would be approximately 167 to 334 tons. Chemicals in drilling and fracturing fluid may be introduced into the environment via numerous mechanisms, as described for surface spills and subsurface migration below.

Chemical usage is a significant concern for water utilities because many drilling and fracturing fluid additives contain chemicals that are known to be toxic to the environment and hazardous to human health (NYCDEP, 2009). This concern is heightened by the fact that the exact chemical composition of frac mixtures is typically protected by trade secret laws, thereby limiting disclosure requirements. Consequently data is limited on the identity and amounts of specific chemicals that could be used during drilling and fracturing operations.3

The use of fracturing fluid additives containing known or suspected carcinogens, endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), or other contaminants that may cause human health impacts from long-term or chronic exposure at very low doses is of particular concern for water suppliers. Potential health risks may result from introducing hundreds of tons of fracturing chemicals into a watershed on a regular basis over a period of several decades that increases the possibility of gradual penetration of low levels of contaminants into the environment.

The oil and gas industry is continuing to develop new chemicals to improve the hydraulic fracturing process, and there is increasing pressure to develop less toxic alternatives. The upcoming U.S. EPA hydraulic fracturing study is anticipated to include an assessment of chemical lifecycles and may provide additional insight into potential risks and available alternatives. Surface Spills

Accidental spills, leaks, and releases associated with natural gas well drilling and

fracturing activities have resulted in hundreds of documented groundwater and surface water contamination incidents across the country (NYCDEP, 2009). Surface spills can be a relatively common occurrence at well sites because the drilling and fracturing process involves transferring large volumes of fluids between trucks, tanks, wells, pits, etc., often at high flow rates and pressures. Spills can be reduced through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for pollution prevention, waste minimization, chemical handling and storage, etc. Even with appropriate BMPs and regulations, however, mechanical failures, human errors, and accidents

3 In order to provide more information to the public, the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council initiated a voluntary chemical disclosure registry in late 2010 for companies to list information on chemicals used to fracture specific wells (www.hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org).


8

are inevitable. Impacts can be minor when personnel respond quickly and limit the impacts of an incident, but significant contamination can occur when spills go undetected, plans are not followed, equipment is not maintained, and/or BMPs are not implemented (NYCDEP, 2009).

Whereas most spills may be minor and can be successfully remediated, there are a number of scenarios, such as direct discharge to surface waters, where acute spills can result in significant impacts. Any spill that has the potential to impact drinking water supplies requires a vigorous response by the utility in order to protect public health and comply with regulations. Even if most spills are mitigated with minimal impact, the regular occurrence of spills over a period of several decades could compromise public confidence in the quality of a public water supply. This is particularly true in light of the fact that most water treatment plants are not equipped to remove contaminants that may be present in fracking fluid. Subsurface Migration

Chemicals introduced into the ground during the hydraulic fracturing process are not

fully recovered. Estimates vary widely from well to well with some experiencing up to 90 percent of the fracturing fluid injected remaining in the subsurface (NYSDEC, 2009). In addition to injected fluids, shale formations may contain naturally-occurring water that is very high in total dissolved solids (TDS), heavy metals, radionuclides, or other potential contaminants. Under sufficient pressures, these fluids can migrate beyond the fracture zone via naturally occurring fractures or conduits created during drilling and fracturing operations. Documented incidents of subsurface migration of contaminants have generally been attributed to casing failures that allowed fluid movement through annular spaces of the well (NYCDEP, 2009). Documented events are rare, but once a problem occurs, remediation is difficult.

There are numerous research projects being conducted on subsurface impacts from drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The Department of Energy is researching appropriate baseline hydrological monitoring at drill sites. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is developing a water quality, natural gas, and naturally occurring radioactive material fingerprinting database for natural gas formations and other shallower contaminant sources in Pennsylvania. The database will help facilitate tracking sources of contamination to specific geologic formations. The oil and gas industry is continuing to develop subsurface mitigation response measures for errant gas and poor quality formation water. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

Fluids that are brought to the surface during drilling, fracturing and gas production tend

to have very high TDS, chlorides, and bromides, and may be contaminated with hydrocarbons, radionuclides, heavy metals, and fracturing chemicals. Common approaches to treatment and disposal of drilling wastewater include underground injection, industrial wastewater treatment followed by reuse or surface disposal, and industrial pretreatment followed by conventional treatment and surface disposal (USDOE, 2010a).

Other than underground injection, the typical method in many states (e.g. Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, etc.), all treatment methods require discharge to surface water bodies. TDS is of particular concern due to its high concentration in flowback and produced water and the difficulty in removing it. In order to meet a 500 mg/l effluent limit for a 100,000 mg/l TDS


9

waste stream4 by dilution only would require nearly 200 times more fresh water. Removal of chlorides by any other method is expensive, energy intensive, and results in large volumes of salt cake or filtrate. Evaporation/crystallization of one million gallons of 100,000 mg/l TDS wastewater results in over 400 tons of salt cake (Blauch et al., 2009).

Recycling flowback and produced water can help to reduce the wastewater volume requiring disposal. The high concentration of scale-forming constituents limits the amount that can be used in hydraulic fracturing operations without treatment and dilution with fresh water. Operators are continuing to refine the fracturing process to allow for larger volumes of reused wastewater water in subsequent fracturing operations. (Papso et al., 2010). There is also extensive research being conducted on the beneficial reuse of oil and gas wastewaters by the federal government and independent research agencies (e.g. Gas Technology Institute). REPORT ORGANIZATION

The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 describes workshop preparation and discussions; Chapter 3 identifies additional hydraulic fracturing resources for water utilities; Chapter 4 presents potential research projects identified during the workshop; and Appendix A provides workshop materials.

4 The approximate median value for TDS for flowback fluid as reported by NYSDEC (2009).


11

CHAPTER 2: WORKSHOP PREPARATION AND DISCUSSION The Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) hosted a workshop on the issue of hydraulic

fracturing on October 27 & 28, 2010 in Baltimore, Maryland. WaterRF is a non-profit organization that sponsors research to address issues of concern to its subscribers and their stakeholders. Hydraulic fracturing is an important topic for several of WaterRF’s member utilities because of the potential risks to water supply, water quality, operations, and infrastructure, but also the potential for income from sale of water and the leasing of mineral rights. The goal of this workshop was to identify research needs and research gaps related to issues of concern to water utilities regarding the use of hydraulic fracturing in the development of natural gas resources. The workshop is an initial step in determining potential research projects that may be sponsored by WaterRF or their stakeholders.

The objective of the workshop was to convene technical experts from industry, academia, and government, along with knowledgeable utility representatives, to identify potential research topics for WaterRF. The focus of the research topics would be to improve understanding of (a) the potential risks of hydraulic fracturing and associated natural gas development activities to drinking water supplies; and (b) strategies for reducing identified risks. Invited participants included individuals with expertise in oil and gas exploration and production, well drilling, hydraulic fracturing design, water resources management, oil and gas wastewater treatment, federal and state regulations, geomechanics, hydrogeology, drinking water treatment, and risk assessment. The list of participants is provided in the Appendix.

Hazen and Sawyer, along with Leggette, Brashears, and Graham conducted an impact assessment of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP, 2009). Based on research conducted for that project, the workshop organizers devised the breakout topics to cover the major areas of potential impacts identified previously:

Land disturbance, site activity, and truck traffic; Rates/densities of development (i.e., cumulative impacts); Water withdrawals; Drilling and fracturing and related chemical usage; Surface spills; Subsurface migration of contaminants; and Wastewater treatment and disposal.

These issues were addressed through a series of presentations and breakout discussions

organized around four major categories of natural gas development activities:

Water and Chemical Usage Surface Activities Subsurface Processes Wastewater Disposal

Participants were divided into smaller groups to discuss research needs for specific topics

and outline potential research projects. Breakout sessions were conducted in pairs so that each


12

participant could attend two of the four breakout sessions. Each breakout session was facilitated to address the following question:

For activities, events, or mechanisms that could have a potentially negative impact on drinking water utilities, can we adequately characterize the risk, and are there appropriate tools for mitigation or options for avoidance? If not, what research is necessary to characterize risks and develop mitigation options? Subsequent to the four breakout sessions, a wrap-up session was conducted to review the

research needs identified during individual sessions and prioritize the suggested projects. The workshop agenda is provided in the Appendix. PRE-WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

Prior to the workshop the invitees were provided with a survey in order to solicit input for

developing workshop content. The survey included lists of potential research questions for each breakout topic. Invitees were asked to indicate whether the question warranted research, and if it was the subject of a current research project. Invitees were also given the opportunity to add their own research questions and were asked to indicate which research topic (if any) was most important. Participants provided valuable feedback that indicated where research was already being conducted. The full survey and the summary of responses are provided in the Appendix. BREAKOUT GROUP PROCEDURE

Each of the four breakout topics were introduced to the plenary group by a utility

representative and one of the organizers. Participants were then given the opportunity to ask questions prior to breaking into smaller groups. Breakout Sessions

The first half of the breakout session was devoted to developing a clear, detailed list of

potential research topics/questions. The facilitator opened the breakout session by reviewing the charge of the breakout group and the intended outcome for the session. Participants were asked to review the list of potential research questions compiled from the survey and were given the opportunity to add ideas to the list. The group then discussed current or ongoing research that may address identified research questions. The group also discussed identified research questions that could be combined or eliminated.

Once the initial list was completed the facilitator asked the group to clarify and/or detail specific topics/questions so that they would be understandable, refined, and detailed enough that a short description of the research could be drafted. A vote was taken for each research question to judge initial interest before returning to the plenary group. Plenary Discussion

One member of each breakout group presented the preliminary list of research questions

to the plenary group. The plenary group then discussed the list of research questions and was


13

given the opportunity to ask questions of the breakout group members. The breakout groups then reconvened in order to further refine the list of research questions and incorporate any new information provided by the plenary group. Once the discussion on each research question was finished, the breakout group broke into smaller groups of two to four people in order to draft project descriptions. Final Discussion and Polling

After completing the breakout sessions for each topic, the plenary reconvened to discuss

the final research topics and conduct polling. Participants were given two red dots and three blue dots for casting votes to prioritize research descriptions. Red dots signified a project that was higher priority either because of urgency or because the project would provide substantial value and could be completed quickly. The final list of research project descriptions and the results of the final polling are presented in Chapter 4. WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS

The workshop opened with presentations by the research team and the participating

utilities. The research team introduced each of the topics and presented results from the survey and current research activities identified for each topic. The utilities participating in the workshop provided their perspective on each of the four topics. Other workshop participants provided presentations on various topics including drilling techniques, surface activities, subsurface investigations, fracture design, and the upcoming U.S. EPA study. Topic 1: Water and Chemical Usage

Andy Zinkevich of American Water began with an overview of American Water, which

serves 16 million people and owns 350 water systems in 35 states and two Canadian provinces. Many of American Water’s operations are located in major oil and gas producing states. In Pennsylvania, American Water serves two million customers in 370 communities. Oil and gas development provides significant benefits, but cannot ignore drinking water supplies.

American Water utilizes both surface water and groundwater supplies, but 80% of its customers are served by surface water resources. Pennsylvania American Water has been impacted by the poor water quality in the Monongahela River that has occurred since 2008 including: high total dissolved solids and increased bromide levels, which contribute to disinfection byproduct formation; increased biological activity; and record 2-methylisoborneol levels, which cause taste and odor problems. The causes of these changes are not sufficiently understood; some may be related to natural gas development but not others. American Water has prepared an official position on drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region in response to customer concerns and inquiries. The official position statement can be accessed on the company’s website at www.amwater.com.

Zinkevich stated that utilities need information on drilling and fracturing chemicals used in proximity to drinking water watersheds to effectively monitor water quality and prepare for spills. Utilities also need to establish communication protocols with drillers in order to have direct notification of incidents that require utility response. Water quality is a multifaceted issue and utilities need sufficient information to understand and manage for changes. The U.S.


