Now, seismologists from around the country — including Oklahoma — are convinced that these earthquakes are the result of human activity, also known as induced or triggered seismicity. Yet many people, especially those in the oil industry, still refute such an argument. Just what is the science that has seismologists so convinced that the earthquakes are induced and not natural?
Hidden Faults
Over the last billion years (give or take a couple hundred million), colliding tectonic plates have created earthquake zones, just as we see today in California, Japan, Chile and Nepal. As geologic processes occurred, these zones shifted and moved and were covered up, and the faults that once triggered earthquakes achieved a state of equilibrium deep in the basement rocks of the earth’s crust. But the faults still exist. If the delicate balance that keeps these fault systems stable ever shifts, the ancient faults can still move, resulting in earthquakes. Because these inactive faults are so deep, and because they can theoretically exist just about anywhere, they’re incredibly difficult to map or predict – until an earthquake occurs.
Thanks to historic reports of earthquakes in the central and eastern United States, we know there are some regions, far away from tectonic plate boundaries, that occasionally experience large earthquakes. Missouri and South Carolina, for example, suffered significant and damaging earthquakes in the last 200 hundred years, yet these states lie nowhere near a plate boundary. We know that fault zones exist in these locations, but we have no way of knowing about dormant faults in regions of the country that haven’t experienced earthquakes in the last couple hundred years.
What is induced seismicity?
As early as the 1930s, seismologists began to suspect that extremely large volumes of water could impact seismic activity, even in those regions where earthquakes weren’t thought to occur. Scientists found that after certain reservoirs were built and filled with water, earthquake swarms often followed. This didn’t happen everywhere, and when it did, the earthquakes were rarely large enough to be damaging. These quakes were large enough to be felt, however, and they represented early instances of human activity triggering earthquakes.[1]
Research into induced seismicity really picked up in the 1960s. The most famous example of man-made earthquakes occurred as a result of injection well activity at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. The arsenal began injecting wastewater into a disposal well 12,000 feet deep in March of 1962, and by April of that year, people were feeling earthquakes. Researchers at the arsenal tracked the injections and the earthquakes. They found that each time the arsenal injected large volumes of water (between 2 and 8 million gallons per month, or 47,000 to 190,000 barrels), earthquakes would start shaking the ground within a matter of weeks (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Rocky Mountain Arsenal fluid injection correlated to earthquake frequency
Figure 2. South Carolina experienced induced earthquakes after filling a reservoir
When the injections ended, the earthquakes also ceased, usually after a similar time delay, but some seismicity continued for a while. The well was active for many years, and the largest earthquake thought to be induced by the injection well actually occurred nearly a year and a half after injection officially ended. That earthquake registered as a magnitude 5.3. Scientists also noticed that over time, the earthquakes moved farther and farther away from the well.
Research at a reservoir in South Carolina produced similar results; large volumes of water triggered earthquake swarms that spread farther from the reservoir with time (Figure 2).
When people say we’ve known for decades that human activity can trigger earthquakes, this is the research they’re talking about.
Why now? Why Oklahoma?
Injection Well in Ohio. Photo by Ted Auch
Seismologists have known conclusively and for quite a while that wastewater injection wells can trigger earthquakes, yet people have also successfully injected wastewater into tens of thousands of wells across the country for decades without triggering any earthquakes. So why now? And why in Oklahoma?
The short answers are:
At no point in history have we injected this much water this deep into the ground, and
It’s not just happening in Oklahoma.
One further point to clarify: General consensus among seismologists is that most of these earthquakes are triggered by wastewater disposal wells and not by hydrofracking (or fracking) wells. That may be a point to be contested in a future article, but for now, the largest induced earthquakes we’ve seen have been associated with wastewater disposal wells and not fracking. This distinction is important when considering high-pressure versus high-volume wells. A clear connection between high-pressure wells and earthquakes has not been satisfactorily demonstrated in our research at the Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO) (nor have we seen it demonstrated elsewhere, yet). High-volume wastewater disposal wells, on the other hand, have been connected to earthquakes.
At the VTSO, we looked at about 8,000 disposal wells in Oklahoma that we suspected might be connected to induced seismicity. Of those, over 7,200 had maximum allowed injection rates of less than 10,000 barrels per month, which means the volume is low enough that they’re unlikely to trigger earthquakes. Of the remaining 800 wells, only 300 had maximum allowed injection rates of over 40,000 barrels per month — and up to millions of barrels per year for some wells. These maximum rates are on par with the injection rates seen at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and our own plots indicate a correlation between high-volume injection wells and earthquakes (Figure 3-4).
