DOCSLIB.ORG

Chesapeake Energy Shale Operations Overview Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chesapeake Energy Shale Operations Overview Pennsylvania Chesapeake Energy Shale Operations Overview Pennsylvania Natural Gas Uses Residential and Commercial Cooking, washing, drying, warming water, heating and air conditioning Industrial Pulp and paper, metals, chemicals, stone, clay, glass, process foods, treat waste, incineration, drying, dehumidification, heating and cooling Power Generation Electric utilities and independent producers increasingly using natural gas to provide energy for power plants because: lower capital costs, built faster, work more efficiently, emit less pollution than fossil fuel plants. Transportation Compressed natural gas (CNG) for smaller to mid-size vehicles and fleets Liquefied natural gas (LNG) for mid-size to large vehicles and fleets 12 Million CNG Vehicles Worldwide: 2.7MM in Pakistan, 1.9MM in Iran and Argentina, Fuel cost is 50% less than gasoline 1.6MM in Brazil, only 112,000 in US and 30% less CO2 2 Chesapeake’s Key Operating Areas Transition toward greater development of unconventional oil and NGL resources in the U.S. 3 Characteristics of the Marcellus Shale • Deep geologic formation stretching over 95,000 square miles in parts of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York • 4,000-8,500 feet below ground surface • Between 50 and 200 feet thick • Potential to be the largest natural gas field in the U.S., second largest in the world behind South Pars/North Field off-shore in the Persian Gulf shared by Qatar and Iran • Estimated to hold more than 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (estimated value >$1 trillion) • Low permeability • Requires combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing 4 Chesapeake Energy Overview Founded in 1989 Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Offices regionally located in West Virginia (Charleston and Jane Lew) and in Pennsylvania (Mt. Morris, Canonsburg, Harrisburg and Towanda) Exclusive U.S. onshore focus Second-largest producer of U.S. natural gas and a Top 15 producer of U.S. liquids 3Q’11 natural gas production of ~2.8 Bcf/d 3Q’11 liquids production of ~94 mbbls/d 22 consecutive years of sequential production growth Nation’s most active explorer 1993-2012 ~ 11,500 producing wells 44,100 total producing natural gas and oil wells (includes legacy wells) 5 Chesapeake Energy Overview #1 driller in the world of horizontal wells Over the past 20 years: ~5,000 wells Nation’s most active horizontal driller 1993-2012 ~165 operated rigs nationwide ― 29 rigs currently drilling in Eastern Division » 17 in Marcellus North » 7 in Marcellus South » 5 in Utica ― 40+ rigs projected in Eastern Division in 2012 ― ~350 wells drilled in Eastern Division in 2011 ― ~380 wells projected in Eastern Division in 2012 Unparalleled inventory of U.S. onshore leasehold and 3-D seismic Higher production rates, less risk Exceptional drilling success rate – 98% 6 Marcellus and Utica Shale Overview Top leaseholder in U.S. shale plays #1 in Marcellus Shale: 1,780,000 net acres #1 Utica Shale: 1,360,000 net acres #1 Haynesville Shale: 460,000 net acres #2 Barnett Shale: 220,000 net acres Advantageous JV arrangements Marcellus: StatoilHydro (STO) Utica: Total (TOT) Barnett: Total (TOT) Haynesville: Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP) Eagle Ford and Niobrara: Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) CHK the largest producer in the Marcellus 3Q’11 average production of 723 Mmcf/d Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) per well of 5.75 Bcfe (Marcellus Shale) 7 Chesapeake’s Marcellus Production Growth Producing Wells 800 71 at year end 2009 183 at year end 2010 700 Producing 286 at year end 2011 Wells 600 Average Daily Production 500 Average 63 Mmcf/day in 2009 400 Daily 272 Mmcf/day in 2010 Production 695 Mmcf/day in 2011 300 (Mmcf/d) Cumulative Cumulative Production 200 Production 23 Bcf in 2009 per Year 119 Bcf in 2010 100 (Bcf) 371 Bcf in 2011 0 2009 2010 2011 8 Oil and Gas Regulation Myth: “..... the U.S. oil and gas production industry….. Has enjoyed loopholes in federal laws that allow it to pollute the land, air and water, and release toxic substances into the environment.” NRDC Press Release, October 31, 2007 Fact: Development of natural gas is regulated under a system of interrelated, interdependent, and overlapping federal, state and local laws that address exploration and operation. 