More on Pavilion, WY

Last week Adam wrote a post about the water contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming. This post contained a lot of information and summarized much of what the report said; however, because of the length of this report and the significant amount of information it entailed, I would like to add onto what Adam said and give more information regarding the report.

Location of Pavilion, Wyoming

People in Pavilion had noticed a foul taste and smell to their drinking water, so they notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about this and complained until they said they would come out and conduct a study. In this study, many hydrocarbons and other compounds that can be related to hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production were found in the soil as well as the water.

These compounds were found to most likely be from hydraulic fracturing and surface pits used during drilling. When a well is drilled, surface pits are used for drilling wastes and produced and flowback waters. These are usually man made and should be cleaned up once the well has been drilled.

So this may make hydraulic fracturing sound like a horrible process and encourage us to discontinue it. However, there is more to consider while reading this report.

First, these wells were drilled in the 1950's. Much has changed since then including drilling technology and certain standards needing to be met. Information was lacking in the well design of these wells in Pavilion, so it is hard to know exactly how they were drilled.  Secondly, these wells were only a few hundred feet beneath the surface. In my research, I have never heard of a single well being that shallow. From my experience working at BP America this summer, each of the wells we discussed were all a few thousand feet beneath the surface. Because the wells in Pavilion are so shallow, it is a lot easier for methane and other hydrocarbons to migrate to the water table. Third, the surface casing of these wells "do not extend below the maximum depth of domestic wells in the area of investigation." This goes along with the shallowness of these wells. Finally, there is no baseline information to compare the results from this study to what would have been before hydraulic fracturing occurred.

Overall, these downfalls related to hydraulic fracturing are easy to fix. Simply drill deeper wells to avoid the effects hydraulic fracturing had here.

Currently the EPA is working on getting the water and soil in Pavilion cleaned up. It is difficult to get the funding because there is still no proof of the exact source of these compounds.

I realize this post is long. There is merely too much to say and too little room to say it. If there is any questions about anything that I said, feel free to ask.

-Aubrey Bagley

What was Going on in Pavillion, Wyoming?

Could you imagine living in a small town where you know something is wrong with your water supply, but unsure to the reason why and how serious of a problem it is?  This is what happened in a town named Pavillion, Wyoming where the individuals of the town had to fight long and hard to get noticed for a case study to be done on the water supply. 

Louis Meeks, an individual of Pavillion, with a jar of contaminated water

Individuals sent in complaints once they realized the water supply had some foul qualities and this sparked an investigation into the quality of the water headed up by the EPA Region 8.  John Hanger, a nationally recognized expert on environment and energy, review the report given by the EPA and claims that the report implies a direct connection to contamination from hydraulic fraccing and natural gas extraction.  The contamination was so great that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, advised all of the individuals with contaminated water to use other sources of water for cooking and drinking and when an individual is showering to make sure the room is ventilated. 

Signs were posted making it clear that the water should not be used

Shortly after the report was released by the EPA, EnCana Natural Gas began to come out with statements defending their projects.  EnCana was the only natural gas company with extracting projects in Pavillion and claimed that the EPA reports has no evidence that the contamination came from hydraulic fraccing and that the report is only implying the accusation.  EnCana also pointed out that the findings released by the EPA were not reviewed by qualified third party individuals which are important to determining the true cause of the contamination. 

Even though the findings cannot prove that the hydraulic fraccing is the source of the contamination, the EPA is working with EnCana to make sure all of the individuals living in Pavillion, Wyoming have a clean water supply.  Today the town of Pavillion is being considered for the National Priorities List which is a list of waste sites eligible for clean up financed by the federal Superfund program.

-Adam

OPEC in Hollywood?

I can picture it now: big-headed oil tycoons conspiring to steal from the public and ruin their livelihood. There have been numerous movies produced that have tried to negatively portray the oil and gas industry, Matt Damon and John Krasinski's movie, Promised Land is no different. The movie, expected to be in theaters this December, will tell the story of a town being targeted and exploited by the oil and gas industry.

The movie most likely spurs from a case in Dimock, PA where residents claimed that hydraulic fracturing contaminated a few house's well water back in 2009. According to this Huffington Post news article Cabot, a company working in the area, was accused of contaminating drinking water with high levels of methane, some chemicals, and heavy metals through the hydraulic fracturing of wells. Cabot denies these claims, but made a settlement with many homeowners with water wells in the contaminated aquifer. This year, the water was determined to be safe to drink again. 

So what is so concerning with this anti-fracturing movie, if it seems to be based on a true story? The movie is partially funded by OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies). OPEC (which includes countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia and has effectively been able to control oil and gas prices) is supporting a movement to stop hydraulic fracturing in the United States by instilling fear in the public. Why? It isn't because they are concerned about America's drinking water; they want to ensure America remains dependent on oil imports from OPEC. Without hydraulic fracturing, a large majority of oil and gas reserves in America would be uneconomic for companies to produce and oil dependence would increase. 