14

Geological Survey and the U.S. Corps of Engineers may have suitable data for developing baseline water quality levels. Proper regulations for monitoring and controlling water withdrawals need to be in place to protect drinking water supplies. Regulatory agencies need sufficient staff to handle the increased workload in regions where significant increases in natural gas development occur. Without proper controls, cumulative withdrawals across a region have the potential to impact reliability of both small and large drinking water utilities. Decision-makers cannot rely on anecdotes; data is needed to measure true impacts. Topic 2: Surface Activities

Julie Hunt of Arlington Water Utilities began with an overview of major industries and

attractions in the City of Arlington, the size of the utility (100,000 accounts serving over 370,000 people), and its location in the Barnett Shale region. Major issues for the utility are water supply management, surface water protection, disposal of flowback water, and storm water runoff related to natural gas development. Additional demands on the water resources are not necessarily a concern because the overall consumptive use is relatively minor. However, there are challenges that arise from drilling in close proximity to water supplies and critical infrastructure. One example presented was a notification from a driller that an overflowing tank had released frac water into the adjacent water supply lake. The incident required mobilization of a significant response on the part of the utility to address the spill.

Because drilling occurs in the city limits, Arlington Water Utilities allows drillers to hook up to the public distribution system for water withdrawals, conditional on the use of backflow preventers and an agreement to limit the maximum rate of withdrawal. In order to plan for withdrawals the utility models the distribution system to set the withdrawal rate to prevent pressure loss for other customers. One driller bypassed the controls limiting the rate of withdrawal, which resulted in the city’s primary water tank being drawn down rapidly and unexpectedly. The utility mobilized its staff and local police to search the area, thinking there was a major water line break, before discovering the actual cause. The water utility participates in the planning process for drilling permits within the city and has the authority to impose permit conditions and inspect operations but becomes frustrated when the plans and agreements are not properly followed.

The water utility has concerns of vibrations from drilling and fracturing near its water tank and has been working with drillers to analyze the risk prior to allowing drilling to commence nearby.

Because drilling occurs within the city limits and on the shore of Lake Arlington, a drinking water supply reservoir, the utility is very concerned about public perception issues. Another concern is that the state regulatory agencies for the utility (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) and the gas drillers (Texas Railroad Commission) do not always coordinate effectively to assist the utility in protecting drinking water supplies.

In general there is more of a concern about impacts during the well drilling phase of development than the long term operations of the wells. However, ponds constructed by drillers to hold fresh water for fracing, though identified as “temporary,” may remain for years. These semi-permanent ponds can be an aesthetic issue and a safety hazard for residents.


15

Topic 3: Subsurface Processes Paul Rush of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection began with an

overview of New York City’s water supply system, which delivers approximately one billion gallons per day to over nine million New York residents. The Catskill and Delaware watersheds, which provide 90% of the city’s water supply, are of high quality and are delivered to consumers unfiltered under the terms of successive Filtration Avoidance Determinations. These watersheds are, however, completely underlain by the Marcellus Shale. The city also has a number of critical aqueducts and tunnels in areas underlain by the Marcellus Shale.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) is concerned about hydraulic fracturing and the potential for it to lead to migration of gas or fluids, develop new fractures that may open connections to the existing fracture system, or change geologic stress fields.

Previous geologic studies have identified substantial numbers of existing brittle structures (fractures and faults) throughout the region. Known existing brittle structures can extend up to seven miles laterally and extend down over 6,000 feet. Logs from NYCDEP tunnel construction indicate that a number of these faults and fractures were intercepted during construction. Several of these features exhibited saline water and methane discharges indicating connection to deeper gas-producing formations.

Specific concerns about impacts to infrastructure include the potential for changes to groundwater flow regimes beneath dams, asymmetrical external pressure on tunnels, infiltration of formation fluids or gas into tunnels, and drilling beneath tunnels or aqueducts.

New York City owns or controls approximately 10% of watershed lands and does not own mineral rights to the remainder of the watershed. NYCDEP has authority to monitor potential threats to the water supply through watershed regulations that control activities that could degrade drinking water quality. The watershed regulations provide NYCDEP the authority to gather information, inspect sites and review/approve plans. However, the regulations are not applicable to natural gas development because New York State oil and gas regulations supersede all local laws regulating oil and gas activities. The absence of jurisdiction during emergencies or unusual operating scenarios, such as when a reservoir or pipeline is offline, is of particular concern to NYCDEP.

Drinking water regulations are very conservative and are designed to protect human health under worst case scenarios. For example, federal regulations require unfiltered water supplies to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium, despite monitoring data that indicates Cryptosporidium is extremely low in NYCDEP source waters. Negative public (and regulator) perception of perceived threats to the quality of the water supply or level of source water protection that can be provided by NYCDEP could jeopardize the city’s filtration avoidance determination.

Drilling in New York State is not going forward until the state environmental impact statement (EIS) is completed. Drillers will be required to complete an individual EIS in order to drill in unfiltered watersheds in New York. Drilling in the watershed would increase the regulatory burden on NYCDEP by requiring additional surveillance monitoring for expensive, non-traditional parameters and requiring additional staff for review and analysis of drilling activities. Even without a violation or detection of a contaminant, the threat of contamination from a well incident could result in a large operational response (e.g. shutting down a reservoir, increased monitoring, public notifications, etc.). The magnitude of drilling thousands of wells in


16

the watershed would increase these risks substantially. Mitigation of impacts to a water supply serving over nine million people could result in substantial cost to the utility.

Mr. Rush summarized by stating that balancing environmental and public health concerns with the need for adequate energy resources is a complex and challenging issue. Public water supplies have unique concerns and issues that need to be recognized and addressed. Topic 4: Wastewater Disposal

Kelly Anderson of the Philadelphia Water Department began with an overview of the

Philadelphia water supply, which has a capacity of 560 million gallons per day and serves 1.45 million people. Philadelphia withdraws water from the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers, both of which have numerous point source discharges and diverse land uses (e.g. industry, urban, forest, agriculture, etc.). Because both river basins are considered “working” watersheds, the water treatment process is essential to maintain high quality drinking water. Additionally, the city actively engages in source water protection measures with upstream communities to protect and improve water quality. One example of this coordination is the Delaware Valley Early Warning System, which establishes communication and information sharing agreements along with a suite of tools to help utilities respond to spills in the watershed.

Nearly 50 percent of the Philadelphia water supply watershed is underlain by Marcellus Shale. Philadelphia Water Department has a number of concerns related to wastewater disposal in the watershed given the utility’s limited control of the watershed, including:

Are existing regulations sufficiently protective of drinking water sources? What are the impacts of discharges of radionuclides into the water supply and subsequent

impacts on water treatment plants? What are the rates of spills from stationary and non-stationary sources and how do these

rates compare to other industries that use or transport regulated, radioactive, or hazardous materials?

Other Presentations

In addition to the presentations introducing each of the four breakout sessions, a number

of the participants volunteered to share information with the group. Kevin Fisher of Pinnacle5 presented information on modeling, monitoring, and experimental observations of hydraulic fracture growth. Robert Puls of the U.S. EPA provided an overview of the upcoming Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water Resources. Additionally, Matt Mantell of Chesapeake Energy Corporation presented two short videos on drilling and hydraulic fracturing developed by his company. The videos are not summarized in this report, but can be viewed at the website www.hydraulicfracturing.com. John Veil of Argonne National Lab presented a personal video showing surface activities at a Chesapeake Energy Corporation well site during drilling and fracturing operations. 5 Pinnacle, a business unit of Halliburton, is an energy industry service, consulting and software firm specializing in the optimization of hydraulic fracturing.


17

Pinnacle The presentation began with examples of what rock fractures look like in modeling

representations and in the field. Methods for monitoring fractures in the field using arrays of geophones and tiltmeters were described. By looking at the seismic readouts from geophones at different locations, engineers can map subsurface fractures. Tiltmeters measure the small variations in ground or rock formation movement during fracture operations. Pinnacle has been collecting microseismic monitoring data from hydraulic fracturing operations across the U.S. and in Canada. Microseismic mapping of wells in the Marcellus, Haynesville, Bossier, and Barnett Shales were presented. In the Bossier example it was pointed out that the well appeared to have encountered a natural fault. When the well was fractured, the fracture fluid traveled along the fault until it entered a formation layer that could be fractured, and the energy was dissipated into that formation, limiting the extent of unintended fracture propagation. From a well development perspective, it is undesirable to intercept faults because it reduces the efficiency of the fracture operation. As such, drillers generally avoid fracturing portions of the well if they know a fault was intercepted.

A comparison of fracture treatment depth and height in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia along with groundwater depth was presented. Fractures are created in the direction of the principal stress. For example very deep fracture operations create vertical fractures because the weight of the overburden is the principal stress. Therefore, as fractures become shallower, the vertical extent of the fractures decreases. The data collected by Pinnacle indicates that the separation between the highest fracture and the deepest groundwater aquifer was approximately 3,000 feet to 7,000 feet.

Experiments have been conducted in both coal beds and shale formations in order to observe fracture formation underground. Experiments consisted of both physical excavations of the rock to observe the fractures and coring rock from the surface. In both types of experiments the observed fractures were compared with model predictions. In general, fractures are smaller, shorter and thinner than typical model predictions. Rock discontinuities and other complexities are difficult to model; the result is that fractures may be less extensive than anticipated. Models of fluid flow in fractures do not consider roughness, offsets, waviness, or other complexities. As a result, pressure drops are often considerably higher than model predictions, further limiting the growth of fractures. U.S. EPA

The presentation began with the description of the charge to U.S. EPA by Congress in

funding the study, which is to analyze the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using:

Best available science; Independent sources of information; Transparent, peer-reviewed process; and Consultation with others.

An overview of public health concerns, along with the importance of natural gas as an

energy supply and shale gas formations across the United States was provided.


18

Initial recommendations by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in April 2010 were that the study focus on drinking water resources (quality and quantity), include case studies, and involve stakeholders in the process. EPA’s draft study plan was submitted to the SAB in February 2011. In general the study will focus on water demands; chemical usage, toxicity, and migration; factors that affect chemical choice; effects of geologic and manmade features; fluids handling at the surface; and wastewater disposal.

The study approach will consist of review and analysis of available data, development of case studies, modeling fate and transport of contaminants, improvement of analytical chemistry methods, and evaluation of fracture fluid indicators. Case studies are anticipated to be conducted in various parts of the country in order to observe differences in geology and geography on potential impacts. The fate and transport analysis will address the following aspects:

Characterize fracturing fluids and their degradation products; Determine the potential to mobilize chemicals from geologic formations; Model the fate and transport of chemicals in the subsurface; and Identify and refine methods for chemical analysis.

A broad outreach strategy has been developed for the project that includes webinars,

public meetings, tribal consultations, and workshops. U.S. EPA anticipates collaborating with industry, state governments, and other federal agencies on hydraulic fracturing issues. Nine hydraulic fracturing companies were asked to voluntarily submit data on the chemicals used in fracture fluid in anticipation of the study starting in early 2011. Initial results of the study are expected by the end of 2012. BREAKOUT SESSION DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS

Some general issues with many of the data gaps initially identified were that research

questions had beneficial goals but were not practical, or that the utility concerns were related more to policy issues than a lack of data. For example, it is beneficial for both oil and gas companies and water utilities to have a comprehensive understanding of baseline water quality prior to drilling in an area; the major contention is who pays for additional monitoring and lab tests, which is an issue for policy- and decision-makers.

One critical aspect that was a factor in nearly every research question was the differentiation between conditions from state to state. This held true for regulations, public perceptions, geology, water rights, and others; all of which make comprehensive research projects more difficult due to variations between states and formations. Another common theme was the acknowledgement of the growing volume of research projects at various scales (small university to large federal projects) on topics related to petroleum development and hydraulic fracturing and the need for coordination between these efforts. Discussion highlights specific to each breakout session are summarized below. Water and Chemical Usage

Water and chemicals are integral to the fracturing process in that large volumes of fresh

water and a diverse range of chemicals are required. Water usage could compete with existing


19

uses, and some chemicals could pose a threat to drinking water quality if allowed to enter water supplies.

It was stressed that the more food grade chemicals that are used, the lower the potential for adverse impacts from spills. However, given the competitive nature of gas development, greater disclosure could have the unintended consequence of inhibiting new development of less toxic chemicals. Chemicals could be reduced by better understanding of source water quality and formation properties so that chemicals could be limited to just what is needed. Lower quality source water (i.e. reuse) may require additional chemicals to get the same performance. The idea of a voluntary chemical database was raised, but that may not be sufficient due to the speed with which new chemicals are being developed. Utility representatives reiterated their concern about not knowing what to monitor for to be able to meet current and future regulations. It was stressed that baseline water quality data is necessary, but with so many original chemicals and degradation byproducts, it is difficult and expensive to test for everything. Tracers, or some other surrogate that is indicative of fracture fluid contamination, would be extremely beneficial for ease of monitoring. However, no suitable tracers or surrogates are currently available. Surface Activities

Natural gas development requires the construction of drill pads and access roads and the

transport of large volumes of water, wastes, materials, and equipment to and from drill sites. Ancillary facilities such as booster stations, pipelines, and centralized storage/transfer stations increase the net footprint of surface activities beyond the drill pads themselves. While most surface activities are typical for all types of oil and gas development, hydraulic fracturing has propelled the expansion of natural gas development into areas with relatively limited history of oil and gas exploration. Therefore, even typical surface activities may be uncommon in these areas. Impacts can also be related to density of well development and require consideration of cumulative impacts from multiple wells.

