Water Research Foundation expert fracking survey results “what we don’t know”

Urban Drilling Dragon named Chesa Pete keeps our firemen busy

Urban Drilling Dragon named Chesa Pete keeps our firemen busy

Urban drilling keeps our fire department busy…on one occasion they had our water department’s full attention…read our FORMER water director’s story when a Quicksilver drill site spilled over into our drinking water source, Lake Arlington.

Arlington contributed $24,000 toward the Water research Foundation project that specifically sought to understand the gaps in water protection with hydrofracturing.

Screen shot 2014-10-17 at 10.36.49 AM

I asked the city that any reports that come out of the study be posted on the city blog…but no accomodation on this request was ever acted upon so here it is…. finally…..

Belwo the stats is our FORMER water director, Julie Hunt’s contribution to the project relating to the topic “Surface Activities”.

I boldfaced selected items for easier reading through this 75 page report.

I calculated off of the Water Research Foundation report the “YES” percent survey results of those 16 out of 35 attendants that participated in answering that “YES additonal research was needed” the other responses were mostly no responses & “no additional research was needed”. There were even fewer responses for “subject of current research” and two other even less used responses entitled  ‘“maybe” and “?”…..

http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/4301.pdf

©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

pg 55 Water and Chemical Usage

 Percentage of  “YES additonal research was needed” 

63% “Potential for impacts to water supply reliability from cumulative water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing by numerous independent operators”

50% “Mechanisms for permitting and monitoring water withdrawals to limit potential impacts to water supply reliability”

50% “Methods for resolving/avoiding water resource conflicts”

69% Chemical disclosure/communication protocols to provide utilities with the information needed to monitor for impacts and mitigate if necessary

88% Technologies or products that could reduce usage of toxic chemicals”

pg 57 Subsurface Processes 

Percentage of  “YES additonal research was needed” 

69% Mechanisms/pathways by which drilling/fracturing chemicals, natural gas, or formation materials could migrate from the target formation towards the surface

69% Availability of sufficient data (spatial extent, resolution, etc.) on pre-existing faults/brittle structures that could pose problems during drilling and fracturing

56% Well casing and grouting testing to minimize well construction risk factors

44% Ability to monitor fracture propagation beyond the target formation

50% Geophysical monitoring techniques for improving characterization of confining strata between fractured formation and potable aquifers

50% Potential for widespread drilling and fracturing to negatively impact confining layers that isolate fractured formations

69% Availability of subsurface mitigation measures in the event of a failure

pg 58 Wastewater Disposal

 Percentage of  “YES additonal research was needed” 

44% Methods for predicting volume and chemical characteristics of flowback water and produced water prior to drilling

50% Options for reuse of wastewater for drilling and fracturing operations

56% Impacts on conventional wastewater treatment plants and their receiving waters when accepting flowback and/or produced water

69% Alternative or emerging technologies for treating wastewater

50% Potential for undocumented, pre-regulation abandoned wells acting as conduits to the surface for waste injected underground

31% Occurrence of induced seismicity resulting from underground injection

—————–

pg 14 Topic 2: Surface Activities

Julie Hunt of Arlington Water Utilities began with an overview of major industries and attractions in the City of Arlington, the size of the utility (100,000 accounts serving over 370,000 people), and its location in the Barnett Shale region. Major issues for the utility are water supply management, surface water protection, disposal of flowback water, and storm water runoff related to natural gas development. Additional demands on the water resources are not necessarily a concern because the overall consumptive use is relatively minor. However, there are challenges that arise from drilling in close proximity to water supplies and critical infrastructure. One example presented was a notification from a driller that an overflowing tank had released frac water into the adjacent water supply lake. The incident required mobilization of a significant response on the part of the utility to address the spill.

Because drilling occurs in the city limits, Arlington Water Utilities allows drillers to hook up to the public distribution system for water withdrawals, conditional on the use of backflow preventers and an agreement to limit the maximum rate of withdrawal. In order to plan for withdrawals the utility models the distribution system to set the withdrawal rate to prevent pressure loss for other customers. One driller bypassed the controls limiting the rate of withdrawal, which resulted in the city’s primary water tank being drawn down rapidly and unexpectedly. The utility mobilized its staff and local police to search the area, thinking there was a major water line break, before discovering the actual cause. The water utility participates in the planning process for drilling permits within the city and has the authority to impose permit conditions and inspect operations but becomes frustrated when the plans and agreements are not properly followed.

The water utility has concerns of vibrations from drilling and fracturing near its water tank and has been working with drillers to analyze the risk prior to allowing drilling to commence nearby.

Because drilling occurs within the city limits and on the shore of Lake Arlington, a drinking water supply reservoir, the utility is very concerned about public perception issues. Another concern is that the state regulatory agencies for the utility (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) and the gas drillers (Texas Railroad Commission) do not always coordinate effectively to assist the utility in protecting drinking water supplies.

In general there is more of a concern about impacts during the well drilling phase of development than the long term operations of the wells. However, ponds constructed by drillers to hold fresh water for fracing, though identified as “temporary,” may remain for years. These semi-permanent ponds can be an aesthetic issue and a safety hazard for residents.”

