[Add your own pictures here] Wastewater Characteristics from Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Pennsylvania Managing the Risks of Shale Gas Development Resources for the Future Washington, DC
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Purpose of this work from shale gas development • Statistically analyze characteristics of flowback, produced water, and drilling fluid waste sent to wastewater treatment facilities in PA, 2008-2011. • If recycling, treatment, and disposal options involve exposure to the environment/human health, knowledge of wastewater constituents helps quantify risks. • Results may be useful in: • Evaluating current and future wastewater treatment technologies, infrastructure capacity, and siting. • Understanding potential impacts of treated wastewater on rivers and streams. • Setting effluent standards 2
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison with Other Analyses from shale gas development • Marcellus Shale Water Characterization funded by Marcellus Shale Coalition and ASWCMC Consortia. • Consistent sampling from 19 locations, analysis performed by a single lab, flowback samples at 0, 1, 5, 14, 90 days. • GE also has a database (data from various shales). • Data in our analysis are publicly available, focus on waste sent to treatment facilities (rather than recycling, deep injection), include drilling fluid waste and other categories. 3
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Data Source: Form 26R, submitted from shale gas development to PADEP by “residual waste” generators • Generator information • Waste description (pH range, physical state, appearance) • Chemical analysis attachments • Process description, schematic diagrams • Management of residual waste – location information for processing/disposal facilities, information about beneficial use • Certification 4
RFF project focuses on environmental risks When is a Form 26R required? from shale gas development NON-COAL MINING, OIL AND GAS, AND OTHER • A company that generates > 2200 WELL DRILLING WASTES pounds of residual waste from a 801 Drilling Fluids, Residuals (other than those “generating location” in a single under 802-810; includes drill cuttings from monitoring well and drinking water well month during the calendar year construction) 802 Brine (natural salt water separated at oil and gas must file a Form26R by March 1 of wells) 803 Drilling Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling mud, the following year. other drilling fluids other than fracing fluid and spent lubricant) 804 Fracing Fluid Waste (oil and gas drilling • Non-hazardous industrial waste fracturing fluid, flow-back fracturing fluid, flow- back fracturing sand) 807 Basic Sediment (oil and gas production storage • Individual chemical analysis impurities, sediment from produced oil at storage tank battery) required for each waste type (DEP 808 Servicing Fluid (oil and gas production well waste codes) maintenance/work over fluids, oil/water-based mud and foam) 809 Spent Lubricant Waste (spent oil and gas drilling lubricants, spent plug drilling lubricants) 810 Drill Cuttings (oil and gas drill cuttings) 5
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Form 26R Required Analytes for from shale gas development Marcellus Shale or Other Gas Wells Chemical Oxygen Acidity Magnesium Silver Demand Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) Chlorides Manganese Sodium Aluminum Chromium MBAS (Surfactants) Specific Conductance Ammonia Nitrogen Cobalt Mercury Strontium Arsenic Copper Molybdenum Sulfates Barium Ethylene Glycol Nickel Thorium Benzene Gross Alpha Nitrite-Nitrate Nitrogen Toluene Beryllium Gross Beta Oil & Grease Total Dissolved Solids Biochemical Oxygen Hardness (Total as pH Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Demand CaCO3) Iron – Dissolved Boron Phenolics (Total) Total Suspended Solids Iron – Total Bromide Radium 226 Uranium Cadmium Lead Radium 228 Zinc Calcium Lithium Selenium Additional constituents that are expected or known to be present in the wastewater. 6
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Data Collection from shale gas development N = 11 N = 85 N = 8 N = 74 N : number of laboratory reports in our database 7
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Dataset Summary from shale gas development Variable Count laboratory report 178 company 22 well 104 well with location info. 95 wastewater treatment facilities 37 wastewater treatment facilities with location info. 21 Sample year Freq. 2009 75 2010 77 2011 18 NA 8 Total 178 8
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Categories of Chemicals from shale gas development • Lab samples are tested for a total of 432 different analytes that we are able to identify in the data, in the following categories: • General chemicals • Organics • Pesticides • Metals • Radioactive Materials • Only 198 of these analytes are actually measured in one or more samples (many NAs, NDs, BDLs). 9
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison of General Chemicals from shale gas development in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste 10
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison of Metals in from shale gas development Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste 11
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison of Organics from shale gas development in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste 12
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Comparison of Naturally Occurring Radioactive from shale gas development Materials in Brine and Fracking Fluid Waste 13
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Waste Shipments: Cl- Concentrations from shale gas development at Wells and Treatment Facilities 14
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Preliminary Conclusions from shale gas development • High chemical concentrations are observed pre- treatment, emphasizing need for effective treatment. • When barium is detected (92% of samples), median concentration is > 40 times Pennsylvania’s wastewater effluent standard and > 200 times the SDWA maximum contaminant level for barium. • Concentrations of chloride, TDS, bromide, radium-228 and strontium in pretreatment wastewater are also far higher than either wastewater effluent standards or drinking water standards. • Wastewater composition is highly variable over the course of the shale gas extraction process -- a challenge for effective treatment and management. • Form26 filed once/year/waste type/generating location – constituent concentrations could vary even within this temporal/spatial window. 15
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Preliminary Conclusions, cont. from shale gas development • Produced water has very different composition than flowback, typically having higher chloride, TDS and radium-228 concentrations. Obviously more difficult to recycle, requiring different technology/higher costs. • Many constituents may be effectively removed by chemical waste treatment facilities currently treating this waste (e.g., metals); others may not (e.g., salts). • Further research on potential risks from wastewater treatment and release to rivers and streams is warranted. 16
Thank you!
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Life Cycle of Water from shale gas development Sampling location Drilling fluid Onsite Clean water additives treatment Chemicals Wastewater Recycling Pound/ Drilling tank Mixing tank Surface water fracing Chemicals fluid Onsite Deep well additives treatment injection Groundwater Surface Flowback discharge water Hydraulic Offsite Pound/ fracturing WWTF tank Other high value reuse Chemicals Pound/ Produced tank water 18 landfill
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback) and from shale gas development Brine (Produced Water) Fracing Fluid Waste (Flowback) Brine (Produced Water) The length of flowback can be from 2 weeks to Complete Connect wellhead fracking one month or to gas pipe to longer. It varies start production by developer. Some reports don’t distinguish them using above method, but call them all flowback and distinguish them by days after fracing completion. For example, completion day 0, 1, 3, 5, 14, 30 and 90. We use 30 days as a cut off to assign waste type and code for these reports. 19
RFF project focuses on environmental risks Compare Form 26R and MSC Results from shale gas development F26R_802 MSC Study F26R_804 Produced Parameter Influent 5-Day Flowback 14-Day Flowback Flowback Water pH 7.2 6.6 6.2 6.9 5.8 Alkalinity 52.5 138 85.2 1819.7 2521.9 TDS 334 67300 120000 60156.5 182948.6 TSS 9.6 99 209 387.5 205.7 TOC 3.8 62.8 38.7 79.8 1928.5 BOD 149 2.8 2.8 595.4 855.6 Oil & Grease 31 < 5 7.4 NA NA Sodium 67.8 18000 16383 35887.7 Calcium 32.9 4950 4982 15003.6 Magnesium 6.7 559 491.6 1412.4 Iron 1.2 39 41.9 106.5 Barium 0.4 686 1025.8 84328.8 Chloride 42.3 41850 40462.5 99711.8 20
Recommend
More recommend
