Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania Managing the Risks of Shale - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

[Add your own pictures here]

Wastewater Characteristics from Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania

Managing the Risks of Shale Gas Development Resources for the Future Washington, DC

2

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Purpose of this work

• Statistically analyze characteristics of flowback,

produced water, and drilling fluid waste sent to wastewater treatment facilities in PA, 2008-2011.

• If recycling, treatment, and disposal options involve

exposure to the environment/human health, knowledge

• f wastewater constituents helps quantify risks.
• Results may be useful in:
• Evaluating current and future wastewater treatment

technologies, infrastructure capacity, and siting.

• Understanding potential impacts of treated wastewater on rivers

and streams.

• Setting effluent standards

3

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Comparison with Other Analyses

• Marcellus Shale Water Characterization funded by

Marcellus Shale Coalition and ASWCMC Consortia.

• Consistent sampling from 19 locations, analysis performed by a

single lab, flowback samples at 0, 1, 5, 14, 90 days.

• GE also has a database (data from various shales).
• Data in our analysis are publicly available, focus on

waste sent to treatment facilities (rather than recycling, deep injection), include drilling fluid waste and other categories.

4

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Data Source: Form 26R, submitted to PADEP by “residual waste” generators

• Generator information
• Waste description (pH range, physical

state, appearance)

• Chemical analysis attachments
• Process description, schematic diagrams
• Management of residual waste – location

information for processing/disposal facilities, information about beneficial use

• Certification

5

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development When is a Form 26R required?

• A company that generates > 2200

pounds of residual waste from a “generating location” in a single month during the calendar year must file a Form26R by March 1 of the following year.

• Non-hazardous industrial waste
• Individual chemical analysis

required for each waste type (DEP waste codes)

NON-COAL MINING, OIL AND GAS, AND OTHER WELL DRILLING WASTES

801 Drilling Fluids, Residuals (other than those under 802-810; includes drill cuttings from monitoring well and drinking water well construction) 802 Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas wells) 803 Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud,

• ther drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and

spent lubricant) 804 Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flow- back fracturing sand) 807 Basic Sediment (oil and gas production storage impurities, sediment from produced oil at storage tank battery) 808 Servicing Fluid (oil and gas production well maintenance/work over fluids, oil/water-based mud and foam) 809 Spent Lubricant Waste (spent oil and gas drilling lubricants, spent plug drilling lubricants) 810 Drill Cuttings (oil and gas drill cuttings)

6

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Form 26R Required Analytes for Marcellus Shale or Other Gas Wells

Acidity Chemical Oxygen Demand Magnesium Silver Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) Chlorides Manganese Sodium Aluminum Chromium MBAS (Surfactants) Specific Conductance Ammonia Nitrogen Cobalt Mercury Strontium Arsenic Copper Molybdenum Sulfates Barium Ethylene Glycol Nickel Thorium Benzene Gross Alpha Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen Toluene Beryllium Gross Beta Oil & Grease Total Dissolved Solids Biochemical Oxygen Demand Hardness (Total as CaCO3) pH Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Boron Iron – Dissolved Phenolics (Total) Total Suspended Solids Bromide Iron – Total Radium 226 Uranium Cadmium Lead Radium 228 Zinc Calcium Lithium Selenium

Additional constituents that are expected or known to be present in the wastewater.

7

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Data Collection

N: number of laboratory reports in our database

N = 85 N = 11 N = 74 N = 8

8

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Dataset Summary

Variable Count laboratory report 178 company 22 well 104 well with location info. 95 wastewater treatment facilities 37 wastewater treatment facilities with location info. 21 Sample year Freq. 2009 75 2010 77 2011 18 NA 8 Total 178

9

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Categories of Chemicals

• Lab samples are tested for a total of 432 different

analytes that we are able to identify in the data, in the following categories:

• General chemicals
• Organics
• Pesticides
• Metals
• Radioactive Materials
• Only 198 of these analytes are actually measured

in one or more samples (many NAs, NDs, BDLs).

10

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Comparison of General Chemicals in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

11

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Comparison of Metals in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

12

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Comparison of Organics in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

13

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Comparison of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste

14

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Waste Shipments: Cl- Concentrations at Wells and Treatment Facilities

15

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Preliminary Conclusions

• High chemical concentrations are observed pre-

treatment, emphasizing need for effective treatment.

