a review of epa’s external review draft …€¦ · impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking...
TRANSCRIPT
First Flowback| A REVIEW OF EPA’S EXTERNAL
REVIEW DRAFT REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
ON DRINKING WATER RESOURCES
Edward Pfau | Hull & Associates, Inc
Shale Exchange 2015
GOALS OF THIS PRESENTATION | THE BIG PICTURE
• Provide information on the External Review Draft
• Summarize the key findings
• Provide comments on likely implications
From EPA ERD (2015). Image: USGS
Shale Exchange 2015
EXTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT
• Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources
• External review draft released June 4, 2015
• Study may be accessed at:• http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy
• Designated as a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA)
• Review by Science Advisory Board (SAB)
• Stakeholder and Public Comments due August 28, 2015
• http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=epa-HQ-OA-2015-0245;fp=true;ns=true
Shale Exchange 2015
SCOPE OF EPA’s ASSESSMENT
• Water Acquisition
• Chemical Mixing
• Well Injection
• Flowback and Produced Water
• Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal
• Impacts on Drinking Water Sources
• Groundwater or surface water that now serves or could serve as a drinking water source for public or private use, including both fresh and non-fresh bodies of water
From EPA ERD, 2015. Image © J Henry Fair /
Flights provided by LightHawk.
SCOPE OF EPA’s ASSESSMENT EXCLUDES:
• Sand mining and chemical production
• Site selection and infrastructure
• Site reclamation
• Well closure
• Evaluation of regulations, policies and practices
• Impacts on non-drinking water use
• Seismic, air quality, ecosystems
• Worker health and safety
• Disposal of wastes in UIC wells
• Formal risk assessmentFrom EPA ERD, 2015. Photo
credit: DOE/NETL.
Shale Exchange 2015
EPA’s ASSESSMENT APPROACH
• Scientific and engineering journals
• Federal and state government reports
• NGO Reports
• Industry publications
• Government databases
• Other databases
• Business information submitted to EPA (CBI and non-CBI)
From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit: Mark
Saltzer (EPA).. Shale Exchange 2015
EPA’s IDENTIFIED MECHANISMS BY WHICH HYDRAULIC FRACTURING MAY IMPACT DRINKING WATER
• Water withdrawals in areas of or time of low water availability
• Spills of fracturing fluids, flowbackwater and produced water
• Fracturing directly into underground drinking water sources
• Below-ground migration of liquids and gases (casing and cementing failures)
• Discharge of untreated wastewaters into drinking water sources From EPA ERD, 2015. Image © Henry Fair;
Flights provided by Lighthawk.
Shale Exchange 2015
EPA’s MAJOR FINDING
• “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.”
Shale Exchange 2015
WATER ACQUISITION
• Hydraulic fracturing activities use 44 billion gallons water per year
• ~ 4 million gallons per well
• Generally ≤ 1% of total use
• ≥ 50% in 10% FracFocus counties
• Majority of water is fresh
• Wastewater reuse• 79% in Marcellus Shale (18% inj.
water)
• 5% in Barnett Shale
• No single case where HF activities alone caused a drinking water source to go dry
From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit: Martha
Roberts (EPA). Shale Exchange 2015
CHEMICAL MIXING
• Spill frequency• 1 spill/well in Colorado
• 0.4 to 12 spills/well in Western PA
• 151 spills of HF fluids, additives• 5 gal to 19,000 gal
• Median spill: 420 gal
• 30% of spills from storage units
• 64% soils, 9% SW, 0% GW
• Additives
• 1,076 chemicals in HF fluids
• 4 – 28 chemicals per well
• Risk assessment should be local
From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit: Industry
source.Shale Exchange 2015
WELL INJECTION
• Two mechanisms • Deficient well casing and cementing• Movement thru subsurface
formations
• Casing and Cementing• Risks greatly diminished if surface
casing extends below DW zone• > 3% of HF wells do not have
cement across a portion of casing thru DW zone
• Cited in Killdeer ND, Bainbridge OH and Mann Creek CO events
• Subsurface Formations• Marcellus Shale, Haynesville Shale • Antrim Shale, New Albany Shale
From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit: U.S.
EPAShale Exchange 2015
FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WATER
• Produced water • Generally 10-25% of injected
volume• Barnett Shale exception, PW ≥ inj.
vol.
• 252 spills of flowback/produced • Median spill: 990 gal• 74% caused by container failure• 8% impacted SW and/or GW
• Lycoming County, PA• Towanda Creek, Bradford Co., PA
• Composition• 134 chemicals identified • Detailed evaluation in App. E• Risk assessment should be local
From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit:
NYSDECShale Exchange 2015
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL
• Wastewater Management Options• UIC wells
• Evaporation ponds
• Reuse without treatment
• Land application/road spreading
• Treatment at CWT facility, subsequent
• Discharge to stream
• Discharge to POTW
• Reuse
• UIC wells: 98% in 2007 (exc. Marcellus)
• Discharge issues• B, Ba, Br-, Cl-, heavy metals
• Radionuclides From EPA ERD, 2015. Photo credit:
Caroline Ridley (U.S. EPA).Shale Exchange 2015
REPORT LIMITATIONS
• These findings could reflect:• Rarity of impacts upon drinking water
resources• Insufficient pre- and post-fracturing
data on quality of drinking water sources
• Lack of long-term systematic studies• “Presence of other sources of
contamination precluding a definitive link between hydraulic fracturing activities and an impact.”
• “…the inaccessibility of some information on hydraulic fracturing activities and potential impacts.”
Shale Exchange 2015
EPA’s OBJECTIVES FOR USE OF THE REPORT
• EPA’s Objectives:• Encourage pre- and post-hydraulic
fracturing monitoring studies by researchers
• Dissemination of data in forms accessible by wide range of users
• Advance the scientific basis for decision-making by governments, industry and the public
• Report Finalization• SAB Review
• Public and Stakeholder Comments due August 28, 2015
• Next Steps
Photo credit: USGS
Shale Exchange 2015
IMPLICATIONS OF THE REPORT
• EPA has not identified a mechanism by which hydraulic fracturing has substantially affected drinking water resources
• There is no reason to regulate or restrict hydraulic fracturing in a manner distinct from conventional oil and gas exploration and extraction
Photo credit: USGS