The primary focus of the discussion during this breakout session was the risk of spills at the surface, risk perception, and transportation impacts. The discussion of issues related to spills included the need for notification, effective BMPs, a better understanding of regulations, risks from pits, and the need for monitoring protocols. In addition to spills, contamination can occur from drill cuttings left at the surface and should not be overlooked. Surface activities are the visible part of the hydraulic fracturing process and so can influence people’s perceptions about their community. There has been substantial research on the issue of risk perception, but very little to date related to hydraulic fracturing specifically. Transportation was indicated as a concern due to the potential for accidents and the fact that many local roads and bridges are not designed for anticipated trucking loads. There may be data available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to help analyze risk of accidents from increased truck traffic. Subsurface Processes

The process of drilling and fracturing creates or enlarges openings within and between

subsurface rock layers to facilitate the movement of gas to the surface. Well construction requirements (e.g. casing, grouting) are intended to seal the well bore and maintain the integrity of confining layers. Further, the hydraulic fracturing process is designed to limit fracture propagation to the target formation for optimal gas production. Failure of these systems could


20

potentially enable the movement of contaminants toward potable water supplies at or near the surface. Wastewater Disposal

The discussion during this breakout session focused on available treatment technologies

for flowback and produced water, impacts from discharges to conventional wastewater treatment plants, data collection to help with local waste management decisions, forecasts of anticipated volumes of wastewater, and improved analytical chemistry techniques. There is a substantial amount of research going into innovative wastewater treatment and reuse technologies, but it is unclear when the results of the research will be available. Conventional wastewater treatment plants may be relied upon to treat wastewater, so it will be necessary to understand how conventional treatment processes will be affected by fracturing wastewater. Local governments could benefit from a lifecycle assessment of various wastewater treatment options that analyzes economic, environmental, and social implications (triple bottom line). As hydraulic fracturing continues to grow into new areas of the country it will become more beneficial to project wastewater treatment capacity needed to keep up with growth. Additionally, chemical analysis methodologies will need to be improved upon to more cost effectively test for exotic chemicals diluted with highly concentrated brine.


21

CHAPTER 3: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESOURCES FOR WATER UTILITIES

In the process of organizing and conducting this workshop a number of existing reports

and ongoing research projects were identified as being very useful for providing relevant information and background on hydraulic fracturing for water utilities. Neither list is intended to be a comprehensive compilation of all the available resources. ONGOING RESEARCH PROJECTS

The research project summaries presented below list the funding agency, project title,

brief description, and website link if available.

U.S. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Research Study: Goal is to examine full life cycle of water and chemical usage in the hydraulic fracturing process from water acquisition, mixing with chemicals, storage, injection/fracturing, withdrawal, on-site wastewater management, treatment, and ultimate disposal of wastes and wastewaters. More information’s can be found at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm

Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management of Produced Water (07122-12): The project objective is to develop a web-based selection and screening tool that will allow selection of the best technology for treating produced water. More information can be found at www.rpsea.org/0712212/.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Comprehensive Lifecycle Planning and Management System for Addressing Water Issues Associated With Shale Gas Development in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (DE-FE0000797): The goal of this project is to develop a modeling system that will allow operators and regulators to plan all aspects of water management activities associated with shale gas development in the targeted project area More information can be found at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00797_ShaleWater.html

U.S. DOE Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production (DE-FE0000975): The goal is to develop a sustainable approach for water management in the Marcellus Shale play, in which flowback water is economically treated on site and reused for hydrofracturing adjacent wells. More information can be found at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html

U.S. DOE Pilot Testing: Pretreatment Options to Allow Re-Use of Frac Flowback and Produced Brine for Gas Shale Resource Development (DE-FE0000847): The goal of this project is to identify a reliable and cost-effective pre-treatment methodology for use in processes employed to treat and re-use field-produced brine and fracture flowback waters. More information can be found at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00847_Pretreat.html

Texas Water Development Board Water Use in the Texas Mining and Oil and Gas Industry: Objective is to analyze mining water use throughout the state and develop


22

demand projections for the 50-year planning horizon. Draft report can be accessed at https://www.twdb.state.tx.us/wrpi/rwp/documents/DraftReport_TWDB_MiningWaterUse.pdf.

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Ground Water Protection Council Memorandum of Understanding: On September 29, 2010 the two organizations announced a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue joint projects. The first project is a voluntary chemical disclosure directory that is available at www.hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org. More information on the two organizations can be found at www.iogcc.state.ok.us and www.gwpc.org.

Philadelphia’s Academy of Natural Sciences A Preliminary Study on the Impact of Marcellus Shale Drilling on Headwater Streams: This project evaluates drilling impacts to aquatic ecosystems in the Marcellus Shale. More information can be found at http://www.ansp.org/research/pcer/projects/marcellus-shale-prelim/index.php

The Heinz Foundation has awarded a grant to Carnegie Mellon University to collect and manage baseline aquatic resources data to evaluate the impact of shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale.

REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR UTILITIES

The references listed below were considered particularly valuable background material to

help utilities understand the hydraulic fracturing process, pertinent regulations, water resources management issues, water quality monitoring, incident response for water utilities, wastewater management, and potential risks for water utilities.

Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project. 2007. The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and

Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes. Washington, DC. Marcellus Shale Coalition. 2009. Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the

Development of Marcellus Shale Gas, prepared by the Gas Technology Institute. Des Plaines, IL.

New England Water Works Association. 2008. Sampling Guide for First Responders to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Holliston, MA.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed Final Impact Assessment Report, prepared by Hazen and Sawyer and Leggette, Brashears, and Graham. New York, NY.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2009. Issues Related to Developing the Marcellus Shale and other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs: Survey of Regulations in Gas-Producing States, NYS Water Resources, Geology, New York City Watershed, Multi-Well Operations, and Seismicity, prepared by Alpha Environmental Consultants, Inc. Albany, NY.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2009. Technical Assistance for the Draft Supplemental Generic EIS: Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs Task 1 - Technical Analysis of Hydraulic Fracturing, prepared by ICF Incorporated, LLC. Albany, NY.


23

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2009. Water-Related Issues Associated with Gas Production in the Marcellus Shale: Additives, Flowback Quality And Quantity, NYS Regulations, On-Site Treatment, Green Technologies, Alternate Water Sources, And Water Well Testing, Prepared by URS Corporation. Albany, NY.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. 2009. Trihalomethane Speciation and the Relationship to Elevated Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations Affecting Drinking Water Quality at Systems Utilizing the Monongahela River as a Primary Source During the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2008. Harrisburg, PA

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, LLC. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources, prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. 2010. Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared by Argonne National Lab. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. 2010. Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region, prepared by ALL Consulting, LLC. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations. Washington, D.C.

Weston, R.T. 2008. Development of the Marcellus Shale – water resource challenges. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP.


25

CHAPTER 4: WORKSHOP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The issue of hydraulic fracturing, even when limited to just the perspective of potential

impacts to water utilities, is very broad and encompasses many subjects including: natural sciences, resource allocation, pollution prevention, public health, communication, regulations for petroleum development, regulations for water utilities, public perceptions, and economics, among many others. Further, these topic areas tend to overlap. As such it was difficult to develop research projects to address discrete information gaps, and the deliberations did not lead to any overall consensus as to the most critical area to devote research efforts. However, the work by the group did successfully refine the initial list of over 40 research questions and information gaps into fourteen focused project descriptions for use by the Water Research Foundation. Furthermore, many of the initial research ideas became incorporated into the broader research projects. RANKING THE RESEARCH IDEAS

The final list of research project descriptions and the results of the final polling are

presented below in Table 4.1. Project #2, Improved Methods for Predicting Chemical Characteristics of Flowback

Water and Produced Water (Brine), stood out by receiving the most votes overall and the most high priority votes. The objective of this project is to improve analytical techniques in order to enable the characterization of the fate of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. The results of this project would fulfill a fundamental need for water supply utilities, because without appropriate analytical techniques it will be very difficult to monitor for contamination of water supplies from spills, subsurface migration, or improper wastewater disposal.

In addition to Project #2, three other topics received moderately high numbers of votes for both urgency and overall totals.

Project #4. Water Supply Monitoring Protocols/Methods and Best Management Practices Project #8. Perception and Communication of Hydraulic Fracturing Risks Project #10. Identifying the Subsurface Risks, Risk Mitigation Measures and Appropriate

Areas of Concern for Utilities to consider from Natural Gas Production Activities Project #4 builds on Project #2 in that appropriate monitoring techniques are necessary,

along with analytical methods, for utilities to maintain a safe, high quality water supply given natural gas development within a drinking water supply watershed. Project #8 speaks to the fact that water utilities are customer driven organizations, and utilities must be able to appropriately respond to customer concerns related to the potential for hydraulic fracturing impacts to a community’s water supply. Project #10 would address the potential for subsurface risks to drinking water sources and infrastructure, a major concern for some utilities and their customers.

Though the number of votes for some of the topics was fairly low, the group consensus was that all 14 of the projects had merit and should remain on the list.


26

Table 4.1 Potential research topics and polling results

Proposed Research Project

Final Polling Results

Red Blue

Total High

Priority or

Urgency

Lower Priority

1. Analysis of State Oil and Gas Regulations from a Water Utility Perspective and Comparison of State Regulatory Requirements with Incident Reports

1 2 3

2. Improved Methods for Predicting Chemical Characteristics of Flowback Water and Produced Water (Brine)

10 5 15

3. Direct and Relative Risks Associated with Unconventional Oil & Gas Development

0 2 2

4. Water Supply Monitoring Protocols/Methods and Best Management Practices 5 6 11

5. Pilot Study to Analyze the Potential for Water Contamination at Gas Well Sites from Spills/Leaks

2 7 9

6. Investigation of Physical Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from Ground Movement due to Hydraulic Fracturing

1 3 4

7. Natural Gas Development Emergency Response Planning for Water Utilities 4 4 8

8. Perception and Communication of Hydraulic Fracturing Risks 5 7 12

9. Improving Communications between Water Utility Sector and the Gas Development Industry

0 6 6

10. Identifying the Subsurface Risks, Risk Mitigation Measures and Appropriate Areas of Concern for Utilities to consider from Natural Gas Production Activities

6 4 10

11. Investigation of the Potential Cumulative and Long-Term Regional Impacts to Confining Layers from High Intensity Drilling for Natural Gas using Hydraulic Fracturing

2 5 7

12. Survey and Evaluation of Procedures for Monitoring and Testing Well (Casing and Cement) Integrity Over Time, including Plugging and Abandonment

4 4 8

13. Development of Guidance for Utilities on Impacts to Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants, Collection Systems, Biosolids, and Receiving Waters from Natural Gas Wastewater Disposal

2 8 10

14. Comparative Evaluation of Natural Gas Wastewater Management Practices and the Potential Impacts on the Water Industry

4 6 10

DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED RESEARCH PROJECTS

Descriptions for each research project proposal developed during the workshop are

presented below.


27

WaterRF Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities Project Description

1. Analysis of State Oil and Gas Regulations from a Water Utility Perspective and

Comparison of State Regulatory Requirements with Incident Reports

Objective

Provide a summary of federal and state regulations for those states with unconventional natural gas resources, and analyze how various regulations may affect risk for water utilities.

Background

Oil and gas development in proximity to water supplies is an emerging issue for many utilities. In many states the oil and gas regulators operate in different “silos” from water utility regulators. As such, water utilities may not be aware of oil and gas regulations and how they could impact their water supply, quality, operations, etc. The outcome of the research should provide utilities with answers to the following questions:

Do regulations include requirements for an effective communications protocol between oil and gas operators and water utilities for water withdrawals, chemical disclosure, emergency response, etc?