Figure 3. Triangles represent wastewater injection wells scaled to reflect maximum volume rates. Wells with high volumes are located near earthquakes.
Figure 4. Triangles represent wastewater injection wells scaled to reflect maximum pressure. Wells with high pressures are not necessarily near earthquakes.
This does not mean that all high-volume wells will trigger earthquakes, or that lower-volume wells are always safe, but rather, it’s an important connection that scientists and well operators should consider.
Starting in 2008 and 2009, with the big oil and gas plays in Oklahoma, a lot more fluid was injected into a lot more wells. As the amount of fluid injected in Oklahoma has increased, so too have the number of earthquakes. But Oklahoma is not the only state to experience this phenomenon. Induced earthquakes have been recorded in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas.
In the last four years, Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio and Texas have all had “man-made” earthquakes larger than magnitude 4, which is the magnitude at which damage begins to occur. Meanwhile, in that time period, Colorado experienced its second induced earthquake that registered larger than magnitude 5. Oklahoma may have the most induced and triggered earthquakes, but the problem is one of national concern.
[1] Induced seismicity actually dates back to the late 1800s with mining, but the connection to high volumes of fluid was first recognized in the 1930s. However, the extent to which it was documented is unknown.
We were recently asked if there is a reliable way to determine what constituents are being housed in certain types of oil and gas storage containers. While there is not typically a simple and straightforward response to questions like this, some times we can provide educated guesses based on a few photos, placards, or a trip to the site.
One way to become better informed is to follow the trucks. The origins of the trucks will determine whether the current stage in the extraction process is drilling or fracturing (the containers cannot be for both unless they are delivering fresh water). Combine that with good side-view photos of the trucks will tell you if they are heavier going into the site or heavier leaving. Look for the clearance between the rear tires and the frame. Tanker trucks can typically carry 4000 gallons or 100 barrels.
For a quick guide to oil and gas storage containers, see the “quiz” we have compiled below:
Storage Container Quiz
1. What is in this yellow tank?
Q1: Photo 1
Q1: Photo 2 (same tank zoomed in)
Answer: This yellow 500-barrel wheelie storage tank in photos 1 and 2 is a portable storage tank, identified in the placard in photo 2 as having held oil base drill mud at one time. Drillers prefer to keep certain tanks identified for specific purposes if at all possible. This is especially true if they have paid extra to get a tank “certified clean” to use for fresh water storage. A certified clean tank does not mean that the water is potable (drinkable).
Other storage containers that hold fresh water are shown below:
Shark Tanks
Shark Tanks from the sky
2. What is this truck transporting?
Q2: Truck
Answer: This type of truck is normally used to haul solid waste – such as drill cuttings going to a landfill. Some trucks, however do not make it the whole way to the landfill before losing some of their contents as shown below.
Truck spill in WV
3. How about these yellow tanks?
Q3: Photo 1
Q3: Photo 2
Answer: The above storage containers are 500-barrel liquid storage tanks, also called “frac” tanks.
In photo 2 you can see that at least one tank is connected to others on either side of it. In this case you need to look at the overall operation to see what process is occurring nearby — or what had just finished — to determine what might be in the container presently.
The name plate on photo 1 says “drill mud,” which means that at one time that container might have held exactly that. Now, however, that container would likely have very little to do with drilling waste or drill cuttings. The “GP” and the number on the sign refers to Great Plains and the tank’s number. These type of tanks do not have official placards on them for the purposes of DOT labeling since they are never moved with any significant liquid in them.
4: What about these miscellaneous tanks?
Q4: Photo 1 – Tank farm with 103 blue tanks
Q4: Photo 2 – Red tanks with connecting hoses
Q4: Photo 3 – Red tanks, no connections
Answer: There is no way to know – unless you have been closely following the process in your neighborhood and know the current stage of the well pad’s drilling process. Tank farms are usually just for storage unless there is some type of filtering and processing equipment on site. The drilling crews (for either horizontal or vertical wells) do not mix their fluids with the fracturing crew. That does not mean that one tank farm could not store a selection of flowback brine—or produced water, or drilling fluids. They would be stored in separate tanks or tank groups that are connected together – usually with flex hoses.
Since I am in the area often, I know that the tanks in photos 1 and 2 were storing fresh water. Both sets were associated with a nearby hydraulic fracturing operation, which has very little to do with the drilling process. You will never see big groups of tanks like this on a well pad that is currently being drilled.