9 What Applies to Oil and Gas Operations? Clean Water Act (CWA) Regulates surface discharges of water associated with drilling and production Storm water runoff from drilling and production sites Underground Injection Control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Regulates the underground injection of wastes from all industries including oil and gas Clean Air Act (CAA) Limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment and other sources associated with drilling and production Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Requires industry to handle and dispose of its waste or refuse according to specific guidelines National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requires that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) Protects the health and safety of oil and gas workers, as well as other industries State and local regulations must be as stringent, and often are more stringent, than federal rules and regulations. 10 Issues Regulated . Air Quality . Employee Safety . Groundwater Protection . Public Safety (Surface Casing Programs) . Erosion and Sediment Control . Noise . Waste Handling Disposal . Placement/Construction of Wellbores . Well Density/Spacing . Well Production . Well Testing . Surface Water Protection . Floodplains . Water Use . Fluid Handling/Disposal . Road Use . Incident Reporting . Spill Response & Remedial Measures . Wetlands . Chemical Handling & Transportation . Stream Crossings . Cultural Resources . Threatened and Endangered Species 11 Findings and Reports Among large counties (75,000 or more employees), Washington County, Pa. had the third highest percent increase (4.3%) in employment in the nation between March 2010 and March 2011 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Most of the job growth there is tied to Marcellus Shale gas drilling.” ― Scott Fergus, Washington County Director of Administration, 9/30/11 “We have not seen any impacts to groundwater as a result of hydraulic fracturing.” ― Robert Abbey, Director of U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 7/8/11 “The screening results found to date do not indicate a potential for major air related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” ― PA DEP air quality studies in southwest and northeast PA, 11/1/10 12 The Production Process Four basic steps to production: 1. Site selection and well pad preparation 2. Drilling the well 3. Completing the well 4. Marketing the gas and reclaiming the site Plus: Best Management Practices (BMPs) Economic Impact of the Marcellus Shale 13 Safety Is a Top Priority Wells are drilled and constructed to recover the natural resources while protecting the environment and providing for the safety of workers and area residents SAFE: Stay Accident Free Everyday Employees attend two-day SAFE workshops SAFE program focuses on developing safe behaviors, promoting a safety-conscious culture and reducing risk in all operating areas Reward and recognize employees for contributing to safe working environments Protecting the community Establish road guidelines for Chesapeake traffic Use staging areas when necessary Dispatch roving patrol vehicle to monitor Chesapeake traffic Maintain and restore damaged roads Coordinate with school transportation departments Communicate with local emergency response personnel and provide weekly operational updates Inform and update local officials on status of operations and residents’ concerns Work with operations personnel to report issues to 911 office, including non-emergency situations 14 Step 1 Site selection and well pad preparation 15 Site Selection A number of factors are considered in selecting a drilling site: Leasehold Favorable geology Topography Access Roads Routes for pipelines and utilities Environmental factors such as wetlands and sensitive wildlife habitat Available water source(s) 16 Well Pad Preparation Well pads can be located in rural or urban areas Pad preparation requires approximately 4-6 weeks Typical horizontal well pad requires ~5 acres to construct (not including fresh water impoundments and access roads) 17 Step 2 Drilling the well using horizontal drilling 18 Advanced Drilling Technologies Reduce Surface Footprint Vertical drilling patterns required: Up to 32 well pads needed to recover the natural resources from 1280 acres (an average unit size) Multiple roads with pipelines and utilities required to access the wells Total surface disturbance was ~45 acres 19 Extraordinary Technology Advances Extract Natural Gas More Effectively Horizontal drilling substantially reduces surface footprint 6-8 horizontal wells anticipated drilled from each 5 acre pad Each independent well is individually permitted and regulated by the state’s DEP Only one road with pipeline and utilities to well pad Approximately 85% less surface disturbance compared to vertical wells 20 Drilling the Well Using Today’s New Technology Drilling is a 24/7 operation Reduces rig time on location Drilling typically lasts 3-4 weeks per wellbore “Closed-loop” drilling system All drilling materials are contained No materials collected in earthen pits 21 Drilling the Well-Groundwater Protection 4 or more layers of protection are installed in the well to isolate the well from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: a Primer