Are existing regulatory standards covering the necessary issues/constituents with respect to new methods for natural gas production?

Do regulations or standards prevent innovation (e.g. regulations that prevent wastewater reuse in hydraulic fracturing operations)?

How do the rates of accidents, spills, and water contamination incidents correlate with current state regulations?

Similar regulatory studies exist, but are not comprehensive or do not take the next step of correlating regulations and impacts to water utilities.

Research Approach

Task 1 Data Collection

Collect local, state, and federal ordinances/regulations that pertain to natural gas drilling and associated water issues.

Collect best practices from gas drilling industry. Collect oil and gas spill/incident data.

Task 2 Data Analysis

Analyze spill/incident reports by state with respect to regulations. Define limits of statutory authority (i.e., what items are solely regulated by the state

versus local control). Determine if there are competing regulations or regulations that discourage best practices

or improved practices. Determine if there are any grandfathered practices that are obsolete and should any

existing practices be discontinued. Recommend any opportunities. Identify gaps and recommend potentially effective processes. Evaluate effectiveness of regulations


28

Hold a workshop; invite a cross-section of stakeholders to discuss implementation of revised regulations and how they impact oil and gas operations.

Task 3 Reporting

Prepare a report presenting summary regulations and spill/incident data. Draft a sample communiqué that can be used by water agencies to communicate basic

issues that need to be provided to natural gas drilling companies and elected officials. Create a state-by-state reference guide for use by water utilities.

Relevant Reference Documents

Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project. 2007. The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes. Washington, DC.



State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. Various reports on state oil and gas regulatory programs. Oklahoma City, OK.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, LLC. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations. Washington, DC.



29


2. Improved Methods for Predicting Chemical Characteristics of Flowback Water and

Produced Water (Brine)

Objective

Identify, adopt, and adapt analytical methods (including for radiochemistry) for flowback water and produced water in order to characterize fate of chemicals during the fracturing process (dilution, degradation, and degradation byproducts).

Background

Subject to appropriate intellectual property rules, policy makers and water utilities need a current, comprehensive inventory of chemical constituents used or produced at all stages of oil and gas development. These constituents should be evaluated to determine the level of information available about them with regard to toxicity for human health and the environment. The presence of extremely high total dissolved solids (TDS) on the order of 100,000 mg/L, especially chlorides, inhibits the ability to detect other constituents that may be present at much smaller concentrations, such as endocrine disruptors. The results of this analysis will help inform:

Effluent limits on discharges; Testing protocols and methodologies for discharges; Identification of research priorities to fill data gaps on toxicity; Guidance for research on decreasing toxicity; and Guidance for priority parameters that should be monitored in water supplies.

This research should build on and fill gaps in current efforts by major agencies (e.g., U.S. EPA).

Research Approach

The approach for this research effort should include the following activities: Analyze formation water for background water quality (include regional and formation

variation); Analyze frac, flowback, and produced water for chemicals and in parallel identify

indicators/surrogates; Support development of analytical techniques to better characterize constituents in the

presence of high salt concentrations found in formation brines; Compile chemicals used at different scales (e.g., watershed, regional, or formation level);

and Conduct subsurface fate and transport modeling of constituents.


Marcellus Shale Coalition. 2009. Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development of Marcellus Shale Gas, prepared by the Gas Technology Institute. Des Plaines, IL.


30

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. 2009. Trihalomethane Speciation and the Relationship to Elevated Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations Affecting Drinking Water Quality at Systems Utilizing the Monongahela River as a Primary Source During the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2008. Harrisburg, PA.

WateReuse Foundation. 2008. The Impacts of Membrane Process Residuals on Wastewater Treatment. Alexandria, VA.


31


3. Direct and Relative Risks Associated with Unconventional Oil & Gas Development

Objective

The objective is to more concretely define the risks from natural gas drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing relative to other risks currently faced by utilities.

Background

The direct and relative risks associated with unconventional oil & gas development (primarily shale gas development) are not well understood among water utilities and has resulted in public perception challenges for both water utilities and the natural gas industry. These challenges have included concerns regarding potential impacts to source water supplies, potential impacts to existing water treatment processes from upstream wastewater disposal, ability to assure the public that water supplies are safe, and others. A better understanding of direct and relative risks can lead to improved resource allocation in order to address source water protection challenges. The project should address the potential risks (temporary, permanent, and seasonal) for utilities to be out of compliance with treatment standards, suffer financial impacts, or other potential consequences. This project will allow water utilities to better allocate constrained resources for source water protection in consideration of the relative risk of natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing as compared with other source water quality threats.

Research Approach

The approach for this research effort should include the following activities: Develop a comprehensive list of factors that affect water utility risks; Identify critical transport mechanisms and probabilities that leaks or spills will

contaminate groundwater, water wells, and surface waters; and Compare natural gas-related risks to risks from other activities or pollution sources (e.g.

other industrial activities, non-point source pollution, stormwater discharges, agricultural runoff, etc.).




32



33


4. Water Supply Monitoring Protocols/Methods and Best Management Practices

Objective

Define a monitoring program (e.g. parameters, monitoring locations, and schedule) that water utilities can adopt in order to detect changes in water quality and quantity due to natural gas development activities.

Background

Gas development in proximity to water supplies is an emerging issue for many utilities. As such, there is no existing best management practices guide on monitoring for impacts to source water quality from natural gas development or hydraulic fracturing. Early detection is necessary for a timely response to incidents or long-term changes in source water quality. A guidance document is needed to help utilities incorporate potential additional monitoring regimes into current source protection programs.

Research Approach

The approach for this research effort should include the following activities: Define appropriate screening parameters for detection; Examine the effectiveness of tracers in hydraulic fracturing fluids; Analyze whether parameters exist for determining impacts from specific activities, such

as gas well drilling, gas well fracing, wastewater injection, etc., in order to pinpoint sources of contamination;

Develop relative cost-value analysis of monitoring protocols; Evaluate the effects of hydrologic variability (e.g., drought) on monitoring programs; Evaluate techniques for incorporating surface water and groundwater relationships into

the monitoring program; and Evaluate the effects of hydrogeological variations on monitoring programs.


Frost, C. D., E L. Brinck, J. Mailloux, S. Sharma, C. E. Campbell1, S. A. Carter, and B. N. Pearson. 2010. “Innovative Approaches for Tracing Water Co-Produced with Coalbed Natural Gas: Applications of Strontium and Carbon Isotopes of Produced Water in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming And Montana”. In Coalbed Natural Gas: Energy and Environment. Nova Publishers (in press).




34


5. Pilot Study to Analyze the Potential for Water Contamination at Gas Well Sites from

Spills/Leaks

Objective

Develop a pilot study to identify drilling-related chemicals, implement monitoring procedures, and assess contamination risk potential.

Background

In areas that have very little or no current drilling activity, but are expected to be targeted in the future, a pilot study approach to developing monitoring procedures and assessing risk could be beneficial in helping utilities revise and update their watershed rules and regulations for oil and gas development.

Research Approach

For each pilot site perform the following tasks:

Task 1 - Identify contributors to risk

Collect data on chemicals used at pilot sites. Document chemical storage and waste management practices. Observe procedures for transferring chemicals and wastes.

Task 2 - Spill monitoring

Develop a monitoring program. Collect baseline water quality data. Collect groundwater and surface water data for a specified period of time during and after

drilling and fracing. Record data on spills that occur onsite.

Task 3 - Probabilistic risk assessment

Analyze data collected to assess risk potential. Potential methods include Monte Carlo simulations, event tree probability distribution, and fault tree analysis.

Investigate risk reduction strategies such as secondary containment and closed loop systems.


35


6. Investigation of Physical Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from Ground Movement due

to Hydraulic Fracturing

Objective

The two objectives for this project are to 1) gather data on ground movement caused by hydraulic fracturing and any resulting infrastructure damage, and 2) develop recommendations for avoiding future risks.

Background

Hydraulic fracturing requires the injection of large volumes of pressurized fluid deep underground to create fractures in rock. This volume displaces the overlying material (rock and soil) such that the ground surface flexes upward by a small, but measurable, amount. This flexure may potentially cause damage to both underground utility infrastructure (e.g., water tunnels, pipelines, storage tanks) and surface structures (e.g., tanks, water towers, and dams). There may be existing information on damage to utility infrastructure from other types of ground movement such as subsidence or earthquakes. A preliminary literature review should be performed beforehand to gauge the need for a full scale research project.

Research Approach

Task 1 - Data Collection

Perform literature review on activities that may result in ground motion (e.g., hydraulic fracturing, geothermal development, injection wells, water supply wells that result in subsidence, etc.) and collect information on risk potential.

Survey infrastructure in areas with formations having undergone significant hydraulic fracturing activity (e.g., coalbed methane, shale gas, tight gas sands, etc.).

Collect data on ground motion and flexure in the vicinity of major infrastructure. Document any damage identified by utilities.

Task 2 - Analysis

Compare data from different lengths and depths of hydraulically fractured wells to bracket potential range of ground motion.

Assess varying impacts to different types of infrastructure (e.g. pipe materials, dam construction, etc.) and determine sensitivity to flexure.

Develop guidance to enable utilities to evaluate potential for ground motion from hydraulic fracturing to damage critical infrastructure prior to drilling occurring.


36


7. Natural Gas Development Emergency Response Planning for Water Utilities

Objective

Develop a methodology for evaluating existing emergency response procedures and tailor them for natural gas development.

Background

Existing emergency response programs may lack critical elements that are necessary for utilities to effectively respond to incidents unique to natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing. The project should include development of the following tools and resources:

Preliminary evaluation procedures; Full evaluation procedures; Tools for evaluating effectiveness; Table top exercises (i.e., development of scenarios requiring response); Description of roles for various stakeholders; Outreach guidance (industry and public); and Utility regulatory requirements (documentation, public notifications, regulator

coordination, lab analyses, etc.).

Research Approach

The approach for this research effort should include the following activities: Evaluate existing emergency response structures (local, state, federal) from the utility

perspective and their suitability for responding to emergencies associated with natural gas development;

Compile elements of effective emergency response procedures for water utilities such as communication/coordination protocols, table top exercises, case studies, etc.;

Identify existing oil and gas emergency response procedures; and Define procedures for critically evaluating emergency preparedness.


American Water Works Association. 2006. Emergency Response and Recovery Planning for Water Systems: A Kit of Tools. Denver, CO.



37


8. Perception and Communication of Hydraulic Fracturing Risks

Objective

There are two goals for this study. The first is to understand and quantify perceptions of the risk associated with hydraulic fracturing and the factors that drive this perception for both the public and water utilities. The second is to develop methods for improved communication between utilities, energy companies, and the public.

Background

Negative public perception of a water utility can have several adverse impacts, including increased regulatory scrutiny, decreased public support, and increased spending to address customer concerns/complaints, among others. Given the controversial nature of oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing in particular, utilities need to understand the public perception impacts from oil and gas development and measures that can be taken to mitigate negative perceptions. Numerous articles have been published on general community perceptions related to oil and gas development, and there are a number of guides for utilities on effective communication with their stakeholders. This project represents a combination of the two ideas.

Research Approach

Task 1 - Literature Review

Summarize existing risk perception literature. Conduct a gap analysis to identify those areas where additional research is needed on risk

perceptions specific to hydraulic fracturing.

Task 2 - Survey

Conduct a scientifically rigorous risk perception survey including members of the public and water utilities across a number of gas-producing regions.

Task 3 - Guidance Document

Develop a guideline for improved communications of the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing based on the findings of the first two tasks. This guidance is intended for both water utilities to improve their communication with the public and energy companies.

Task 4 – Case Study

Conduct a proof of concept case study with at least one water utility.


Brasier, K. 2010. Natural Gas Experiences of Marcellus Residents: Preliminary Results from the Community Satisfaction Survey. Presented as part of the Penn State Cooperative Extension Marcellus Shale Educational Webinar Series on September 16, 2010.

Theodori, G. L. 2009. Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development. Southern Rural Sociology, 24(3), pp. 97–117.


38


9. Improving Communications between Water Utility Sector and the Oil and Gas

Development Industry

Objective

The objective of this project is to provide guidance to utilities and the natural gas industry in order to improve communications and limit conflict.

