DOCSLIB.ORG

Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Study MARCELLUS SHALE SAFE DRILLING INITIATIVE STUDY PART III FINAL REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS December 19, 2014 Prepared By: Maryland Department of the Environment Maryland Department of Natural Resources Prepared For: Martin O’Malley, Governor State of Maryland Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Senate President Maryland General Assembly Michael E. Busch, House Speaker Maryland General Assembly Prepared pursuant to Executive Order 01.01.2011.11 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ ii Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Section I: The Initiative ............................................................................................................................. 3 Section II: Marcellus Shale Gas Development .......................................................................................... 5 A. Shale Gas in Maryland................................................................................................................... 5 B. Unconventional Gas Development and Production ..................................................................... 7 C. Laws and Regulations Affecting Shale Gas Development ............................................................. 8 Section III: Work under the Initiative ...................................................................................................... 10 A. Presentations and Briefings ........................................................................................................ 10 B. Studies by Contractors ................................................................................................................ 11 C. Studies by MDE and DNR ............................................................................................................ 12 D. The Reports ................................................................................................................................. 13 Section IV: Principal Issues: Discussion and Findings.............................................................................. 17 A. Air Pollution ................................................................................................................................ 17 B. Methane Migration ..................................................................................................................... 25 C. Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 27 D. Soil Contamination, Groundwater Contamination and Surface Water Contamination ............. 30 E. NORM and TENORM ................................................................................................................... 34 F. Use and Disclosure of Chemicals ................................................................................................ 37 G. Use of Fresh Water ..................................................................................................................... 47 H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................... 49 I. Impacts on Habitat and Natural Resources ................................................................................ 52 J. Impacts of Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 55 K. Community Impacts .................................................................................................................... 59 L. Industrialization of Landscape .................................................................................................... 62 M. Influx of Workers......................................................................................................................... 67 N. Availability of Housing................................................................................................................. 68 O. Economic Impact: Gas Production .............................................................................................. 69 i P. Economic Impact: Property Values ............................................................................................. 74 Q. Economic impact: Tourism .......................................................................................................... 75 R. Emergency Response Capacity ................................................................................................... 77 S. Health Infrastructure Capacity .................................................................................................... 79 T. Health Surveillance ..................................................................................................................... 82 U. Waste and Wastewater Disposal ................................................................................................ 83 Section V: Information Gaps ................................................................................................................... 86 Section VI: Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 88 References .............................................................................................................................................. 91 Appendix A: Members of the Advisory Commission .............................................................................. 97 Appendix B: Comments and Concerns .................................................................................................... 98 Appendix C: Best Practices .................................................................................................................... 100 Tables Table 1. Sampling efforts. ........................................................................................................................... 19 Table 2. Hazard quotients calculated by McKenzie et al. ........................................................................... 21 Table 3. Typical Sound Reductions. ............................................................................................................ 