    U.S. Department of Energy • Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory April 2009 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer Work Performed Under DE-FG26-04NT15455 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Prepared by Ground Water Protection Council Oklahoma City, OK 73142 405-516-4972 www.gwpc.org and ALL Consulting Tulsa, OK 74119 918-382-7581 www.all-llc.com April 2009 MODERN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) under Award Number DE‐FG26‐ 04NT15455. Mr. Robert Vagnetti and Ms. Sandra McSurdy, NETL Project Managers, provided oversight and technical guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Bossier Bossier
    CENTER FOR ENERGY STUDIES BOSSIER - HAYNESVILLE SHALE: NORTH LOUISIANA SALT BASIN D. A. GODDARD, E. A. MANCINI, S. C. TALUKAR & M. HORN Louisiana State University Baton Rouge , Louisiana 1 OVERVIEW Regional Geological Setting Total Organic Carbon & RockRock--EvalEval Pyrolisis Kerogen Petrography Thin Section Petrography Naturally Fractured Shale Reservoirs Conclusions 2 Gulf Coast Interior Basins Gulf Coast Interior Salt Basins Mancini and Puckett, 2005 3 TYPE LOG 4 Type Wells 5 Bossier Parish Wells 6 BossierBossier--HaynesvilleHaynesville samples in NLSB . (LA Parish) Sample (Serial #) OP/Well Name Core Interval Depth-Ft (Jackson) 10,944 (162291) AMOCO Davis Bros. Bossier Fm. 10, 945 10,948 Haynesville Fm. 12,804 12,956 12,976 (164798) AMOCO CZ 5-7 (Winn) 15,601 Bossier Fm. 15, 608 Haynesville Fm. 16,413 16,418 16,431 16,432 (166680) EXXON Pardee (Winn) 16195 Bossier Fm. 16, 200 16,400 (107545) Venzina Green #1 (Union) 9,347 Bossier Fm. 9,357 9,372 7 8 Bossier -Haynesville samples in Vernon Field Serial. # Operator Well Field Sec TWP RGE Parish Sample Depth- Ft 224274 Anadarko Fisher 16 #1 Vernon 16 16N 02W Jackson 13,175 13,770 226742 Anadarko Davis Bros 29 Vernon 29 16N 02W Jackson 14,035 15,120 231813 Anadarko Beasley 9 #2 Vernon 9 16N 02W Jackson 11,348 232316 Anadarko StewtHarrison Vernon 34 16N 03W Jackson 11,805 34 #2 9 Modified from Structuremaps.com 10 11 12 13 Analytical results of Total Organic Carbon, RockRock--EvalEval PyrolysisPyrolysis,, and Vitrinite Reflectance (Ro) in the NLSB. Depth % TOC Wt S1 S2 S3 Well Sample (Ft) % mg/g mg/g mg/g Tmax HI OI S1/TOC PI TAI Ro AMOCO DAVIS Cotton V.
    [Show full text]
  • BHP Billiton Petroleum Onshore US Shale Briefing
    BHP Billiton Petroleum Onshore US shale briefing J. Michael Yeager Group Executive and Chief Executive, Petroleum 14 November 2011 Disclaimer Reliance on Third Party Information The views expressed here contain information that has been derived from publicly available sources that have not been independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by BHP Billiton. Forward Looking Statements This presentation includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the US Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding future events and the future financial performance of BHP Billiton. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees or predictions of future performance, and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in the statements contained in this presentation. For more detail on those risks, you should refer to the sections of our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 June 2011 entitled “Risk factors”, “Forward looking statements” and “Operating and financial review and prospects” filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. No Offer of Securities Nothing in this release should be construed as either an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell BHP Billiton securities in any jurisdiction. J. Michael Yeager, Group Executive and Chief Executive, Petroleum, 14 November 2011 Slide 2 Petroleum briefing agenda § Introduction § Part 1: Technical overview of the shale industry § Part 2: Business update J.