Background

Expanding domestic natural gas production along with the increased water needs of many extraction techniques (e.g. hydraulic fracturing) is increasing the intersection of water utilities and the oil and gas industry. There is the perception that the oil and gas industry can sometimes be unwilling to share data, and may have the tendency to ignore water utility regulatory compliance concerns. Additionally, water utilities don’t generally understand the obstacles and constraints faced by the oil and gas industry. As such there can be mistrust between the two sectors that leads to conflict. Increased communications between the two sectors can result in opportunities for mutual benefit by increasing cooperation with regards to shared water resources. The project must consider associated service providers and resource managers (e.g., water transfer companies, irrigation districts, etc.) and incorporate the state-level regulatory/water rights context.

Research Approach

Task 1 – Develop survey questions and conduct interviews with utility and industry representatives in order to develop a baseline of perceptions.

Task 2 – Conduct case studies of watershed groups that have worked to resolve water resource disputes (e.g. Red River Watershed Management Institute).

Task 3 – Develop a program that can be implemented by member utilities to reach out to gas companies working in their watershed/service area. Elements of the program may include the following:

A workshop with utility and industry representatives; Example memorandum of agreement between utilities and gas companies; Descriptions of vehicles/mechanisms for gas participation in source water assessments

and watershed planning; Examples of recommended communication efforts, such as regular stakeholder meetings; Guidance on including decision-makers in the discussion in order to obtain agreements;

and A primer on unbiased communication between sectors.


39


10. Identifying Subsurface Risks, Risk Mitigation Measures and Appropriate Areas of

Concern for Utilities to consider from Natural Gas Production Activities

Objective

The overarching goal will be to 1) provide a characterization of the subsurface risks to drinking water sources and infrastructure, and 2) assess mitigation measures for issues of concern. The focus for this project is on short-term or acute impacts. The research should provide the types of information needed by drinking water utilities to assess and manage risks to their systems from shale gas development in their region.

Background

Contradictory information exists on whether hydraulic fracturing poses a threat to potable water supplies. There is a need for a comprehensive, region-specific project analyzing subsurface risks resulting from the practice. As appropriate, the research should incorporate aspects of existing programs such as Underground Injection Control and U.S. EPA wellhead protection programs. The project should address the following issues:

The mechanisms and pathways by which drilling and fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation materials could migrate from the borehole or target formation to receptors of interest to utilities;

The geomechanical impacts of drilling and fracturing activities such as alteration of stress fields due to changing pressures over time;

Possible changes in subsurface flow and pressure regimes that have the potential to impact drinking water sources, either subsurface or surface; and

Appropriate, cost-effective methods that utilities should use to characterize pre-drilling subsurface conditions and then monitor for changes in these conditions over time.

Research Approach

Task 1 – Literature Review

Summarize the existing knowledge of risks and risk mitigation measures associated with natural gas wells, hydrofracing, and other similar types of subsurface activities.

Task 2 – Data Collection and Modeling Analysis

Collect available data from completed hydraulic fracturing operations. Conduct a study to model fracture development and monitor well drilling and hydraulic

fracturing activities. Compare model simulations and monitoring results.


Fisher, K. 2010. Data Confirm Safety of Well Fracturing. The American Oil and Gas Reporter, July 2010.


40



41


11. Investigation of the Potential Cumulative and Long-Term Regional Impacts to

Confining Layers from High Intensity Drilling for Natural Gas using Hydraulic Fracturing

Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the potential for hundreds or thousands of hydraulically fractured wells in an area over many years to reduce the integrity of confining layers and their ability to prevent movement of contaminants towards the surface.

Background

There are no known studies that have analyzed cumulative subsurface impacts from large numbers of hydraulically fractured wells. A hydrogeological analysis in Garfield County, Colorado, revealed a steady decline in groundwater quality as drilling operations increased. A more comprehensive analysis that links the cause and effects with level of drilling activity is needed to help utilities and regulators plan for development to limit impacts. The research should include the following elements:

Methods for estimating magnitude of future development; Regional effects of multiple penetrations of confining layers that isolate fractured

formations; Occurrence of low level, chronic impacts over time; and Analysis of correlations between drilling activity and subsurface changes.

Research Approach

Task 1 – Literature Review

Task 2 – Study Design

Task 3 – Data Collection and Analysis


G. Thyne. 2008. Review of Phase II Hydrogeologic Study. Prepared for Garfield County (CO). December 12, 2008.


42


12. Survey and Evaluation of Procedures for Monitoring and Testing Well (Casing and

Cement) Integrity Over Time, including Plugging and Abandonment

Objective

The objective is to determine if existing standards are sufficient for current drilling and fracturing techniques, or if new standards or BMPs are needed to prevent adverse impacts to water resources from well or casing failures.

Background

The casing and grouting layers in wells are designed to maintain the integrity of confining layers and prevent movement of formation material except from the target formation. Failure of the casing can allow for potential contaminants to migrate towards the surface, perhaps impacting potable water resources. This project should analyze well construction standards (e.g., weld integrity, mud logging events, cement bond logs, pressure testing of the casing and annulus, etc.), periodic testing requirements over the life of the well, and plugging and abandonment procedures. The results of the study should help water utilities understand current standards and practices and assist them in making recommendations (if necessary) to minimize the potential for well integrity problems over time.

Research Approach

Task 1 - Survey of existing well construction, monitoring, testing, plugging, and abandonment standards

Existing studies State, federal and regional regulations Industry guidelines (American Petroleum Institute, National Ground Water Association,

Ground Water Protection Council, others)

Task 2 - Assessment of well failures and their causes

Compile state data on well failures. Compare failure incidents with state construction standards at the time of well

construction.

Task 3 - Well construction and abandonment recommendations

Based on the results of Tasks 1 and 2, develop recommendations for heightened standards for well construction, monitoring, testing, plugging, and abandonment.


American Petroleum Institute guidance documents State regulations on construction standards, well testing procedures, and requirements for

abandoning wells


43


13. Development of Guidance for Utilities on Impacts to Conventional Wastewater

Treatment Plants, Collection Systems, Biosolids, and Receiving Waters from Natural Gas Wastewater Disposal

Objective

The objective is to develop an understanding of the implications for conventional wastewater treatment plants (or publicly owned treatment works, POTWs) from disposal of produced/flowback water in order to provide guidance information to utilities considering acceptance of gas industry wastewater. Additionally the project will look at impacts to receiving waters from POTW discharges with respect to both POTW discharge permit standards and downstream water treatment plant source water quality concerns.

Background

As an elective waste stream that is typically not allowed to be discharged without approval, utility staff generally have substantial control over the volume and, in some cases, concentration of drilling and fracturing wastewater accepted at their plants. The outcome of this research project will provide necessary guidance to utility operators as to the rate of constituent loading at POTWs to prevent adverse impacts. Operators could also use the information from the research to support the decision to install industrial pretreatment processes to facilitate accepting oil and gas wastewater. The pilot study will be developed in detail during tasks 1 and 2 and will pay particular attention to the following:

Removal efficiency of conventional treatment processes on conventional waste constituents (e.g., BOD, nutrients, etc.) and flowback/ produced water constituents (metals, TDS, etc.);

Accumulation of heavy metals or radionuclides in biosolids; Effects of ionic strength (TDS) on system performance; Effects and fate of toxic organics; Production of disinfection byproduct precursors; and Increases in oils and greases.

Research Approach

Task 1 – Literature and Data Review

Collect data on drilling water quality. Develop bench-scale test and pilot test procedures.

Task 2 – Bench-scale Test

Conduct a preliminary bench-scale test to determine the range of acceptable loading rates for constituents that do not adversely impact biological treatment processes.


44

Task 3 – Pilot Test

Conduct a baseline analysis of influent, effluent, biosolids, and mixed liquor water quality parameters for the participating POTW(s) prior to accepting any produced or flowback wastewater.

Once baseline levels are established and the POTW commences accepting drilling wastes, regularly monitor water quality of raw wastewater discharged at the POTW to identify which contaminants are present in order to inform subsequent analyses.

Regularly analyze effluent, finished biosolids and mixed liquor samples for target constituents and treatment efficiency. Frequency of testing will be adjusted based on loading rates, dilution, and previous sample results in order to accurately track changes in the system.

As the data collection progresses, the research team will combine the results of the various analyses to develop an overall mass balance for the system and compare the loading rates for various parameters with treatment efficiency for the plant.

Concentrations of parameters that are passed through the POTW without significant treatment will be correlated with loading rates and compared to both effluent standards and downstream source water quality concerns for downstream water treatment plants.




45


14. Comparative Evaluation of Natural Gas Wastewater Management Practices and the

Potential Impacts on the Water Industry

Objective

Evaluate pros and cons of different oil and gas wastewater management strategies to aid local utilities in making decisions.

Background

Utility managers and local government officials may not have the in-depth knowledge of industry practices needed to make decisions regarding oil and gas wastewater disposal options. The document developed from this project will provide decision-makers the necessary information to implement local policies to reduce potential impacts on water and wastewater utilities.

Research Approach

Task 1 – Literature review

Identify the major practices that are actually being used to manage natural gas wastewater (e.g., injection, treat and discharge, treat and send to municipal wastewater treatment plant, evaporate, reuse with minimal treatment, reuse after high-level treatment).

Task 2 – Data Collection and Interviews

Collect data on wastewater flow per well (initial flowback, long-term produced water) and duration of flow for gas wells in each major formation.

Interview oil and gas companies in different regions to learn how they manage their wastewater.

Identify and interview companies providing commercial wastewater treatment service and technologies to the oil and gas industry.

Task 3 – Assessment and Reporting

Develop pros and cons for each major water management practice from the perspective of the water and wastewater utilities.

Develop life-cycle analysis for each practice using a triple bottom line approach (economic, environmental, and social).

Evaluate regulatory standards (water, air, waste, zoning/land-use, etc.) that may impact selection of treatment options.


Ake, J., K. Mahrer, D. O'Connell, and L. Block. 2005. “Deep-injection and closely monitored induced seismicity at Paradox Valley, Colorado.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(2):664-683.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2010. Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared by Argonne National Lab. Washington, DC.


47

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS The Water Research Foundation’s Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for

Drinking Water Utilities brought together a variety of stakeholders who demonstrated a desire to work together to understand the potential impacts on the drinking water sector from natural gas development using hydraulic fracturing. With increased drilling and fracturing activity on the horizon, it is vital that both sectors cooperatively seek solutions to promote good stewardship of water and energy resources.

Workshop participants identified fourteen potential research topics to help water utilities better understand and minimize the impacts of hydraulic fracturing. These topics included research on regulations, best management practices, emergency response planning, risk assessment, flowback water characteristics, monitoring protocols, disposal practices, and others. Workshop participants indicated that the project related to improved analytical techniques for characterizing flowback and produced water (project #2) is the most urgent and received the most votes overall. It was thought that without this information, research on other topics would be less complete and have a weaker basis for evaluation. The proposed research projects will be further considered by the Water Research Foundation as they develop their research agenda. WaterRF typically uses this type of information to build towards the next step of funding. Possible funding may be considered through various WaterRF programs and partnerships with other research organizations.

In addition to developing potential research projects, the workshop was also an opportunity for representatives from the water and energy sectors to have a constructive dialog on major issues and misconceptions related to hydraulic fracturing. Utility representatives indicated they are cautious with respect to natural gas development, particularly in the Northeast where there is heightened awareness of potential impacts due to some high profile and widely reported incidents. Energy sector representatives noted that they are responding to concerns that have arisen as drilling has expanded in the Marcellus Shale region. Drillers have increased levels of casing and grouting of wells in some areas in response to natural gas migration issues. There has been significant expansion of fracture fluid and produced water reuse in Pennsylvania in response to limited wastewater treatment options and increasingly strict discharge requirements. Companies are also working with state regulators, the EPA, and the Ground Water Protection Council to disclose information on hydraulic fracturing chemicals.

It was generally understood by most of the workshop participants that, given the shared interest in water resources, some level of coordination or cooperation between water utilities and the oil and gas industry would be needed moving forward. Multiple participants stressed that the key to the success of previous research projects, for example, was industry involvement. A critical element of cooperation is the effective use of available information and data. The gas industry has developed significant internal data resources that utilities and researchers would like to have accessible for further research and to support decision-making. There is also an existing body of public scientific data, reports, and articles that are currently available to help address many utility concerns. To facilitate information-sharing it is important for both sectors to be mindful of the potential for negative public perception to adversely impact the other and to work to avoid misleading or negative framing of the issues.