28 Table 4. Maryland Maximum Allowable Noise Levels ................................................................................ 28 Table 5. Noise levels at distances ............................................................................................................... 29 Table 6. Setbacks ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 7. Chemicals commonly used in hydraulic fracturing ....................................................................... 44 Table 8. EPA noise levels for heavy trucks .................................................................................................. 56 Table 9. Maryland maximum sound levels for heavy trucks ...................................................................... 57 Table 10. Land Use in Allegany and Garrett Counties................................................................................. 65 Table 11. Well and Well Pad Development Activity for Scenarios 1 and 2................................................. 65 Table 12. Economic and Fiscal Impacts for Allegany County – Scenario 1, 25% extraction ....................... 69 Table 13. Economic and Fiscal Impacts for Allegany County – Scenario 2, 75% Extraction ....................... 70 Table 14. Economic and Fiscal Impacts for Garrett County – Scenario 1, 25% Extraction ......................... 70 Table 15. Economic and Fiscal Impacts for Garrett County – Scenario 2, 75% Extraction ......................... 70 Table 16. Estimated Royalty Payments Made by Firms Extracting Gas in Allegany County ....................... 71 Table 17. Estimated Royalty Payments Made by Firms Extracting Gas in Garrett County ......................... 71 Table 18. Annual occupational fatality rate ................................................................................................ 80 Table 19. Annual nonfatal injuries rate....................................................................................................... 80 Table 20. Numbers of jobs in peak year ..................................................................................................... 80 Table 21. Number of fatalities in peak year ................................................................................................ 81 Table 22. Number of nonfatal injuries in peak year ................................................................................... 81 ii Figures Figure 1. Locations of the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale ......................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Additional oil and gas basins in the Eastern United States ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deep Underground Injection of Waste from Drilling Activities—An Overview
    minerals Review Deep Underground Injection of Waste from Drilling Activities—An Overview Nediljka Gaurina-Međimurec , Borivoje Paši´c* , Petar Miji´c and Igor Medved Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] (N.G.-M.); [email protected] (P.M.); [email protected] (I.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +385-1-553-58-40 Received: 29 February 2020; Accepted: 25 March 2020; Published: 27 March 2020 Abstract: Oil and gas exploration and production activities generate large amounts of waste material, especially during well drilling and completion activities. Waste material from drilling activities to the greatest extent consists of drilled cuttings and used drilling mud with a smaller portion of other materials (wastewater, produced hydrocarbons during well testing, spent stimulation fluid, etc.). Nowadays, growing concerns for environmental protections and new strict regulations encourage companies to improve methods for the reduction of waste material, as well as improve existing and develop new waste disposal methods that are more environmentally friendly and safer from the aspect of human health. The main advantages of the waste injection method into suitable deep geological formations over other waste disposal methods (biodegradation, thermal treatment, etc.) are minimizing potentially harmful impacts on groundwater, reducing the required surface area for waste disposal, reducing the negative impact on the air and long-term risks for the entire environment. This paper gives a comprehensive overview of the underground waste injection technology, criteria for the selection of the injection zone and methods required for process monitoring, as well as a comprehensive literature overview of significant past or ongoing projects from all over the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Aade-04-Df-Ho-25 Effect of Drilling Fluid Components on Composting and the Consequences for Mud Formulation 3
    AADE-04-DF-HO-25 Effect of Drilling Fluid Components on Composting and the Consequences for Mud Formulation. Karen McCosh, Jonathan Getliff, M-I SWACO This paper was prepared for presentation at the AADE 2004 Drilling Fluids Conference, held at the Radisson Astrodome in Houston, Texas, April 6-7, 2004. This conference was sponsored by the Houston Chapter of the American Association of Drilling Engineers. The information presented in this paper does not reflect any position, claim or endorsement made or implied by the American Association of Drilling Engineers, their officers or members. Questions concerning the content of this paper should be directed to the individuals listed as author/s of this work. Abstract such as composting are becoming increasingly important Composting is a well-established, biological as this allows the conversion of the waste into a useful technique in which bacteria and other microorganisms product. Such technologies allow recycling and reuse degrade and convert organic matter to humus and and sit near the top of the waste management hierarchy microbial biomass. Composting can also be utilized to (Figure 1) which is preferential when deciding on the degrade the oil component of drill cuttings, but the means of drill cuttings disposal. Bioremediation can be choice of drilling fluid coating these cuttings will affect adapted to co-compost drill cuttings with the microbial the quality and composition of the compost end product flora and fauna being able to utilize the hydrocarbon as well as reaction rates and the final concentrations of component of the drilling fluid as a carbon source for hazardous materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G. Drill Cuttings and Fluids Dispersion