The third set of tanks with no connections on an in-production well pad are probably just empty and storing air – but not fresh air. These tanks are just sitting there, waiting for their next assignment – storage only, not in use. Notice that there are no connecting pipes like in photo 2. The tanks in photo 3 could have held any of the following: fresh water, flowback, brine, mixed fracturing fluids, or condensate. Only the operator would know for certain.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Storage-Feature.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2015-02-17 15:41:102020-07-21 10:32:09Name that oil and gas storage container [quiz]
OH Utica Production, Water Usage, and Waste Disposal by County Part II of a Multi-part Series
By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
In this part of our ongoing “Water-Energy Nexus” series focusing on Water and Water Use, we are looking at how counties in Ohio differ between how much oil and gas are produced, as well as the amount of water used and waste produced. This analysis also highlights how the OH DNR’s initial Utica projections differ dramatically from the current state of affairs. In the first article in this series, we conducted an analysis of OH’s water-energy nexus showing that Utica wells are using an ave. of 5 million gallons/well. As lateral well lengths increase, so does water use. In this analysis we demonstrate that:
Drillers have to use more water, at higher pressures, to extract the same unit of oil or gas that they did years ago,
Where production is relatively high, water usage is lower,
As fracking operations move to the perimeter of a marginally productive play – and smaller LLCs and MLPs become a larger component of the landscape – operators are finding minimal returns on $6-8 million in well pad development costs,
Market forces and Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) policy has allowed industry to exploit OH’s freshwater resources at bargain basement prices relative to commonly agreed upon water pricing schemes.
At current prices1, the shale gas industry is allocating < 0.27% of total well pad costs to current – and growing – freshwater requirements. It stands to reason that this multi-part series could be a jumping off point for a more holistic discussion of how we price our “endless” freshwater resources here in OH.
In an effort to better understand the inter-county differences in water usage, waste production, and hydrocarbon productivity across OH’s 19 Utica Shale counties we compiled a data-set for 500+ Utica wells which was previously used to look at differenced in these metrics across the state’s primary industry players. The results from Table 1 below are discussed in detail in the subsequent sections.
Table 1. Hydrocarbon production totals and per day values with top three producers in bold
County
# Wells
Total
Per Day
Oil
Gas
Brine
Production
Days
Oil
Gas
Brine
Ashland
1
0
0
23,598
102
0
0
231
Belmont
32
55,017
39,564,446
450,134
4,667
20
8,578
125
Carroll
256
3,715,771
121,812,758
2,432,022
66,935
67
2,092
58
Columbiana
26
165,316
9,759,353
189,140
6,093
20
2,178
65
Coshocton
1
949
0
23,953
66
14
0
363
Guernsey
29
726,149
7,495,066
275,617
7,060
147
1,413
49
Harrison
74
2,200,863
31,256,851
1,082,239
17,335
136
1,840
118
Jefferson
14
8,396
9,102,302
79,428
2,819
2
2,447
147
Knox
1
0
0
9,078
44
0
0
206
Mahoning
3
2,562
0
4,124
287
9
0
14
Medina
1
0
0
20,217
75
0
0
270
Monroe
12
28,683
13,077,480
165,424
2,045
22
7,348
130
Muskingum
1
18,298
89,689
14,073
455
40
197
31
Noble
39
1,326,326
18,251,742
390,791
7,731
268
3,379
267
Portage
2
2,369
75,749
10,442
245
19
168
228
Stark
1
17,271
166,592
14,285
602
29
277
24
Trumbull
8
48,802
742,164
127,222
1,320
36
566
100
Tuscarawas
1
9,219
77,234
2,117
369
25
209
6
Washington
3
18,976
372,885
67,768
368
59
1,268
192
Production
Total
It will come as no surprise to the reader that OH’s Utica oil and gas production is being led by Carroll County, followed distantly by Harrison, Noble, Belmont, Guernsey and Columbiana counties. Carroll has produced 3.7 million barrels of oil to date, while the latter have combined to produce an additional 4.5 million barrels. Carroll wells have been in production for nearly 67,000 days2, while the aforementioned county wells have been producing for 42,886 days. The remaining counties are home to 49 wells that have been in production for nearly 8,800 days or 7% of total production days in Ohio.
Combined with the state’s remaining 49 producing wells spread across 13 counties, OH’s Utica Shale has produced 8.3 million barrels of oil as well as 251,844,311 Mcf3 of natural gas and 5.4 million barrels of brine. Oil and natural gas together have an estimated value of $2.99 billion ($213 million per quarter)4 assuming average oil and natural gas prices of $96 per barrel and $8.67 per Mcf during the current period of production (2011 to Q2-2014), respectively.