Water contamination is one of the major concerns when considering drilling and completing wells in residential areas. CGS (Colorado Geological Survey) has created a tool for concerned Colorado residents. This tool, on their website, allows you to obtain the approximate distance between fresh water aquifers and the Niobrara (the formation oil and gas companies stimulate with hydraulic fracturing) near your home. The tool allows you to determine an area of interest (say the city you live in) and it tells you the average thickness of the Pierre Shale formation in that area. The website discusses how the Pierre Shale is the rock formation that separates the Niobrara and the deepest fresh water aquifers. For the city of Longmont, the tool reports a Pierre Shale thickness of 6,700 feet.

With over 1,100 "likes" on facebook already and big stars like Matt Damon and John Krasinski, Promised Land is likely to have a much larger audience than some of the past movies against the oil and gas industry (like Gasland). Hopefully tools like the one provided by CGS will help ease the minds of Colorado residents, even if OPEC and Hollywood are determined to associate fear with fracturing.

-Kelsi

Fracture Length and Aperture

How big are hydraulic fractures? Generally, companies don't know the exact length and aperture (width) of fractures, but can estimate these properties based on the expected rock strength and the force applied by the high pressures. A lot of people are concerned with the lack of accuracy of these calculations concerns many people, especially within the concern of water contamination. Some people wonder how petroleum companies can be certain that they are not contaminating ground water when they don't even know how extensive the fractures are.

Comparison of hydraulic fractures in horizontal and vertical wells

Recently, a study was performed by C.E. Renshaw and J.C. Park to better understand how mechanical interactions of formations effect fracture size. From my understanding of the paper, hydraulic fracturing is very difficult to model because of the complexity of the variables. The fracture size depends on the type of rock that is being fractured, the number of fractures being produced, the pressure causing the fracture, as well mechanical interaction. Overall, the study warns that common estimates of fracture propagation lengths may not always be good approximations and that universal scaling laws are not are not always applicable.

Generally, hydraulic fracturing is performed in many stages, to ensure that the entire producing interval receives stimulation. It was determined through this study by Renshaw and Park that the growth rate exponent (a variable in a correlation proposed in the study) is larger when just single fractures are produced than when multiple fractures are made. This is important information for the industry, because it supports that completing a well in multiple stages will allow for the best stimulation and ultimately better production. It was also determined that when multiple fractures interact, the impact can be both positive and negative. This can have a positive interaction that will increase the lengths and apertures or decrease the lengths and apertures in a negative interaction. 

The uncertainty and amount of estimation required in this study is much like many other aspects of the oil and gas industry. Since the majority of the work is done below the Earth's surface, measurements and calculations are rarely more than an educated estimate. With increasing regulations of hydraulic fracturing, will new technology soon be required to trace and measure the extent of hydraulic fractures?

-Kelsi

How Serious is Water Contamination?

Out of all the times you have heard news about fraccing how often have you heard about water contamination, accidents, and overall poor performances?  Now how many times have you heard about successful fraccing jobs with no consequences?  As a civil engineering student I have not had much exposure to fraccing, but when I do hear about it that usually means there has been an accident and my guess is that your experiences are the same unless you are part of the industry. 

Warning: Video may contain content not suitable for children.

Water contamination tends to be one of the most focused topics for consequences coming out of fraccing projects.  There is a possibility that the fraccing could lead to a change of color and odor in the water due to the new contaminants, but a more common risk is leaking methane gas directly into the water supply.  The methane gas does not affect the water’s color, taste, or odor making it hard to detect, but leaves the water susceptible to being able to ignite on fire.  Currently there are no regulations on drinking water concerning the amount of methane because scientists have been unable to predict how much of a health hazard it can be in the drinking water.  Knowing about this risk could make any person who is on the fence about their opinion of fraccing go against it, but before making a decision you should also know about some of the positives and regulations overseeing fraccing jobs.

Natural gas is much cleaner to burn than coal making it better environmentally as an energy resource.  Also the increase in acquiring the natural gas will create jobs and reduce energy prices because the United States would have the chance to become more energy independent.  With rising energy prices across the country along with high unemployment rates this could be a golden opportunity if the right approach is taken.  Many of the studies looking for water contamination from fraccing are inconclusive because there is never any baseline data of the groundwater to compare to which has allowed there to be zero confirmed cases of contamination by fraccing in the groundwater.  The few cases that have been able to prove there is contamination in the water have found that the contamination came from poor wastewater disposal and performance of the well casing.  This is why many of the large companies in the fraccing industry make sure to take every step in the process slowly to make sure the fraccing job is done right.  As far as regulations go, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is assessing each fraccing job on a case by case basis to determine the environmental effects.  In all of the recent cases the EPA has not seen a reason to challenge any of the fraccing jobs that were assessed.  Any fraccing site within 500 meters of an environmentally sensitive area or two kilometers of a town, coastline, or major water storage area will be assessed diligently by the EPA.  The EPA knows fraccing is a possible threat to the environment and they are doing everything they can to make sure the fraccing industry is being careful when fraccing to avoid any contamination in the groundwater as much as possible.

Hopefully this has an impact showing that the industry is making an effort to practice safe fraccing, but if anyone is still on the fence or wants more information I encourage them to do research on their own, look at the links connected to each post on the blog, and continue to follow the blog throughout the semester.

-Adam Bent