    Appendix G. Drill cuttings and fluids dispersion modelling study (APASA 2012) DRILL CUTTINGS AND MUDS DISCHARGE MODELLING STUDY, FOR APPRAISAL DRILLING CAMPAIGN IN PERMIT NT/P69, BONAPARTE BASIN REV 1 - 13/12/2012 Prepared for: ConocoPhillips Australia Pty Ltd Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates www.apasa.com.au Document control form: Revision Originated Edit & review Authorised Date Rev A - Issued for Alan Newnham Dr Sasha Zigic internal review Dr Sasha Zigic Dr Ryan Dunn Dr Sasha Zigic Dr Sasha Zigic Rev 0 – Draft issued 25/06/2012 for client review Dr Sasha Zigic Dr Sasha Zigic Rev 1 - Issued for 13/12/2012 client review Dr Ryan Dunn Document name: COPA_Barossa-NTP69_Cuttings Modelling_Report_Rev1 APASA Project Number: Q0086 APASA Project Manager: Dr Sasha Zigic Contact Details: Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates Physical Address: Suite 3, Level 8 8-10 Karp Court, Bundall Gold Coast, QLD 4217 Postal Address: PO Box 1679 Surfers Paradise, QLD 4217 Telephone: (0)7 5574 1112 Facsimile: (0)7 5574 1113 DISCLAIMER: This document contains confidential information that is intended only for use by the client and is not for public circulation, publication, nor any third party use without the approval of the client. Readers should understand that modelling is predictive in nature and while this report is based on information from sources that Asia-Pacific ASA Pty Ltd. considers reliable, the accuracy and completeness of said information cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, Asia-Pacific ASA Pty Ltd., its directors, and employees accept no liability for the result of any action taken or not taken on the basis of the information given in this report, nor for any negligent misstatements, errors, and omissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Drill Cuttings As an Economic Tool to Understand the Petroleum System for Exploratory and Development Wells
    SCA2016-089 1/6 DRILL CUTTINGS AS AN ECONOMIC TOOL TO UNDERSTAND THE PETROLEUM SYSTEM FOR EXPLORATORY AND DEVELOPMENT WELLS 1Rushdi Ali, 2Ibrahim Ghiniwa (1) Reservoir Geology Team Leader, Corex Services LTD., (Egypt Branch) (2) Core Analysis Manager, Corex Services LTD., (Egypt Branch) This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts held in Snowmass, Colorado, USA, 21-26 August 2016 ABSTRACT The geological studies (petrographical analyses) can be applied on drill cuttings (old/new, dry/wet sets) recovered from un-cored intervals, in order to help the oil and gas companies to understand the characteristics of their source rock, reservoirs and seals, with special focus on the reservoir quality. Drill cutting samples are as useful for geological studies as core or side wall core samples. These types of samples are recovered each 3-5m or 10-15 ft, from each well. Their availability, nature and sample volume would dictate the amount of geological and geophysical data resulted from various types of analyses as petrography, scanning- electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD), grain size analysis (include sieving and laser particle “LSPA” analyses) and mercury injection capillary pressure analysis (MICP). Petrographical analyses include identification and description of the detected rock types by quantitative (point counted) or qualitative petrographic thin- section analysis; whereas MICP is considered a useful tool for improved understanding of porosity and matrix permeability distributions of petroleum systems (including source rock, reservoirs and seals). Thin section analysis performed on selected drill cutting pieces aims to identify rock types and to define their mineralogy, texture and composition, and the evaluation of mineralogical and diagenetic controls on porosity and permeability (reservoir quality).
    [Show full text]
  • Shell Mounds Environmental Review Volume
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 ICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 X ( 415) 904- 5400 • RECORD PACKET COPY Tu5a March 30, 2001 TO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties FROM: Jaime C. Kooser, Deputy Director Alison J. Dettmer, Manager, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Marina V. Cazorla, Environmental Specialist, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit RE: Correction to Shell Mound Cover Memo The Coastal Commission's hearing on the results of the Chevron 4H Platform Shell Mound Technical and Environmental Report is scheduled for Tuesday. AprillO. 2001. Item 5a, not • April 11, 2001. • STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ~ 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2.000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105· 2219 OlCE AND TOO (415) 904· 5200 AX ( 415) 904· 5400 RECORD PACKET COPY • Tu5a March 22, 2001 TO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties FROM: Jaime C. Kooser, Deputy Director Alison J. Dettmer, Manager, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit Marina V. Cazorla, Environmental Specialist, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit RE: Results of the Chevron 4H Platform Shell Mound Technical and Environmental Report Attached for your review and comment are the results of the Chevron 4H platform shell mound technical and environmental report1 conducted by the consultant L. A. de Wit and prepared under the direction of the State Lands Commission ("SLC") and Coastal Commission staffs . At the Coastal Commission's April 11, 2001 meeting, the consultant for the report, L.A. de Wit, will present the report's findings on the physical and chemical composition of the shell mounds, • potential short- and long-term environmental impacts of mound removal as compared to in-place abandonment, and identification of shell mound removal options.