Potential Revenue at Different Severance Tax Rates:
Current production tax, 0.5-0.8%: $19 million ($1.4 Million Per Quarter (MPQ). At this rate it would take the oil and gas industry 35 years to generate the $4.6 billion in tax revenue they proposed would be generated by 2020.
Proposed, 1% gas and 4% oil: At Governor Kasich’s proposed tax rate, $2.99 billion translates into $54 million ($3.9 MPQ). It would still take 21 years to return the aforementioned $4.6 billion to the state’s coffers.
The bottom-line is that a production tax of 11-25% or more ($24-53 MPQ) would be necessary to generate the kind of tax revenue proposed by the end of 2020. This type of O&G taxation regime is employed in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma.
From an outreach and monitoring perspective, effects on air and water quality are two of the biggest gaps in our understanding of shale gas from a socioeconomic, health, and environmental perspective. Pulling out a mere 1% from any of these tax regimes would generate what we’ll call an “Environmental Monitoring Fee.” Available monitoring funds would range between $194,261 and $1.8 million ($16 million at 55%). These monies would be used to purchase 2-21 mobile air quality devices and 10-97 stream quantity/quality gauges to be deployed throughout the state’s primary shale counties to fill in the aforementioned data gaps.
Per-Day Production
On a per-day oil production basis, Belmont and Columbiana (20 barrels per day (BPD)) are overshadowed by Washington (59 BPD) and Muskingum (40 BPD) counties’ four giant Utica wells. Carroll is able to maintain such a high level of production relative to the other 15 counties by shear volume of producing wells; Noble (268 BPD), Guernsey (147 BPD), and Harrison (136 BPD) counties exceed Carroll’s production on a per-day basis. The bottom of the league table includes three oil-free wells in Ashland, Knox, and Medina, as well as seventeen <10 BPD wells in Jefferson and Mahoning counties.
With respect to natural gas, Harrison (1,840 Mcf per day (MPD)) and Guernsey counties are replaced by Monroe (7,348 MPD) and Jefferson (2,447 MPD) counties’ 26 Utica wells. The range of production rates for natural gas is represented by the king of natural gas producers, Belmont County, producing 8,578 MPD on the high end and Mahoning and Coshocton counties in addition to the aforementioned oil dry counties on the low end. Four of the five oil- or gas-dry counties produce the least amount of brine each day (BrPD). Coshocton, Medina, and Noble county Utica wells are currently generating 267-363 barrels of BrPD, with an additional seven counties generating 100-200 BrPD. Only four counties – 1.2% of OH Utica wells – are home to unconventional wells that generate ≤ 30 BrPD.
Water Usage
Freshwater is needed for the hydraulic fracturing process during well stimulation. For counties where we had compiled a respectable sample size we found that Monroe and Noble counties are home to the Utica wells requiring the greatest amount of freshwater to obtain acceptable levels of productivity (Figure 1). Monroe and Noble wells are using 10.6 and 8.8 million gallons (MGs) of water per well. Coshocton is home to a well that required 10.8 MGs, while Muskingum and Washington counties are home to wells that have utilized 10.2 and 9.5 MGs, respectively. Belmont, Guernsey, and Harrison reflect the current average state of freshwater usage by the Utica Shale industry in OH, with average requirements of 6.4, 6.9, and 7.2 MGs per well. Wells in eight other counties have used an average of 3.8 (Mahoning) to 5.4 MGs (Tuscarawas). The counties of Ashland, Knox, and Medina are home to wells requiring the least amount of freshwater in the range of 2.2-2.9 MGs. Overall freshwater demand on a per well basis is increasing by 220,500-333,300 gallons per quarter in Ohio with percent recycled water actually declining by 00.54% from an already trivial average of 6-7% in 2011 (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Average water usage (gallons) per Utica well by county
Figure 2. Average water usage (gallons) on per well basis by OH Utica Shale industry, shown quarterly between Q3-2010 & Q2-2014.
Belmont County’s 30+ Utica wells are the least efficient with respect to oil recovery relative to freshwater requirements, averaging 7,190 gallons of water per gallon of oil (Figure 3). A distant second is Jefferson County’s 14 wells, which have required on average 3,205 gallons of water per gallon of oil. Columbiana’s 26 Utica wells are in third place requiring 1,093 gallons of freshwater. Coshocton, Mahoning, Monroe, and Portage counties are home to wells requiring 146-473 gallons for each gallon of oil produced.