    [Show full text]
  • EVIDENCE of PRESSURE DEPENDENT PERMEABILITY in LONG-TERM SHALE GAS PRODUCTION and PRESSURE TRANSIENT RESPONSES a Thesis by FABIA
    EVIDENCE OF PRESSURE DEPENDENT PERMEABILITY IN LONG-TERM SHALE GAS PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE TRANSIENT RESPONSES A Thesis by FABIAN ELIAS VERA ROSALES Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved by: Chair of Committee, Christine Ehlig-Economides Committee Members, Robert Wattenbarger Maria Barrufet Head of Department, Dan Hill December 2012 Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering Copyright 2012 Fabian Elias Vera Rosales ABSTRACT The current state of shale gas reservoir dynamics demands understanding long- term production, and existing models that address important parameters like fracture half-length, permeability, and stimulated shale volume assume constant permeability. Petroleum geologists suggest that observed steep declining rates may involve pressure- dependent permeability (PDP). This study accounts for PDP in three potential shale media: the shale matrix, the existing natural fractures, and the created hydraulic fractures. Sensitivity studies comparing expected long-term rate and pressure production behavior with and without PDP show that these two are distinct when presented as a sequence of coupled build-up rate-normalized pressure (BU-RNP) and its logarithmic derivative, making PDP a recognizable trend. Pressure and rate field data demonstrate evidence of PDP only in Horn River and Haynesville but not in Fayetteville shale. While the presence of PDP did not seem to impact the long term recovery forecast, it is possible to determine whether the observed behavior relates to change in hydraulic fracture conductivity or to change in fracture network permeability. As well, it provides insight on whether apparent fracture networks relate to an existing natural fracture network in the shale or to a fracture network induced during hydraulic fracturing.
    [Show full text]
  • I Report Title Resource Assessment of the In-Place and Potentially Recoverable Deep Natural Gas Resource of the Onshore Interior
    Report Title Resource Assessment of the In-Place and Potentially Recoverable Deep Natural Gas Resource of the Onshore Interior Salt Basins, North Central and Northeastern Gulf of Mexico Type of Report Final Report Reporting Period Start Date October 1, 2003 Reporting Period End Date September 30, 2006 Principal Author Ernest A. Mancini (205/348-4319) Department of Geological Sciences Box 870338 202 Bevill Building University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0338 Date Report was Issued November 15, 2006 DOE Award Number DE-FC26-03NT41875 Name and Address of Participants Ernest A. Mancini Donald A. Goddard Paul Aharon Roger Barnaby Dept. of Geological Sciences Center for Energy Studies Box 870338 Louisiana State University Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0338 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 i Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
    [Show full text]
  • EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee Annual Report, FY 2014
    EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee Annual Report, FY 2014 Neil S. Fishman, Chair March 30, 2014 Vice Chairs: Brian Cardott, (Vice Chair, Government), Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, OK Harris Cander (Vice Chair, Industry), BP, Houston, TX Sven Egenhoff, (Vice Chair, University), Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO Advisory Committee (in alphabetical order): Kent Bowker, Bowker Petroleum, The Woodlands, TX Ken Chew, IHS (retired), Perthsire, Scotland Thomas Chidsey, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT Russell Dubiel, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO Catherine Enomoto, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA William Harrison, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI Ursula Hammes, Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, TX Shu Jiang, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT Margaret Keller, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA Julie LeFever, North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, ND Peng Li, Arkansas Geological Survey, Little Rock, AR Jock McCracken, Egret Consulting, Calgary, AB Stephen Nordeng, North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, ND Rich Nyahay, New York Museum, Albany, NY Stephen Sonnenberg, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO Michael D. Vanden Berg, Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, UT Rachel Walker, Countrymark Energy Resources, LLC, Indianapolis, IN INTRODUCTION It is a pleasure to present this Annual Report from the EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee. This report contains information about specific shales across the U.S., Canada, Europe, China, as well as SE Asia from which hydrocarbons are currently being produced or shales that are of interest for hydrocarbon exploitation. The inclusion in this report of shales from which any hydrocarbon is produced reflects the expanded mission of the EMD Shale Gas and Liquids Committee to serve as a single point of access to technical information on shales regardless of the hydrocarbons produced from them (e.g., gas, oil, condensate).