    [Show full text]
  • Reserve Pits Mortality Risks to Birds
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Reserve Pits Mortality Risks to Birds What is a Reserve Pit? How Do Reserve Pits A reserve pit is an earthen pit Kill Birds? excavated adjacent to a drilling rig and If the reserve pit is commonly used for the disposal of contains oil or oil- drilling muds and fluids in natural gas based products (i.e. or oil fields. The contents of a reserve oil-based drilling pit depends on the type of drilling mud fluids), the pit can used, the formation drilled, and other entrap and kill chemicals added to the well bore during migratory birds and the drilling process. other wildlife. During the drilling process, What is in a Reserve Pit? reserve pits probably Drilling fluids in reserve pits contain do not attract aquatic barium sulfate or barite, bentonite clay, migratory birds such lignosulfonates, and lignites. Drilling as waterfowl due to fluids in reserve pits can also contain human activity and diesel, mineral oil, glycols, chromium, noise. However, once zinc, polypropylene glycol, and the drilling rig and acrylamide copolymers. other equipment are Pedro Ramirez/USFWS Pedro removed from the Reserve pits remaining after well completion attract Fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing well pad, the reserve birds and other wildlife. of a well are sometimes stored in pit is attractive to reserve pits. Hydraulic fracturing birds and other wildlife. entraps birds in the pits and they die fluids can contain surfactants and from exposure and exhaustion. Birds other chemicals used to stimulate oil or Birds are attracted to reserve pits and other wildlife can also fall into natural gas flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Drilling Wastewater (Wq-Wwprm2-83)
    www.pca.state.mn.us Management of drilling wastewater An update from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Most drilling methods generate drill cuttings, drilling mud, water, or some combination thereof. These drilling byproducts may contain sediment, silt, bentonite clay and small rock pieces. Discharging these wastes containing suspended solids into lakes, river and wetlands can increase water turbidity, temperature, and nutrient levels; and it can also decrease the presence of dissolved oxygen. These impacts can negatively affect aquatic life, and the use and enjoyment of Minnesota’s water bodies. To protect the health and ecosystems of water resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) does not authorize the discharge of untreated drilling wastewater into surface waters. Minn. R. 7050.0210, subp. 2 and 13 prohibit discharges into water bodies that may cause nuisance conditions and pollution. Due to high levels of total suspended solids in drilling wastewater, discharging it untreated into surface waters will cause both nuisance conditions and pollution. The MPCA recommends that drilling contractors adhere to the following steps to manage drilling wastes: 1. To protect water bodies in rural locations, drillers should install temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) at drill sites to collect and slow down the wastewater’s flow. This allows the sediments laden in the wastewater to settle out prior to entering waterways. BMPs can include earthen berms, hay bales; sandbags, sediment filter bags (as described in the February 2003 issue of the Water Well Journal), earthen depressions, storage tanks, or lined dumpsters. BMP selection will depend upon the drilling site’s proximity to a water body and available space.
    [Show full text]
  • Brent Drill Cuttings TD
    Shell U.K. Limited BRENT FIELD DRILL CUTTINGS DECOMMISSIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT CGI image of the Brent Field installations. A supporting document to the Brent Field Decommissioning Programme Shell Report Number BDE-F-SUB-BA-5801-00001 February 2016 Intentionally left blank BRENT FIELD DRILL CUTTINGS DECOMMISSIONING TECHNICAL DOCUMENT Contents 1 The Owners of the Brent Field .......................................................................................... 7 2 Brent Field Decommissioning Documentation ....................................................................... 8 3 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 10 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 5 The Brent Field Drill Cuttings Piles ................................................................................... 13 5.1 Historic Drilling Activities ............................................................................................. 13 5.2 Regulation of Drill Cuttings Piles .................................................................................... 14 5.3 Location of Drill Cuttings Discharge Points in the Brent Field ................................................ 15 5.3.1 Brent Alpha ........................................................................................................ 15 5.3.2 Brent Bravo .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gogebic Taconite Drlling Plan
    DRILLING PLAN Revised March 29, 2011 OVERVIEW This Exploration Project will occur in an area of previous exploration and prospecting. Activity in the area dates back to the 1850’s with coredrilling occurring as early as the 1920’s with as many as 100 recorded sites. This new activity will serve to supplement the pre‐existing data to gain a better understanding of the deposit. This Exploration Project will consist of the drilling of 8 holes. The drilling method will use hollow center wireline corehole techniques. The drilling method will use BTW size coring tools which will drill a 2.36 inch diameter hole. The rock sample will be 1.654 inch diameter. The rock samples will be collected and analyses will be performed offsite. The drillholes will be drilled through the Ironwood‐Iron Formation on an angle near perpendicular to the bedding. The Ironwood –Iron Formation dips at 60 to 70 degrees from the horizontal in a north by northwest direction. The Ironwood –Iron Formation is a sedimentary rock formation of Paleoproterozoic age. SITING The project site is located in Ashland and Iron Counties of Wisconsin. The project area has been commercially forested and existing roads will be used to access the drilling sites as well as serving as locations for the drilling sites. The drilling contractor will use compact core drilling machines to fit the size constraints of the existing roads. It is not proposed to create new roads for accessing the drilling project. The drill sites will each be approximately 50 feet by 25 feet in size.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Soil-Like Materials Mix from Drill Cuttings, Sewage Sludge and Sawdust on the Growth of Trifolium Pratense L