Belmont County’s 14 Utica wells are the least efficient with respect to natural gas recovery relative to freshwater requirements (Figure 4). They average 1,306 gallons of water per Mcf. A distant second is Carroll County’s 250+ wells, which have injected 520 gallons of water 7,000+ feet below the earth’s service to produce a single Mcf of natural gas. Muskingum’s Utica well and Noble County’s 39 wells are the only other wells requiring more than 100 gallons of freshwater per Mcf. The remaining nine counties’ wells require 15-92 gallons of water to produce an Mcf of natural gas.
Figure 3. Average water usage (gallons) per unit of oil (gallons) produced across 19 Ohio Utica counties
Figure 4. Average water usage (gallons) per unit of gas produced (Mcf) across 19 Ohio Utica counties
Waste Production
The aforementioned Jefferson wells are the least efficient with respect to waste vs. product produced. Jefferson wells are generating 12,728 gallons of brine per gallon of oil (Figure 5).6 Wells from this county are followed distantly by the 32 Belmont and 26 Columbiana county wells, which are generating 5,830 and 3,976 gallons of brine per unit of oil.5 The remaining counties (for which we have data) are using 8-927 gallons of brine per unit of oil; six counties’ wells are generating <38 gallons of brine per gallon of oil.
Figure 5. Average brine production (gallons) per gallon of oil produced per day across 19 Ohio Utica Counties
The average Utica well in OH is generating 820 gallons of fracking waste per unit of product produced. Across all OH Utica wells, an average of 0.078 gallons of brine is being generated for every gallon of freshwater used. This figure amounts to a current total of 233.9 MGs of brine waste produce statewide. Over the next five years this trend will result in the generation of one billion gallons (BGs) of brine waste and 12.8 BGs of freshwater required in OH. Put another way…
233.9 MGs is equivalent to the annual waste production of 5.2 million Ohioans – or 45% of the state’s current population.
Due to the low costs incurred by industry when they choose to dispose of their fracking waste in OH, drillers will have only to incur $100 million over the next five years to pay for the injection of the above 1.0 BGs of brine. Ohioans, however, will pay at least $1.5 billion in the same time period to dispose of their municipal solid waste. The average fee to dispose of every ton of waste is $32, which means that the $100 million figure is at the very least $33.5 million – and as much as $250.6 million – less than we should expect industry should be paying to offset the costs.
Environmental Accounting
In summary, there are two ways to look at the potential “energy revolution” that is shale gas:
Using the same traditional supply-side economics metrics we have used in the past (e.g., globalization, Efficient Market Hypothesis, Trickle Down Economics, Bubbles Don’t Exist) to socialize long-term externalities and privatize short-term windfall profits, or
We can begin to incorporate into the national dialogue issues pertaining to watershed resilience, ecosystem services, and the more nuanced valuation of our ecosystems via Ecological Economics.
The latter will require a more real-time and granular understanding of water resource utilization and fracking waste production at the watershed and regional scale, especially as it relates to headline production and the often-trumpeted job generating numbers.
We hope to shed further light on this new “environmental accounting” as it relates to more thorough and responsible energy development policy at the state, federal, and global levels. The life cycle costs of shale gas drilling have all too often been ignored and can’t be if we are to generate the types of energy our country demands while also stewarding our ecosystems. As Mark Twain is reported to have said “Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” In order to avoid such a battle over the water-energy nexus in the long run it is imperative that we price in the shale gas industry’s water-use footprint in the near term. As we have demonstrated so far with this series this issue is far from settled here in OH and as they say so goes Ohio so goes the nation!
A Moving Target
Figure 6. ODNR projection map of potential Utica productivity from spring 2012
OH’s Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) originally claimed a big red – and nearly continuous – blob of Utica productivity existed. The projection originally stretched from Ashtabula and Trumbull counties south-southwest to Tuscarawas, Guernsey, and Coshocton along the Appalachian Plateau (See Figure 6).
However, our analysis demonstrates that (Figures 7 and 8):
This is a rapidly moving target,
The big red blob isn’t as big – or continuous – as once projected, and
It might not even include many of the counties once thought to be the heart of the OH Utica shale play.
This last point is important because counties, families, investors, and outside interests were developing investment and/or savings strategies based on this map and a 30+ year timeframe – neither of which may be even remotely close according to our model.