Furthermore, there is a need for each sector to understand the motivations behind decisions by the other. For example, the gas industry needs to realize the considerable burden on


48

water utilities to protect public health and provide reliable water supplies to its customers. Similarly, it is important that utilities, along with regulators and the public, appreciate that gas exploration and production is an extremely competitive industry and that companies must act quickly to remain competitive.

Ultimately there is a need for both sectors to engage with each other and the public in a constructive manner in order to provide sufficient assurances that both sectors are working together to balance the needs for energy and water resources.


49

APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP MATERIALS This section includes the following materials prepared prior to or during the workshop:

Pre-workshop survey Survey summary data Workshop agenda Workshop participant list Preliminary research topics


50


51

Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities Participant Survey

ACTION: Please provide us with the following information to help customize the workshop:

1. Indicate your preference for breakout technical sessions 2. Comment on suggested research needs 3. Provide information on current or ongoing research being conducted

Your response is needed no later than September 22. Thank you.

1. Name: __________________________________________

2. The workshop will be structured so that invitees will participate in 2 of the 4 sessions listed below. Please rank the technical sessions (1 highest to 4 lowest) that you would prefer to participate in. (You will have the opportunity to discuss all issues as a full group):

____ Water and Chemical Usage

____ Surface Activities

____ Subsurface Processes

____ Wastewater Disposal

3. Please review and comment on the suggested research needs below and add additional suggestions as necessary.

Yes - Additional research is needed on this topic No - Additional research is not needed on this topic CR - Subject of Current Research (see also Item #4 below)

At the end of each section, please also identify the most important research need, in your view, under this topic. Feel free to add space as necessary.

WATER AND CHEMICAL USAGE

___ Potential for impacts to water supply reliability from cumulative water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing by numerous independent operators

___ Mechanisms for permitting and monitoring water withdrawals to limit potential impacts to water supply reliability

___ Methods for resolving/avoiding water resource conflicts

___ Chemical disclosure/communication protocols to provide utilities with the information needed to monitor for impacts and mitigate if necessary

___ Technologies or products that could reduce usage of toxic chemicals


52

The most important research topic under Water and Chemical Usage in your view is:

SURFACE ACTIVITIES

___ Relationship between rates and/or densities of well development and the risk of spills

___ Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from on-site surface activities (e.g. spills, erosion, etc.)

___ Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from off-site surface activities (e.g. hauling accidents and spills)

___ Effective communications protocols to improve spill response and mitigation to minimize impacts on utilities

___ Impacts on public perception of the utility due to the presence of natural gas development in a drinking water watershed

___ Impacts on public perception of the utility due to spills within a drinking water watershed

The most important research topic under Surface Activities in your view is:

SUBSURFACE PROCESSES

___ Mechanisms/pathways by which drilling/fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation materials could migrate from the target formation towards the surface

___ Availability of sufficient data (spatial extent, resolution, etc.) on pre-existing faults/brittle structures that could pose problems during drilling and fracturing

___ Well casing and grouting testing to minimize well construction risk factors

___ Ability to monitor fracture propagation beyond the target formation

___ Geophysical monitoring techniques for improving characterization of confining strata between fractured formation and potable aquifers

___ Potential for widespread drilling and fracturing to negatively impact confining layers that isolate fractured formations


53

___ Availability of subsurface mitigation measures in the event of a failure

The most important research topic under Subsurface Processes in your view is:

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

___ Methods for predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water prior to drilling

___ Options for reuse of wastewater for drilling and fracturing operations

___ Impacts on conventional wastewater treatment plants and their receiving waters when accepting flowback and/or produced water

___ Alternative or emerging technologies for treating wastewater

___ Potential for undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells acting as conduits to the surface for waste injected underground

___ Occurrence of induced seismicity resulting from underground injection

The most important research topic under Wastewater Disposal in your view is:

4. Please provide us with information on projects that you are aware of that are current, proposed, or on-going designed to address research needs related to natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing that may be of interest to the Water Research Foundation. Please include as much information as possible for identifying the projects. Examples:

Comprehensive Lifecycle Planning and Management System for Addressing Water Issues Associated With Shale Gas Development in New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (DOE: DE-FE0000797)

Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production (DOE: DE-FE0000975)


54

Pilot Testing: Pretreatment Options to Allow Re-Use of Frac Flowback and Produced Brine for Gas Shale Resource Development (DOE: DE-FE0000847)

Cumulative Water Impacts of Natural Gas Drilling in Delaware River Basin (USGS)


55

Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities Participant Survey Summary of Responses

Response abbreviations

Yes - Additional research is needed on this topic

No - Additional research is not needed on this topic

CR - Subject of Current Research (see also Item #4 below)

M – Maybe

NR - No response

? - Questions on the topic

Water and Chemical Usage Y N CR NR M ?

Potential for impacts to water supply reliability from cumulative water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing by numerous independent operators

10 3 1 2 0 0

Mechanisms for permitting and monitoring water withdrawals to limit potential impacts to water supply reliability

8 2 1 4 1 0

Methods for resolving/avoiding water resource conflicts 8 3 0 4 1 0

Chemical disclosure/communication protocols to provide utilities with the information needed to monitor for impacts and mitigate if necessary

11 1 1 3 0 0

Technologies or products that could reduce usage of toxic chemicals 14 0 1 1 0 0

The most important research topic under Water and Chemical Usage in your view is:

Chemical disclosure/communication protocols to provide utilities with the information needed to monitor for impacts and mitigate if necessary

Potential for impacts to water supply reliability from cumulative water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing by numerous independent operators

Proper procedures for water withdrawal and handling of chemicals at the surface.

Water supply reliability/ideas on minimizing water usage

Technologies or products that could reduce usage of harmful chemicals (e.g. development of less harmful chemicals)

Adding tracers or identifying existing tracers in frac fluid that can be used to positively identify this material underground

Methods for resolving and avoiding water resource conflicts.

55


56

Surface Activities Y N CR NR M ?

Relationship between rates and/or densities of well development and the risk of spills 8 4 0 4 0 0

Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from on-site surface activities (e.g. spills, erosion, etc.)

10 1 1 3 1 0

Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from off-site surface activities (e.g. hauling accidents and spills)

9 4 0 3 0 0

Effective communications protocols to improve spill response and mitigation to minimize impacts on utilities

9 2 0 4 1 0

Impacts on public perception of the utility due to the presence of natural gas development in a drinking water watershed

10 1 0 4 0 1

Impacts on public perception of the utility due to spills within a drinking water watershed 9 2 0 4 0 1

The most important research topic under Surface Activities in your view is:

Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from on-site surface activities (e.g. spills, erosion, etc.)

Impact on public perception of water use, natl gas development and spills

Spill prevention, tracking, mitigation

Development of more benign chemistry, proper chemical handling on the drill pad (going down/coming up), and tighter rules for the drill pad – liners, sumps, surface control of all water – drilling, stormwater, spills.

Communication with local emergency response groups, training, and the industry being upfront with the public might shift public opinion if handled immediately when an accident occurs. Taking responsibility for ones actions better than trying to ignore or cover up problems.

BMP’s to prevent impact. Although being prepared to handle spillage is good, it is more important to avoid it in the first place.

Ultimately spills or accidents are likely to occur, so water purveyors should have protocols in place to deal with the incident and may need to work cooperatively with the state oil & gas program staff and the natural gas company (or truck hauler). These may be entities that water utilities historically have had very little interaction with. Spill response needs to be tailored specifically to different potable water sources – groundwater vs. surface water.

Relationship between rates and/or densities of well development and the risk of spills

Effective communications protocols to improve spill response and mitigation to minimize impacts on utilities

Both BMPs and enforcement.

General communication and management of BMPs is most important.

56


57

Subsurface Processes Y N CR NR M ?

Mechanisms/pathways by which drilling/fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation materials could migrate from the target formation towards the surface

11 1 1 3 0 0

Availability of sufficient data (spatial extent, resolution, etc.) on pre-existing faults/brittle structures that could pose problems during drilling and fracturing

11 0 0 3 1 1

Well casing and grouting testing to minimize well construction risk factors 9 2 1 4 0 0

Ability to monitor fracture propagation beyond the target formation 7 1 2 4 1 1

Geophysical monitoring techniques for improving characterization of confining strata between fractured formation and potable aquifers

8 4 1 3 0 0

Potential for widespread drilling and fracturing to negatively impact confining layers that isolate fractured formations

8 4 0 3 1 0

Availability of subsurface mitigation measures in the event of a failure 11 1 0 3 0 1

The most important research topic under Subsurface Processes in your view is:

Well casing and grouting testing to mitigate fluid migration/contamination

Mechanisms/pathways by which drilling/fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation materials could migrate from the target formation towards the surface

Openness of the industry to share the data they are collecting, possibly additional research (at a minimum QA/QC the industry data ) in order to make the data available to the public. In a form that the public would feel comfortable with.

Research and explain all instances of alleged contamination by fracing and related processes to produce a statistically valid database.

Oil & gas well construction and regulation has been under the purview of the states and not the federal government. As a result, there are many different standards across the country at the state level, without a required “minimum standard” applicable to all oil & gas wells. Even within the Marcellus Shale region, there are significant differences in well construction standards among individual states. Many states within the Marcellus Shale region are in the process of updating their oil & gas well regulations, including proposals to modify well construction requirements. The API has recommended well construction standards. I believe it would be useful for AWWA/WaterRF, etc. to establish a recommended minimum well construction standard. That minimum standard could then be used to compare against the API recommendations and any existing state requirements and would enable the drinking water utilities to make science based comments on existing and proposed state (and/or federal) oil & gas regulations.

ALL

Potential for groundwater contamination by infiltration from drill pad spills and leaking impoundments for drilling mud, frac fluid and flowback fluid, both lined and unlined.

Potential for widespread drilling and fracturing to negatively impact confining layers that isolate fractured formations

Geophysical monitoring techniques for improving characterization of confining strata between fractured formation and potable aquifers

Identification of existing fractures is important not regarding migration from shale zone, but as part of investigating and understanding shallow natural gas migration.

57


58

Wastewater Disposal Y N CR NR M ?

Methods for predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water prior to drilling

7 3 1 5 0 0

Options for reuse of wastewater for drilling and fracturing operations 8 1 5 2 0 0

Impacts on conventional wastewater treatment plants and their receiving waters when accepting flowback and/or produced water

9 2 1 4 0 0

Alternative or emerging technologies for treating wastewater 11 1 2 2 0 0

Potential for undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells acting as conduits to the surface for waste injected underground

8 3 0 5 0 0

Occurrence of induced seismicity resulting from underground injection 5 2 2 6 1 0

The most important research topic under Wastewater Disposal in your view is:

Impacts on conventional wastewater treatment plants and their receiving waters when accepting flowback and/or produced water

Options for reuse of wastewater for fracturing and drilling operations

Wastewater characterization, particularly with respect to NORM, and safe disposal options

Many of the constituents found in returned frac water do not have associated in-stream water quality standards and may not be included in EPA’s primary or secondary drinking water regulations. There needs to be effective protections for aquatic life and public water supplies in place in order to evaluate proposed discharges of returned frac water to surface waters. For those frac water constituents that have existing water quality standards and/or primary/secondary drinking water standards, do those standards need to be updated? For example – TDS, chlorides, sodium, sulfates, etc.

Potential for undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells acting as conduits to the surface for waste injected underground

Alternative or emerging technologies for treating wastewater

Methods for predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water prior to drilling

Options for reuse of wastewater for drilling and fracturing operations. There is some concern that reusing treated flowback for future frac fluids may give strong initial gas yield, but could reduce the lifetime production from a well

I think all of these topics are important and have a difficult time choosing. Going to the top and getting a better understanding of the volumes comes first. The current state estimates for the Marcellus Shale water volumes is dated and needs some review, analysis and documentation.

Balancing the cost of energy and energy inputs in wastewater disposal.

58


59

Comments and Additional Topics Suggested by Survey Respondents

General

NOTE: As a researcher, all of the research topic suggestions and others are topics for which ongoing research should likely continue on an ongoing basis, perhaps expanding in to developing tools to assist analysis and ultimately tools and methods for which to streamline processes while improving environmental sustainability. Personally, I would probably make changes to the above research as some appears to imply negative environmental impacts in the same breadth of inquiring whether research is needed. As such, the first topic might be re-titled “research on cumulative impacts of water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing and other competing water uses”. This would allow research on cumulative impact analysis of the entire system while also looking at where the other contributing impacts are coming from (e.g., power plants, agricultural, irrigation, industrial uses, non-point source discharges, etc.) as well as looking at drought scenarios, etc.