END Julie Hunt report—————-

pg 19 “It was stressed that baseline water quality data is necessary, but with so many original chemicals and degradation byproducts, it is difficult and expensive to test for everything. Tracers, or some other surrogate that is indicative of fracture fluid contamination, would be extremely beneficial for ease of monitoring. However, no suitable tracers or surrogates are currently available.” 

“While most surface activities are typical for all types of oil and gas development, hydraulic fracturing has propelled the expansion of natural gas development into areas with relatively limited history of oil and gas exploration.”

pg 20  “Additionally, chemical analysis methodologies will need to be improved upon to more cost effectively test for exotic chemicals diluted with highly concentrated brine.”

pg 29  “Subject to appropriate intellectual property rules, policy makers and water utilities need a current, comprehensive inventory of chemical constituents used or produced at all stages of oil and gas development. These constituents should be evaluated to determine the level of information available about them with regard to toxicity for human health and the environment. The presence of extremely high total dissolved solids (TDS) on the order of 100,000 mg/L, especially chlorides, inhibits the ability to detect other constituents that may be present at much smaller concentrations, such as endocrine disruptors. 

p35 Project Description

6. “Investigation of Physical Impacts to Utility Infrastructure from Ground Movement due to Hydraulic Fracturing”  (see my previous blog/video on this subject)

Hydraulic fracturing requires the injection of large volumes of pressurized fluid deep underground to create fractures in rock. This volume displaces the overlying material (rock and soil) such that the ground surface flexes upward by a small, but measurable, amount. This flexure may potentially cause damage to both underground utility infrastructure (e.g., water tunnels, pipelines, storage tanks) and surface structures (e.g., tanks, water towers, and dams).

There may be existing information on damage to utility infrastructure from other types of ground movement such as subsidence or earthquakes. A preliminary literature review should be performed beforehand to gauge the need for a full scale research project.”

pg 41 “There are no known studies that have analyzed cumulative subsurface impacts from large numbers of hydraulically fractured wells. A hydrogeological analysis in Garfield County, Colorado, revealed a steady decline in groundwater quality as drilling operations increased. A more comprehensive analysis that links the cause and effects with level of drilling activity is needed to help utilities and regulators plan for development to limit impacts. The research should include the following elements:

WaterRF Workshop on Natural Gas Development Issues for Drinking Water Utilities: Participant List and Breakout Group Assignments

Technical Experts
Scott Anderson Environmental Defense Fund
J. Daniel Arthur ALL Consulting
Tzahi Cath Colorado School of Mines
Kevin Fisher Pinnacle Technologies
Seth Guikema Johns Hopkins University
Gary Hanson Red River Watershed Management Institute
Tom Hayes Gas Technology Institute
Bill Kappel U.S. Geological Survey
Joe Lee Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection
Matt Mantell Chesapeake Energy
J.P. Nicot University of Texas Austin
Chad Pindar Delaware River Basin Commission
Robert Puls USEPA Office of Research and Development
Dan Soeder U.S. Dept of Energy NETL
John Veil Argonne National Lab
Lori Wrotenbery Oklahoma Corporation Commission
Utility representatives
Kelly Anderson Philadelphia Water Dept
Paula Connely Philadelphia Water Dept
Julie Hunt City of Arlington, TX
Kim Kane New York City Dept of Environmental Protection
Paul Rush New York City Dept of Environmental Protection
Andre Zinkevich American Water
Water Research Foundation Staff and guests
Jeanne Briskin USEPA Office of Research and Development
Fred Hauchman USEPA Office of Research and Development
Audrey Levine USEPA Office of Research and Development
Kim Linton WaterRF Staff
Mary Smith WaterRF Staff
Lynn Thorpe Clean Water Action / WaterRF Research Council Member
Jennifer Warner WaterRF Staff
Consultant Team
Patrick Field Consensus Building Institute
Frank Getchell Leggette, Brashears and Graham
Kate Harvey Consensus Building Institute
Tom McEnerney Hazen and Sawyer
Grantley Pyke Hazen and Sawyer
Ben Wright Hazen and Sawyer

©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Advertisements

About Kim Triolo Feil

Since TX Statute 253.005 forbids drilling in heavily settled municipalities, I unsuccessfully ran for City Council Seat to try to enforce this. Since Urban Drilling, our drinking water has almost tripled for TTHM's. Before moving to Arlington in 1990, I lived in Norco’s “cancer alley”, a refinery town. It was only after Urban Drilling in Arlington did I start having health effects. After our drill site was established closest to my home, the chronic nosebleeds started. I know there are more canaries here in Arlington having reactions to our industrialized airshed (we have 55-60 padsites of gas wells). Come forward and report to me those having health issues especially if you live to the north/northwest of a drill site so I can map your health effects on this blog. My youtube account is KimFeilGood. FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. MATERIAL FROM DIVERSE AND SOMETIMES TEMPORARY SOURCES IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN A PERMANENT UNIFIED MANNER, AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (AMONG OTHER THINGS). IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS IS A 'FAIR USE' OF THE INFORMATION AS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 USC SECTION 107, THE SITE IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROFIT FOR THOSE WHO ACCESS IT FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/ TO USE MATERIAL REPRODUCED ON THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE', PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER INDICATED WITH A NAME AND INTERNET LINK AT THE END OF EACH ITEM. (NOTE: THE TEXT OF THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO LIFTED FROM CORRIDORNEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s