Figure 7a. An Ohio Utica Shale oil production model using Kriging6 for Q1-2013
Figure 7b. An Ohio Utica Shale oil production model using Kriging for Q2-2014
Figure 8a. An Ohio Utica Shale gas production model using Kriging for Q1-2013
Figure 8b. An Ohio Utica Shale gas production model using Kriging for Q2-2014
Footnotes
$4.25 per 1,000 gallons, which is the current going rate for freshwater at OH’s MWCD New Philadelphia headquarters, is 4.7-8.2 times less than residential water costs at the city level according to Global Water Intelligence.
Carroll County wells have seen days in production jump from 36-62 days in 2011-2012 to 68-78 in 2014 across 256 producing wells as of Q2-2014.
One Mcf is a unit of measurement for natural gas referring to 1,000 cubic feet, which is approximately enough gas to run an American household (e.g. heat, water heater, cooking) for four days.
Assuming average oil and natural gas prices of $96 per barrel and $8.67 per Mcf during the current period of production (2011 to Q2-2014), respectively
On a per-API# basis or even regional basis we have not found drilling muds data. We do have it – and are in the process of making sense of it – at the Solid Waste District level.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Nexus2-Feature.png400900Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2014-11-17 17:00:262020-07-21 10:34:07The Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio, Part II
OH Utica Production, Water Usage, and Changes in Lateral Length
Part I of a Multi-part Series By Ted Auch, OH Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
As shale gas expands in Ohio, how too does water use? We conducted an analysis of 500+ Utica wells in an effort to better understand the water-energy nexus in Ohio between production, water usage, and lateral length across 500+ Utica wells. The following is a list of the primary findings from this analysis:
Lateral Length
Figure 1. Modified EIA schematic highlighting the lateral portion of the unconventional well
In unconventional oil and gas drilling, often operators need to drill both vertically and then laterally to follow the formation underground. This process increases the amount of shale that the well contacts (see the modified EIA schematic in Figure 1). As a general rule Ohio’s Utica wells transition to the horizontal or lateral phase at around 6,800 feet below the earth’s surface.
1. The average Utica lateral is increasing in length by 51-55 feet per quarter, up from an average of 6,369 feet between Q3-2010 and Q2-2011 to 6,872 feet in the last four quarters. Companies’ lateral length growth varies, for example:
Gulfport is increasing by 46 feet (+67,206 gallons of water),
R.E. Gas Development and Antero 92 feet (+134,412 gallons of water), and
Chesapeake 28 feet (+40,908 gallons of water).
2. An increase in lateral length accounts for 40% of the increase in the water usage, as we have discussed in the past.
3. As a general rule, every foot increase in lateral length equates to an increase of 1,461 gallons of freshwater.
Regional and County-Level Trends
This section looks into big picture of shale gas drilling in OH. Herein we summarize the current state of water usage by the Utica shale industry relative to hydrocarbon production, as a percentage of residential water usage, as well as long-term water usage and waste production forecasts.
1. Freshwater Use
Across 516 wells, we found that the average OH Utica well utilizes 5.04-5.69 million gallons of freshwater per well.
This figure includes a ratio of 12:1 freshwater to recycled water used on site.
Water usage is increasing by 221-330,000 gallons per well per quarter.
Note: In neighboring – and highly OH freshwater reliant-West Virginia, the average Marcellus well uses 6.1-6.6 million gallons per well, with a trend increase of 189-353,000 gallons per quarter per well.
Water usage is up from 4.88 million gallons per well between 2010 and the summer of 2011 to 7.27 million gallons today.
Over the next five years, we will likely see 18.5 billion gallons of freshwater used for shale gas drilling in OH.
On average, drilling companies use 588 gallons of water to get a gallon of oil.
Average: 338 gallons of water required to get 1 MCF of gas
Average: 0.078 gallons of brine produced per gallon of water
2. Residential Water Allocation
A portion of residential water (3.8-6.1% of usage) is being allocated to the Utica drilling boom.
This figure is as high as 81% of residential water requirements in Carroll County.
And amounts to 2.2-3.5% of the available water in the Muskingum River Watershed.
The allocation will increase over time to amount to 8.2-10.5% of residential usage or 4.4-5.6% of Muskingum River available water.
3. Permitted Wells Potential
If all permitted Utica wells were to come online (active), we could expect 299.7 million gallons of additional brine to be produced and an additional 220 million gallons of freshwater a year to be used.
This trend amounts to 1.1 billion gallons of fracking brine waste looking for a home within 5 years.
4. Waste Disposal
Stallion Oilfield Services has recently purchased several Class II Injection wells in Portage County.