    Journal of Ecological Engineering Received: 2018.04.15 Accepted: 2018.08.15 Volume 19, Issue 6, November 2018, pages 225–230 Published: 2018.11.01 https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/91884 Effects of Soil-Like Materials Mix from Drill Cuttings, Sewage Sludge and Sawdust on the Growth of Trifolium pratense L. and Transfer of Heavy Metals Justyna Kujawska1*, Małgorzata Pawłowska1* 1 Institute of Renewable Energy Engineering, Faculty of Environmental Engineering, Lublin University of Technology, 40B Nadbystrzycka Street, Lublin 20-618, Poland * Corresponding author’s e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Approximately 80000 tons of drilling waste is produced in Poland annually. This type of waste is relocated and deposited in waste neutralization plants or landfills. Eventually, it must be managed. Reuse of solid wastes might constitute a method of their utilization. The article investigates the use of drill cuttings, sewage sludge and sawdust for production of soil-like mixtures. The studies on evaluation of the possibility of economic application of soil- like materials were carried out. The assessment was conducted on the basis of metal content in soil-like materials and plants cultivated on substrates produced of soil-like materials. In accordance with the valid legal regulations, the concentration of metals in soil-like materials enables their application on class II soils, i.e. arable land. The concentration of heavy metals in the plants cultivated on the substrates produced with soil-like materials is low and does not exceed the concentration of metals determined in animal feeding standards. Keywords: drill cuttings, wastes, landfarming, recultivation INTRODUCTION ventional hydrocarbons [Macuda 2017].
    [Show full text]
  • Land Application of Urban Horizontal Directional Drilling Residuals to Established Grass and Bare Soils
    sustainability Article Land Application of Urban Horizontal Directional Drilling Residuals to Established Grass and Bare Soils Joshua Daniel 1, Chad Penn 2,* , João Antonangelo 1 and Hailin Zhang 1 1 Plant and Soil Sciences Department, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74075, USA; [email protected] (J.D.); [email protected] (J.A.); [email protected] (H.Z.) 2 USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, 275 South Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2077, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-765-494-0330 Received: 30 October 2020; Accepted: 8 December 2020; Published: 9 December 2020 Abstract: Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a non-invasive alternative to trenching used for the installation of many common utilities. The process involves drilling fluid used to stabilize the borehole, lubricate the bit, and float cuttings to the surface. A sustainable alternative to landfill disposal is land application. Two field studies were conducted to determine the optimum application rate of HDD residuals to both established bermudagrass and bare soil seeded with bermudagrass. Residuals were 1 applied at six rates ranging from 0 to 112 tons solid ha− for both trials. Soils were sampled 7, 30, and 90 days after application. Saturated paste and Mehlich-3 extractions were performed on all samples. Grass biomass was measured at the end of the study. No significant amount of nutrients or trace metals were found in the treated soils. All concentrations were in the range of typical soils. However, total dissolved solids (TDS) and sodium absorption ratio (SAR) increased with application rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Drill Cuttings from Oil and Gas Exploration in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Regions of Ohio
    Fact Sheet: Drill Cuttings from Oil and Gas Exploration in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Regions of Ohio (Revised January 2014) What are drilling muds and cuttings? Drilling a natural gas or oil well involves the use of fluid (called drilling mud) or compressed air (air drilling) to aid in the process of drilling a borehole into the earth. Drilling mud is necessary in drilling because it cools and lubricates the drill bit, helps stabilize the well bore during drilling and keeps fluids in the formation from entering the borehole. The type of fluid used as drilling mud depends on factors such as the well type and rock formation that will be drilled. The drilling of a borehole through underground sources of drinking water must be done using air or fresh water. Subsequent phases of drilling may use brine, refined oil-based muds, or bentonite muds, which help keep the drill bit lubricated and the borehole pressure stable during drilling. Drilling mud also is used to carry rock and soil (called drill cuttings) excavated by the drill bit up to the surface. Drill cuttings, as defined in Section 3748.01 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), means the soil, rock fragments, and pulverized material that are removed from a borehole and that may include a de minimus amount of fluid that results from a drilling process. At the surface, the drilling mud is separated from the drill cuttings. Drilling mud is valuable to the drill operator and is recovered so that it can be used again. How are drill cuttings regulated in Ohio? Drill cuttings managed on the drill site are regulated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
    [Show full text]