Wording on some of these questions is misleading so "No" was the only appropriate response.

Water and Chemical Usage

Much of what you have here depends on where the water resource is being extracted. SRBC has a good set of rules/regulations in place and could be a model for the rest of the Play. If water is properly/appropriately withdrawn to not impact on hydrologic/ecologic system (surface or ground water) then water use is not a problem. Tools are available if properly applied and monitored.

Chemicals used are a concern in transport. handling, mixing, loading to the drillhole, and in the return of flowback, handling, and proper disposal. Downhole concerns are minimal.

Water supply reliability from water withdrawals would need to be at a local/state scale

It seems to me that mechanisms for permitting and monitoring water withdrawals is an issue to be looked at state by state

Avoiding water resource conflicts is much more general than just shale gas and I think WaterRF should focus on less open topics

I don’t know if all additives are toxic, toxic might be too strong of a word but WaterRF should also investigate fate of the (bio)degradation products of an additive not necessarily “toxic”

Adding tracers or identifying existing tracers in frac fluid that can be used to positively identify this material underground.

Before and after testing of groundwater and nearby surface bodies of water to assess the presence of frac fluid chemicals – testing before drilling will establish a baseline, and periodic measurements afterward will track movement.

The amount of water used by drilling and production operations is a concern with regard to disposal, but except in isolated local cases the amount of water used is not large compared with other demand. Resolving conflicts, communication, permitting, and toxic chemicals are all worthy topics for further investigation.

A topic with regard to chemical usage that might be added would be the presence of naturally occurring or added radioactive substances in frac water including their impact and treatability issues.

I think the industry will become better at avoiding and managing spillage and wellbore leakage faster than they will be able to reduce their water footprint

What should water utilities be monitoring for relating the natural gas development and where should we be monitoring?

Which of the parameters associated with natural gas drilling are potentially harmful from a drinking water perspective? Are the typical concentrations commensurate with levels known to be problematic for drinking water?

Other water/ chemical topics are important, but are being resolved or studied already.

59


60

Surface Activities

Assessment of surface environmental impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, water quality in small watersheds and headwater streams, soils, and habitat.

Perhaps a topic covering local monitoring and enforcement capabilities and mechanisms would be appropriate.

Subsurface Processes

A lot of this falls under the need to get data from the industry – they are already collecting much of this and they/we need to get the results (vetted) and out to the public. Show the data - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The fault migration pathway put forward by H&S does not seem credible. This brings another point, discussing pathways is fine but the focus should on the most probable (or should it be on the most unlikely but with high consequences?) Migration towards the surface is a bit loose as well, when do we start to be concerned?: migration into the next formation up, a given distance of 100 ft or 1000 ft for example. Should we also address potential attenuation mechanisms in the deep subsurface?

Data on pre-existing faults/brittle structures that could pose problems during drilling and fracturing is basic geology, it can be used only if operators have a geologist or an engineer familiar with geology on staff

Well casing and grouting is a larger issue not specific to shale gas; I think it is more a question of enforcement than implementing new rules.

Microseismic can be used to show fracture is restricted to target interval. Several wells could be instrumented to investigate strata above and below the gas shale to locate new fractures and maybe reactivation of older ones.

Gas shales are typically deep and several confining layers likely exist. Which geophysical property do we want to monitor? Seismic? It is usually proprietary and the state/fed cannot afford the expense. Pressure monitoring seems more feasible but would need a network of deep wells above the confining strata. It seems to me that wellbores (maybe older wellbores) are more of an issue and are the most likely breach of a confining unit.

Barnett shale with the underlying saline aquifer Ellenburger fm. could provide a counter example to negative impacts to confining layers.

Induced earthquakes; can fracing produce them or is it only water disposal

Potential for groundwater contamination by infiltration from drill pad spills and leaking impoundments for drilling mud, frac fluid and flowback fluid, both lined and unlined.

Potential for groundwater contamination by oxidized minerals leaching from black shale drill cuttings left on the surface

Assessment of hydraulic conductivities, flow gradients, and groundwater travel times from well sites to nearby domestic water wells at locations that claim contamination from gas drilling.

Assessment of the sources and migration pathways of stray gas in drinking water aquifers.

Research on subsurface migration of chemicals will most likely to show negative results (i.e. it is highly unlikely that residual hydraulic fracturing fluids will migrate several thousand feet upward against gravity to a shallow aquifer) but it is important to collect data and determine the circumstances that would have to transpire for this to occur.

Suggest rewording the first topic under subsurface processes to address only impact on usable quality water and not general movement away from the target formation

60


61

Wastewater Disposal

Much of what you have above varies across the play, so again we need to access to the industry data – SRBC has determined through their – Water Management Process that flowback is generally around 10%, therefore recycling is a no-brainer. Wastewater treatment should NOT be considered “dilution is the solution to pollution”.

Treatment has been found to concentrate the problem, and the proper disposal of heavy metals, high TDS, and NORM must be properly considered. Water, once treated can be reused, but long term options for formation water development over the long haul must be considered now.

Predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water prior to drilling is a beneficial goal but that doesn’t seem very achievable at this point as far as I know

Conventional wastewater treatment plants are not designed to handle high TDS (especially high Na and Cl)

Undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells is region/site-specific; presumably of this is an oil&gas area, local UIC body should have info. Info can be compiled across the US for active/potential gas shales but I don’t see this as a priority for WaterRF.

Although many disposal wells exist, only a few create seismic events strong enough to be felt. There is a recent body of literature on this topic following interest on carbon storage. This could be a hurdle to deep well injection in the NE US

It seems that a topic may be missing in the set above. There is a great deal of data available on water quality from USGS and COE. To our knowledge there has not been a concerted effort to evaluate the links between gas drilling and river quality as opposed to other factors such as drought or acid mine drainage. An example of a possible effort would be to gain a better understanding of gas drilling impacts on the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania. This would be an area where a university researcher skilled in data mining, statistical analysis and modeling might be able to produce local models that might provide insight into natural and man induced phenomena.

Another area that is not very well understood revolves around the underground injection capacity and capability. The seismicity issue is a worthy topic, but a simpler overview of where injection wells are available is important.

What types of facilities are permitted and able to accept waste water from natural gas drilling based on the current regulations? How are these facilities tracked and monitored by regulators?

What is the efficiency of treatment of natural gas fracking water? What is removed? What is left in the effluent? What is left in the distillate and how is that disposed of?

Methods development for extraction of gas without produced water (leaving water in the subsurface)

61


62

Current Research Projects/Programs Suggested by Respondents

Hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources- USEPA Study – Will examine full life cycle of water and chemical usage in the HF process from water acquisition, mixing with chemicals, storage, injection/fracturing, withdrawal, on site wastewater management and treatment and ultimate disposal of wastes and wastewaters

API recommended practices addressing well design, cementing, and HF operations and surface environmental management

ICF International, Technical Assistance for the Draft Supplemental Generic EIS: Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (Task 1) (August 7, 2009).

Susquehanna River Basin Commission analysis (it oversees withdrawals for NY and PA) the current estimate of water use for gas drilling is “less than 6 percent of the total use for water supply, power and recreation.”

DOE July 2010 report on water management in the Marcellus that you might be interested in reviewing. Also, attached is a “draft internal” (an now dated) document (Emerging Issue Water) that highlights NGO activities on water issues.

I was part of a large team at Texas A&M that developed methods for multicriteria selection of technologies for environmentally friendly on shore oil and gas development. Funded by DOE and a few of the majors together with some drilling contractors. We did not address fracking, but the general framework is relevant and extensible. I have some papers I could share.

The last item –DRBC Cumulative Impact proposal in the House of Representatives had/has no USGS input to date. We are trying to develop concepts to be considered in this program, work with DRBC to determine what they need, and then go back to legislators and make the language clearer with better defined goals. As far as I know there is no companion bill in the Senate so not sure where this might be going in the long run either.

RPSEA Unconventional Gas Research Program

Texas mining water use (including from shale gas fracing) funded by Texas Water Development Board to the Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin

Sampling and Analysis of Water Streams Associated with the Development of Marcellus Shale Gas (Prepared for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, December 31, 2009)

An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management of Produced Water. DOE/RPSEA (RFP2007UN001) Colorado School of Mines

62


63

Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities Workshop Agenda

DAY 1

TIME TOPIC DETAILS

8:00 Coffee / Refreshments

8:30 Opening: Purpose, Agenda Review, Ground Rules, Introductions, Broad Overview

WaterRF introduce goals/purpose of the workshop Facilitator review agenda, ground rules, logistics Participants introduce themselves, identify their name and

organization. H&S introduce the key issues identified previously (water and

chemical usage, surface activities, subsurface, and WW disposal) 9:00 Topic #1: Overview of

Water and Chemical Usage (Pat)

Andre Zinkevich with American Water will introduce topic and identify why this is important to utilities (15 min.)

H&S identify on-going research and specific concerns/questions identified in prior research and pre-workshop survey (15 min.)

Initial questions and comments (15 min.) 9:45 Topic #2: Overview of

Surface Activities (Kate) Julie Hunt with the City of Arlington, Texas will introduce topic

and identify why this is important to utilities (15 min.) H&S identify on-going research and specific concerns/questions

identified in prior research and pre-workshop survey (15 min.) Initial questions and comments (15 min.)

10:30 Breakout Groups for Topics #1 and #2

Brief introduction of topic Complete initial list of key research questions/topics (30 min.)

individually and collectively. Identify any existing research already underway that would

eliminate key questions from the list (30 min.) Clarify and combine questions, as appropriate (30 min.) Detailing and refining the list of questions/topics for clarity (30

min.) Identify who could write up details should full group select Use “show of hands” or “dot polling” to identify top 5 to 7

12:30 Lunch Facilitator, reporter, and recorder type up list of questions from breakout groups

1:30 Breakout Groups #1 and #2 report back

Reporter share list with full group Brief questions and comments from the group 20 min. each topic

2:15 Breakout Groups #1 and #2

Taking feedback from Plenary, group further refines and details lists

Product will be list of research questions in sufficient detail to be listed for prioritization by full group

Group should identify who could best write up each topic in more detail

3:15 Break


64

3:30 Topic #3: Overview of Subsurface Activities (Kate)

Paul Rush with NYC Department of Environmental Protection will introduce topic and identify why this is important to utilities (15 min.)

H&S identify on-going research and specific concerns/questions identified in prior research and pre-workshop survey (15 min.)

Initial questions and comments (15 min.) 4:15 Topic #4: Overview of

Wastewater Issues (Pat) Kelly Anderson of Philadelphia Water will introduce topic and

identify why this is important to utilities (15 min.) H&S identify on-going research and specific concerns/questions

identified in prior research and pre-workshop survey (15 min.) Initial questions and comments (15 min.)