These waste disposal sites are increasing their intake at a rate of 2.13 million gallons per quarter, 4.76 times that of the rest of OH Class II wells.
Water Usage By Company
The data trends we have reviewed vary significantly depending on the company that is assessed. Below we summarize the current state of water usage by the major players in Ohio’s Utica shale industry relative to hydrocarbon production.
1. Overall Statistics
The 15 biggest Water-To-Oil offenders are currently averaging 16,844 Gallons of Water per gallon of oil (PGO) (i.e., Shugert 2-12H, Salem-Grubbs 1H, Stutzman 1 and 3-14H, etc).
Removing the above 15 brings the Water-To-Oil ratio down from 588 to 52 gallons of water PGO.
The 9 biggest Water-To-Gas offenders are currently averaging 16,699 gallons of water per MCF of gas.
Removing the above 9 brings the Water-To-Gas ratio down from 338 to 27 gallons of water per MCF of gas.
Company differences are noticeable (Figure 2):
Figure 2. Average Freshwater Use Among OH Utica Operators
Antero and Anadarko used an average of 9.5 and 8.8 MGs of water per well during the course of the 45-60 drilling process, respectively (Note: HG Energy has the wells with the highest water usage but a limited sample size, with 9.8 MGs per well).
Six companies average in the middle with 6.7-8.1 MGs of water per well.
Four companies average 5 MGs per well, including Chesapeake the biggest player here in OH.
Devon Energy is the one firm using less than 3 MGs of freshwater for each well it drills.
2. Water-to-Oil Ratios
Figure 3. Water-to-Oil Ratios Among OH Utica Operators
Freshwater usage is increasing by 3.6 gallons per gallon of oil. Companies vary less in this metric, except for Gulfport (Figure 3):
Gulfport is by far the least efficient user of freshwater with respect to oil production, averaging 3,339 gallons of water to extract one gallon of oil.
Intermediate firms include American Energy and Hess, which required 661 and 842 gallons of freshwater to produce a gallon of oil.
The remaining eleven firms used anywhere from 6 (Atlas Noble) to 130 (Chesapeake) gallons of freshwater to get a unit of oil.
3. Water-to-Gas Ratios (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Water-to-Gas Ratio Among OH Utica Operators
American Energy is also quite inefficient when it comes to natural gas production utilizing >2,200 gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas produced
Chesapeake and CNX rank a distant second, requiring 437 and 582 gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas, respectively.
The remaining firms for which we have data are using anywhere from 13 (RE Gas) to 81 (Gulfport) gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas.
4. Brine Production (Figure 5)
Figure 5. Brine-to-Oil Ratios among Ohio Utica Operators
With respect to the relationship between hydrocarbon and waste generation, we see that no firm can match Oklahoma City-based Gulfport’s inefficiencies with an average of 2,400+ gallons of brine produced per gallon of oil.
American Energy and Hess are not as wasteful, but they are the only other firms generating more than 750 gallons brine waste per unit of oil.
Houston-based Halcon and OH’s primary Utica player Chesapeake Energy are generating slightly more than 400 gallons of brine per gallon of oil.
The remaining firms are generating between 17 (Atlas Noble and RE Gas) and 160 (Anadarko) gallons of brine per unit of oil.
Part II of the Series
In the next part of this series we will look into inter-county differences as they relate to water use, production, and lateral length. Additionally, we will also examine how the OH DNR’s initial Utica projections differ dramatically from the current state of affairs.
Water and Production in Ohio’s Utica Shale – Water Per Well
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Production-Feature.png400900Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2014-10-24 11:19:272020-07-21 10:34:05The Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio, Part I
Seeing is believing, as the saying goes. Without physically observing the amount of waste generated from hydraulic fracturing of unconventional oil and gas wells, it is difficult to comprehend the volume and scope of the waste produced.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) makes a considerable amount of waste production data publicly available, speaking to the quantities of fluids and solids produced by 25 oil and gas operators across 25 counties. This figure, however, is only about 40% of all of the operators according to StateImpactPA. Also, complete data is not available for the 25 companies that are included, but let’s dig into some waste data simply as an exercise.
Dig Into Basic Cabot Waste Statistics
In order to gain a sense for industry trends we decided to look at data pertaining to Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, specifically, whose entire 2013 inventory of oil and gas wells were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region. The first and second halves of 2013 contain fairly complete records for Cabot – such as well location, waste facility location, waste type, waste quantity, and disposal method. It is interesting to note that in the comments section, all but a few of the well permit sites read “Entire water fraction of waste stream recycled at a centralized treatment plant for reuse by Cabot,” even for drill cuttings that were taken to a landfill.