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Petrophysical and Geomechanical Characterization to Production Behavior in the Haynesville Shale
    LINKING PETROPHYSICAL AND GEOMECHANICAL CHARACTERIZATION TO PRODUCTION BEHAVIOR IN THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School Faculty of the University of Texas at Arlington, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Geology In The Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences By SILAS O’SILAS The University of Texas at Arlington May, 2018. 1 Copyright © by Silas O’Silas, 2018 All Rights Reserved 2 Acknowledgements I am grateful to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. John Wickham for providing guidance and advice throughout the duration of my graduate studies, especially regarding my thesis. I am also grateful to the other members of my committee, Dr. Qinhong (Max) Hu and Mr. Fred Meendsen for their support, advice, oversight, and provision of valuable materials. Special thanks also go to Travis Cox for his encouragement and support. I thank Melfard Sorrell for offering materials and encouragement to this project. I am especially thankful to Erik Petre, Echezona “Chez” Uzoh and Marcelo Orellana for the many hours of advice, corrections and encouragement given to me. I also acknowledge the contributions and advice of my industry colleagues: Jeff Faber, Yinghao Chen and Joe Baumann. As an employee, this venture would not have been completed without the gracious understanding of my employer, Hunt Oil Company, particularly my supervisor, Dwight Lockhart. My sincerest gratitude also goes to XTO Energy and Covey Park Energy for providing data and other materials for this project. I’m grateful to CGG for providing PowerLog software. I also thank BHL for the use of Boresight geosteering software, IHS for Petra software, and Drilling Info for providing a license.
    [Show full text]
  • STRONGER's Louisiana Hydraulic Fracturing State Review
    LLoouuiissiiaannaa HHyyddrraauulliicc FFrraaccttuurriinngg SSttaattee RReevviieeww March, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION……………………..…………………………………………………… 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………...……………………………………………………..4 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING Background…………………………………………………………………………...8 General….…………………………………………………………….……….....…...9 Standards.……………..……………………………………………………………..10 Reporting...……………………………………………………………………..........13 Staffing and Training……………………………….………………………………..14 Public Information...………………………………………………………………....15 Water and Waste Management……………………………………………………....16 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS………..………………………………… .18 APPENDIX B: COMPLETED LOUISIANA QUESTIONNAIRE…………………......... .19 1 INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) jointly published a Study of State Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste, which contained guidelines for the regulation of oil and gas exploration and production wastes by the IOCC member states (the “1990 Guidelines”). The published guidelines, developed by state, environmental and industry stakeholders, provided the basis for the State Review Process, a multi-stakeholder review of state exploration and production (E&P) waste management programs against the guidelines. The purposes of the State Review Process are to document the successes of states in regulating E&P wastes and to offer recommendations for program improvement. In 1994, the guidelines were updated and revised (the “1994 Guidelines) by the IOCC, now named
    [Show full text]
  • Forecasting Oil and Gas Activities
    FORECASTING OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Air Quality Division Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. August 31, 2012 ERG N0. 0292.01.012.001 Forecasting Oil and Gas Activities FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Miles Whitten Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P. O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Prepared by: Mike Pring Eastern Research Group, Inc. 1600 Perimeter Park Dr., Suite 200 Morrisville, NC 27560 August 31, 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... x 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 Characteristics of the Texas Shale Plays ............................................................ 2-1 2.1 Barnett Shale Gas Play ............................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Eagle Ford Shale Oil and Gas Play .......................................................... 2-3 2.3 Haynesville Shale Gas Play ..................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Historical Production and Well Completion Statistics ...................................... 3-1 3.1 Barnett Shale Play ................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Eagle Ford Shale Oil and Gas Play .......................................................... 3-9 3.3 Haynesville Shale Gas Play ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Fayetteville Shale
    Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Fayetteville Shale Authors: J. Daniel Arthur, P.E., ALL Consulting; Brian Bohm, P.G., ALL Consulting; Bobbi Jo Coughlin, EIT, ALL Consulting; Mark Layne, Ph.D., P.E., ALL Consulting Lead Author Biographical Sketch Dan Arthur is a founding member and the Managing Partner of ALL Consulting (www.all‐llc.com). Mr. Arthur earned his bachelors degree in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Missouri‐ Rolla. He is a recognized authority on environmental issues pertaining to unconventional resource development and production. Mr. Arthur has served or is currently serving as the lead researcher on several significant projects involving unconventional resources; environmental considerations pertaining to shale gas development; produced water management and recycling; access to federal lands; and low impact natural gas and oil development. Has previously managed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funded research projects involving the development of best management practices utilizing GIS technologies for efficient environmental protection during unconventional resource Development and Production; research to develop a national primer on coal bed methane; research to develop a Handbook on the preparation and review of environmental documents for CBM development; and research with the Ground Water Protection Research Foundation (GWPRF) and funded by DOE and BLM involving analysis of produced water management alternatives and beneficial uses of coal bed methane produced water. Mr. Arthur has published many articles and reports and has made numerous presentations on environmental, energy, and technology issues. Abstract Hydraulic fracturing is a key component of the successful development model for shale gas plays. This paper will review the evolution of hydraulic fracturing, including environmental and regulatory considerations related to development of the Fayetteville Shale play.