5:00 Review of Day and Charge for Day #2

Facilitator briefly review Day #1 and Set Charge for Breakout Groups in Day #2

5:15 Adjourn Facilitator, reporter, and recorder type up final questions/topics from breakout groups before dinner

DAY 2

8:30 Breakout Groups for Topics #3 and #4

Brief introduction of topic Complete initial list of key research questions/topics (30 min.)

individually and collectively. Identify any existing research already underway that would

eliminate key questions from the list (30 min.) Clarify and combine questions, as appropriate (30 min.) Detailing and refining the list of questions/topics for clarity (30

min.) Identify who could write up details should full group select Use “show of hands” or “dot polling” to identify top 5 to 7

10:30 Break Facilitator, reporter, and recorder type up list of questions from breakout groups

10:45 Breakout Groups #3 and #4 report back

Reporter share list with full group Brief questions and comments from the group 20 min. each topic

11:30 Breakout Groups #3 and #4

Taking feedback from Plenary, group further refines and details lists

Product will be list of research questions in sufficient detail to be listed for prioritization by full group

Group should identify who could best write up each topic in more detail

12:30 Lunch Facilitator, reporter, and recorder type up final questions/topics from breakout groups

Jeanne Briskin with EPA to give a short talk on EPA efforts


65

1:30 Final Polling Very brief review of the process (10 min.) Group polls on the research questions to select the top priorities

(20 min.) Goal is to select 12 to 15 with two colored dots, 5 to 6 plus one (red) for most important

Quick compilation to share results with group (15 min.) Assign subgroups (2 to 3) to write up each prioritized

question/topic in more detail (15 min.) 2:30 Subgroups for Detailing

Prioritized Research Questions

Subgroups (2 to 3 at most) write up each prioritized topic/questions in more detail according to template provided

4:30 Final Comments and Closing Remarks

Participants given chance to offer any final comments and suggestions

WaterRF talks about next steps with the information generated 5:00 Adjourn

RULES OF THE ROAD Prepare ahead of time by reviewing written materials Be prepared to work hard to maximize our short time together Agreement will be sought on the range of key research questions for WaterRF consideration Where agreement cannot be reached, differences will be explored and detailed A final list of priorities will be developed through dot polling (the nominal group method) Please use templates provided to help produce a common, clear work product All input is advice to WaterRF who retains full authority to spend its research dollars as it deems

appropriate Minimize electronic distractions (cell phones, blackberries, iphones, etc.) Speak one at a time and share air time Stay on track with the agenda


66

WaterRF Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities: Participant List and Breakout Group Assignments

Name Organization Name Type of Organization Beakout Sessions

Technical Experts Scott Anderson Environmental Defense Fund NGO - Environmental advocacy 1 3

J. Daniel Arthur ALL Consulting Consultant / service provider 1 3

Tzahi Cath Colorado School of Mines University research 1 4

Kevin Fisher Pinnacle Technologies Consultant / service provider 1 3

Seth Guikema Johns Hopkins University University research 2 3

Gary Hanson Red River Watershed Management Institute NGO - Watershed management 1 3

Tom Hayes Gas Technology Institute Private sector research 1 4

Bill Kappel U.S. Geological Survey Federal research 1 4

Joe Lee Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection Regulator - State 2 3

Matt Mantell Chesapeake Energy Gas development company 1 3

J.P. Nicot University of Texas Austin University research 1 3

Chad Pindar Delaware River Basin Commission Regulator - Regional 2 3

Robert Puls USEPA Office of Research and Development Federal research 1 3

Dan Soeder U.S. Dept of Energy NETL Federal research 2 3

John Veil Argonne National Lab Federal research 2 4

Lori Wrotenbery Oklahoma Corporation Commission Regulator - State 2 4

Utility representatives

Kelly Anderson Philadelphia Water Dept Water utility 2 4

Paula Connely Philadelphia Water Dept Water utility 1 3

Julie Hunt City of Arlington, TX Water utility 2 4

Kim Kane New York City Dept of Environmental Protection Water utility 2 3

Paul Rush New York City Dept of Environmental Protection Water utility 1 4

Andre Zinkevich American Water Water utility 1 4

Water Research Foundation Staff and guests

Jeanne Briskin USEPA Office of Research and Development Federal research 2 4

Fred Hauchman USEPA Office of Research and Development Federal research 1 3

Audrey Levine USEPA Office of Research and Development Federal research 2 4

Kim Linton WaterRF Staff Private sector research 2 4 Mary Smith WaterRF Staff Private sector research 1 3 Lynn Thorpe Clean Water Action / WaterRF Research Council Member NGO - Environmental advocacy 2 4

Jennifer Warner WaterRF Staff Private sector research 2 4

Consultant Team

Patrick Field Consensus Building Institute Facilitator 1 3

Frank Getchell Leggette, Brashears and Graham Consultant 1 3

Kate Harvey Consensus Building Institute Facilitator 2 4 Tom McEnerney Hazen and Sawyer Consultant 2 4 Grantley Pyke Hazen and Sawyer Consultant 1 3

Ben Wright Hazen and Sawyer Consultant 2 4

Breakout Sessions 1 Water and Chemical Usage 2 Surface Activities

3 Subsurface Processes

4 Wastewater Disposal


67

Water Research Foundation Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities

October 27 and 28, 2010 Baltimore, MD

Water and Chemical Usage Preliminary Research Questions

1. Technologies or products that could reduce usage of toxic chemicals 2. Chemical disclosure/communication protocols to provide utilities with the information needed

to monitor for impacts and mitigate if necessary 3. Potential for impacts to water supply reliability from cumulative water withdrawals for

hydraulic fracturing by numerous independent operators 4. Mechanisms for permitting and monitoring water withdrawals to limit potential impacts to

water supply reliability 5. Methods for resolving/avoiding water resource conflicts 6. Adding tracers or identifying existing tracers in frac fluid that can be used to positively identify

this material underground 7. Proper procedures for water withdrawal and handling of chemicals at the surface. 8. At what concentration of chemicals in water supplies do utilities need to be concerned? 9. What should water utilities be monitoring for and where should utilities be monitoring?


68



Surface Activities Preliminary Research Questions

1. Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from on-site

surface activities (e.g. spills, erosion, etc.) 2. Impacts on public perception of the utility due to the presence of natural gas development in a

drinking water watershed 3. Availability and effectiveness of BMPs to prevent impacts to water utilities from off-site

surface activities (e.g. hauling accidents and spills) 4. Effective communications protocols to improve spill response and mitigation to minimize

impacts on utilities 5. Impacts on public perception of the utility due to spills within a drinking water watershed 6. Relationship between rates and/or densities of well development and the risk of spills 7. Assessment of surface environmental impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, water

quality in small watersheds and headwater streams, soils, and habitat. 8. Potential for groundwater contamination by infiltration from drill pad spills and leaking

impoundments for drilling mud, frac fluid and flowback fluid, both lined and unlined. 9. Potential for groundwater contamination by oxidized minerals leaching from black shale drill

cuttings left on the surface. 10. What local monitoring and enforcement capabilities and mechanisms would be appropriate?


69



Subsurface Processes Preliminary Research Questions

1. Mechanisms/pathways by which drilling/fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation

materials could migrate from the target formation towards the surface 2. Availability of sufficient data (spatial extent, resolution, etc.) on pre-existing faults/brittle

structures that could pose problems during drilling and fracturing 3. Availability of subsurface mitigation measures in the event of a failure 4. Well casing and grouting testing to minimize well construction risk factors 5. Geophysical monitoring techniques for improving characterization of confining strata between

fractured formation and potable aquifers 6. Potential for widespread drilling and fracturing to negatively impact confining layers that

isolate fractured formations 7. Ability to monitor fracture propagation beyond the target formation 8. Research and explain all instances of alleged contamination by fracing and related processes to

produce a statistically valid database. 9. Should AWWA establish a recommended minimum oil and gas well construction standard? 10. Assessment of the sources and migration pathways of stray gas in drinking water aquifers. 11. Assessment of hydraulic conductivities, flow gradients, and groundwater travel times from well

sites to nearby domestic water wells at locations that claim contamination from gas drilling.


70



Wastewater Disposal Preliminary Research Questions

1. Alternative or emerging technologies for treating wastewater 2. Impacts on conventional wastewater treatment plants and their receiving waters when accepting

flowback and/or produced water 3. Options for reuse of wastewater for drilling and fracturing operations 4. Potential for undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells acting as conduits to the surface

for waste injected underground 5. Methods for predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced

water prior to drilling 6. Occurrence of induced seismicity resulting from underground injection 7. What water drinking quality standards, if any, need to be developed for frac water constituents? 8. Develop or update estimates on wastewater rates and volumes from the Marcellus and other

plays. 9. What is the balance between the cost of energy and energy inputs in wastewater disposal? 10. What is the impact of radioactivity on treatability of wastewater?


71

REFERENCES Ake, J., K. Mahrer, D. O'Connell, and L. Block. 2005. “Deep-injection and closely monitored induced

seismicity at Paradox Valley, Colorado.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(2):664-683.

American Water Works Association. 2006. Emergency Response and Recovery Planning for Water Systems: A Kit of Tools. Denver, CO.

Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission B-43 Field Well Completions. 2011. Fayetteville data. (http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/Fayprodinfo.htm, accessed 2/3/11).

Arthur, J.D., B. Bohm, B.J. Coughlin, and M. Layne. 2008. Evaluating the environmental implications of hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs. ALL Consulting, Tulsa OK.

Blauch, M.E., Myers, R.R., Moore, T. R., and Lipinski, B.A. 2009. Marcellus Shale Post-frac flowback waters - where is all the salt coming from and what are the implications? Society of Petroleum Engineers Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, WV, 23-25 September 2009.

Brasier, K. 2010. Natural Gas Experiences of Marcellus Residents: Preliminary Results from the Community Satisfaction Survey. Presented as part of the Penn State Cooperative Extension Marcellus Shale Educational Webinar Series on September 16, 2010.

Earthworks Oil & Gas Accountability Project. 2007. The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes. Washington, DC.

Fisher, K. 2010. Data Confirm Safety of Well Fracturing. The American Oil and Gas Reporter, July 2010.

Frost, C. D., E L. Brinck, J. Mailloux, S. Sharma, C. E. Campbell1, S. A. Carter, and B. N. Pearson. 2010. “Innovative Approaches for Tracing Water Co-Produced with Coalbed Natural Gas: Applications of Strontium and Carbon Isotopes of Produced Water in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming And Montana”. In Coalbed Natural Gas: Energy and Environment. Nova Publishers (in press).

Kargbo, D.M., Wilhelm, R.G., and Campbell, D.J. 2010. Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 44, No. 15, 5679-5684.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources SONRIS Well Data. 2011. Haynesville data. (http://dnr.louisiana.gov/haynesvilleshale/haynesville_20110127.xls, accessed 2/3/11).


National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). 2009. Project Description for Sustainable Management of Flowback Water during Hydraulic Fracturing of Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas Production.


New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 2009. Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed Final Impact Assessment Report, prepared by Hazen and Sawyer and Leggette, Brashears, and Graham. New York, NY.


72

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2009. Draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement on the oil, gas and solution mining regulatory program. Albany, NY.



New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2009. Water-Related Issues Associated with Gas Production in the Marcellus Shale: Additives, Flowback Quality And Quantity, NYS Regulations, On-Site Treatment, Green Technologies, Alternate Water Sources, And Water Well Testing, Prepared by URS Corporation. Albany, NY.

Papso, J., M. Blauch, and D.Grottenthaler. 2010. “Gas well treated with 100% reused frac fluid”. E&P Magazine. August 1, 2010.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Marcellus data. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/RIG10.htm, accessed 2/1/11

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. 2009. Trihalomethane Speciation and the Relationship to Elevated Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations Affecting Drinking Water Quality at Systems Utilizing the Monongahela River as a Primary Source During the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2008. Harrisburg, PA

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation. 2009. Trihalomethane Speciation and the Relationship to Elevated Total Dissolved Solid Concentrations Affecting Drinking Water Quality at Systems Utilizing the Monongahela River as a Primary Source During the 3rd and 4th Quarters of 2008. Harrisburg, PA.

State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations. Various reports on state oil and gas regulatory programs. Oklahoma City, OK.

Texas Railroad Commission. 2010. Barnett data. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/barnettshale/barnettshalewellcount1993-2009.pdf and http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/data/fielddata/barnettshale.pdf, accessed 2/1/11

Theodori, G. L. 2009. Paradoxical Perceptions of Problems Associated with Unconventional Natural Gas Development. Southern Rural Sociology, 24(3), pp. 97–117.

Thyne, G. 2008. Review of Phase II Hydrogeologic Study. Prepared for Garfield County (CO). December 12, 2008.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, LLC. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2010a. Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared by Argonne National Lab. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2010b. Water Resources and Use for Hydraulic Fracturing in the Marcellus Shale Region, prepared by ALL Consulting, LLC. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Office of Fossil Energy. 2009. State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources, prepared by the Ground Water Protection Council. Washington, D.C.


73

United States Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2008. Reasonably foreseeable development scenarios for fluid minerals: Arkansas. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Jackson Field Office.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Exemption of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations. Washington, DC.




74


75

ABBREVIATIONS BMP Best Management Practice BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene EDC Endocrine Disrupting Compound EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency GWPC Groundwater Protection Council MG Million Gallons NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NYCDEP New York City Department of Environmental Protection NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SAB Science Advisory Board SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act STRONGER State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. TDS Total Dissolved Solids USDOE United States Department of Energy USDOI United States Department of the Interior WaterRF Water Research Foundation


76


6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA

P 303.347.6100 • F 303.734.0196 • www.WaterRF.org

1P-1.25C-4301-10/11-FP

Hydraulic Fracturing Issues and Research Needs for the W

ater Comm

unity 4301