• When barium is detected (92% of samples), median concentration is

> 40 times Pennsylvania’s wastewater effluent standard and > 200 times the SDWA maximum contaminant level for barium.

• Concentrations of chloride, TDS, bromide, radium-228 and strontium

in pretreatment wastewater are also far higher than either wastewater effluent standards or drinking water standards.

• Wastewater composition is highly variable over the

course of the shale gas extraction process -- a challenge for effective treatment and management.

• Form26 filed once/year/waste type/generating location – constituent

concentrations could vary even within this temporal/spatial window.

16

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Preliminary Conclusions, cont.

• Produced water has very different composition than

flowback, typically having higher chloride, TDS and radium-228 concentrations. Obviously more difficult to recycle, requiring different technology/higher costs.

• Many constituents may be effectively removed by

chemical waste treatment facilities currently treating this waste (e.g., metals); others may not (e.g., salts).

• Further research on potential risks from wastewater

treatment and release to rivers and streams is warranted.

Thank you!

18

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Life Cycle of Water

Surface water fracing fluid additives Groundwater Hydraulic fracturing Pound/ tank Onsite treatment Offsite WWTF Surface discharge Other high value reuse landfill Drilling fluid additives Drilling Pound/ tank Onsite treatment Flowback water Produced water Deep well injection Pound/ tank

Sampling location Clean water Chemicals Wastewater Recycling Mixing tank

Chemicals Chemicals

19

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback) and Brine (Produced Water)

Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback) Brine (Produced Water) Complete fracking Connect wellhead to gas pipe to start production The length of flowback can be from 2 weeks to

• ne month or
• longer. It varies

by developer. Some reports don’t distinguish them using above method, but call them all flowback and distinguish them by days after fracing

• completion. For example, completion day 0, 1, 3, 5, 14, 30 and 90.

We use 30 days as a cut off to assign waste type and code for these reports.

20

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Compare Form 26R and MSC Results

F26R_802 MSC Study F26R_804 Produced Parameter Influent 5-Day Flowback 14-Day Flowback Flowback Water pH 7.2 6.6 6.2 6.9 5.8 Alkalinity 52.5 138 85.2 1819.7 2521.9 TDS 334 67300 120000 60156.5 182948.6 TSS 9.6 99 209 387.5 205.7 TOC 3.8 62.8 38.7 79.8 1928.5 BOD 149 2.8 2.8 595.4 855.6 Oil & Grease 31 < 5 7.4 NA NA Sodium 67.8 18000 16383 35887.7 Calcium 32.9 4950 4982 15003.6 Magnesium 6.7 559 491.6 1412.4 Iron 1.2 39 41.9 106.5 Barium 0.4 686 1025.8 84328.8 Chloride 42.3 41850 40462.5 99711.8

21

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Compare Concentrations to Standards/Criteria

Primary environmental public health concerns: Parameter NOB Median (mg/L) Standard (mg/L) Note Barium 159 651 2 EPA MCL Barium 159 651 10 PA wastewater effluent standards monthly average Strontium 156 1275 4 EPA recommended limit for finished municipal drinking water Strontium 156 1275 10 PA wastewater effluent standards monthly average Benzene 44 0.05 0.005 EPA MCL Ecological and secondary drinking water concerns: Chlorides 154 53250 250 EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent standards Magnesium 152 581 0.05 EPA SMCL TDS 156 87150 500 EPA SMCL, PA wastewater effluent standards Sulfate 78 86 250 EPA SMCL

22

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Previous Data Sampling and Analysis of Flowback Water

Marcellus Shale Water Characterization

• Funded by MSC and ASWCMC Consortia
• Sampling from 19 locations
• Includes general chemistry and detailed analysis of constituents of interests
• Lists of constituents of interest provided by the PADEP
• Over 250 determinations performed on samples
• Samples taken at 0, 1, 5, 14 and 90 days following the frac job at each

location

• Sampling at Day 0: raw water without additives; raw water with chemical

additives before sand addition

• Uniformity of sampling and analysis:
• Standardized Plans
• Sampling performed by URS
• Analyses performed by one lab (Test America)

GE also maintains a database, including data from various shales.

23

RFF project focuses on environmental risks from shale gas development Wastewater Streams Considered

Code Description 801 Drilling Fluids, Residuals (Other than those under 802-810; includes drill cuttings from monitoring Well and drinking water well construction) 802 Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas wells) 803 Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud, other drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and spent lubricant) 804 Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing sand)