    [Show full text]
  • Sano Et Al., 2014 Chemostratigraphy of the Haynesville Shale
    Jennifer L. Sano, Ken T. Ratcliffe, and D.R. Spain, 2013, Chemostratigraphy of the Haynesville Shale, in U. Hammes and J. Gale, eds., Geology of the Haynesville Gas Shale in East Texas and West Louisiana, U.S.A.: AAPG Memoir 105, 7 p. 137–154. Chemostratigraphy of the Haynesville Shale Jennifer L. Sano and Ken T. Ratcliffe Chemostrat Inc, 5850 San Felipe, Suite 500, Houston Texas 77057, U.S.A. (e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]). David R. Spain BP America, Inc., 501 Westlake Park Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77079, U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected]). AbstracT The Haynesville Shale, an Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) age calcareous and locally organic-rich mudrock, is one of many prominent shale gas plays in North America. As shale plays increase in importance, the ability to define basin-wide, robust, and stable stratigraphic frameworks using data derived from well-bores becomes increasingly critical. Here, the tech- nique of chemostratigraphy is used to define a stratigraphic framework that extends through ten wells ranging from eastern Texas to northwestern Louisiana. Stratigraphic variations in inorganic geochemistry allow clear differentiation of Haynes- ville Shale from the underlying Smackover Formation, the Gilmer Lime, and the overlying Bossier Formation. More importantly, however, interpretation of the results allows two che- mostratigraphic packages and four geochemically distinct units to be defined and correlated within the Haynesville Shale. The lithostratigraphic units are geochemically differentiated using variations in SiO2, Al2O3, MgO, Zr, and Nb, whereas the units within the Haynesville Shale are defined using changes in CaO, Al2O3, MgO, Fe2O3, Rb/K2O and Th/U values, and V enrichments.
    [Show full text]
  • Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing: Framing the Water Issue
    Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Framing the Water Issue REPORT 34 Copyright © 2014, Stockholm International Water Institute, SIWI ISBN: 978-91-981860-1-7 ISSN: 1404-2134 How to Cite: Hoffman, A., Olsson, G., Lindström, A. 2014. Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing: Framing the Water Issue. Report Nr. 34. SIWI, Stockholm. Cover photo: iStock Language Editing: Alex Kirby Production: Victoria Engstrand-Neacsu, SIWI Design: Elin Ingblom, SIWI Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent SIWI policy but are those of the individual authors. Printing by Ineko, Stockholm, Sweden. The printing process has been certified according to the Nordic Swan label for environmental quality. For electronic versions of this and other SIWI publications, visit www.siwi.org. Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Framing the Water Issue Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 6 Note to the Reader 8 Shale Gas – A Natural “Tight Gas” 9 Drivers for Growth 10 The Evolving Global Energy Landscape and the Emergence of Shale Gas 11 Hydraulic Fracturing 16 Water and the Fracking Process 17 Different Aspects of Water-Related Risks from Fracking 18 Other Threats Linked to Shale Gas and Fracking 22 Case Descriptions 25 Recommendations 29 References 31 4 Executive Summary The emergence of shale gas and shale oil has quickly ity, and as the reserves are often found in dry areas changed the landscape of opportunities for energy extraction poses additional challenges in what are provision and security in different regions of the often already water-stressed environments. The vast world. Difficulties in assessing the actual quantity of water quantities needed over the life span of a shale existing global shale hydrocarbon reserves produce gas well, where water is used to fracture rock under opposing views on whether the world is on the verge high pressure, pile further stress on local fresh water of a “shale gas revolution” and, if it is, how long it sources which are already needed for many different could last.
    [Show full text]