The following analysis focuses on the waste generated by 264 Cabot wells during this period. All of Cabot’s unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania during 2013 were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region.
Waste Produced
In the first 6 months of 2013 (Period 1), liquid waste – consisting of produced fluid, servicing fluid, hydraulic fracturing fluid (frac fluid) waste, and drilling fluid waste – totaled 745,898 barrels (Bbl) or over 30,000,000 gallons. Solid waste – or drill cuttings – totaled 51,981 tons.1 To put this into perspective, 745,898 Bbls is equivalent to the water usage requirements of about 4 wells in West Virginia.2 The 51,981 tons of drill cuttings weighs about the same as the average amount of garbage produced by 65,029 Americans per year, or 1.5 times the population of Susquehanna County. The fluid waste is also enough to fill approximately 48 Olympic swimming pools.
Period 2 (July through December) of 2013, consisting of 319 reporting wells, experienced a 77% increase in liquid waste, climbing past the 1 million Bbl mark to 1,340,143 Bbl. This figure is the equivalent of filling almost 85 Olympic swimming pools. Similarly, drill cuttings increased to 96,165 tons, almost double the amount generated in Period 1. The total amount of waste generated by Cabot for the entire year yields more than 2 million Bbl of liquid waste and nearly 150,000 tons of solid waste from drill cuttings1 – more than 130 Olympic swimming pools worth of water and a weight of solid waste equivalent to the average waste generated by more than 120,000 American per year- over 2.8 times the population pf Susquehanna County (see infographic below).
Waste Composition
According to Cabot’s waste data, most of the liquid waste is made up of produced fluid,1 which is the saline water that returns to the surface as a byproduct of the drilling process. This fluid can be up to 10 times saltier than ocean water and can also be radioactive.3 Frac fluid waste3 contributed to the next largest amount of waste, followed by drilling fluid waste and servicing fluid. Produced fluid tripled from Period 1 to Period 2, while frac fluid waste remained fairly steady, and drilling fluid waste decreased slightly. However, the amount of servicing fluid waste generated between the first and second half of 2013 increased more than 12 times.1 Overall, the following increases were seen between Period 1 and Period 2 in 2013:
Fluid waste from hydraulic fracturing rose by nearly 80%
Solid waste rose by 85%
The number of unconventional oil and gas reporting wells only increased by about 20%, from 264 to 319.
Examining the data from FracFocus that is available for these reporting wells,4 it is interesting to note that the average true vertical depth of the wells decreased by about 100 feet between the two periods. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the amount of drill cuttings increased by 85% in Period 2. Why is there such a large increase in both solid and liquid waste between these two periods when there was only a 20% increase in the number of wells? There are various theories that could result in such a dramatic increase in period 2 compared to the 6 months prior, including but not limited to:
The use of more liquids for the construction or drilling processes,
Longer lateral distances per horizontal well,
More lax operating procedures,
More detailed reporting by Cabot, and/or
Stricter reporting/enforcement by the PADEP.
Waste Impoundment – Photo by Pete Stern 2013
Waste Produced Means Waste Transported
Although Cabot is responsible for producing large amounts of waste, they also are recycling their liquid waste (as is listed for every site in the Period 2 data). To do so, the company transports their waste to a centralized treatment plant. There, the water is filtered so that it can be mixed with more freshwater and chemicals and be reused at another well site. However, hauling so much fluid to the centralized treatment plant requires numerous trips by tanker trucks, as well as dump trucks and trailer trucks taking drill cuttings to landfills. Some treatment facilities for PA waste are located as far away as Ohio, West Virginia, and New York. Cabot trucks travelled approximately 114,000 miles5 in Period 1 of 2013, and over 1,122,000 miles were travelled in Period 2 of 2013. The total miles travelled to transport Cabot’s waste is equivalent to almost 50 times around the earth – for one company in one state, operating in only two counties.1
Additional Considerations
Further analysis should examine the air pollution and carbon footprint generated from such extensive traffic. The miles make a difference, considering that a highly efficient tractor trailor only gets ~10 miles per gallon.
While reusing the majority of liquid waste in an effort to reduce the amount of fresh water needed for hydraulic fracturing is a positive step, transporting recycling water by truck still results in fuel used, pollutants emitted, and traffic impacts.
Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. was the second largest unconventional shale gas producer in PA behind Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, which had more than 809 reporting wells in Period 2 of 2013. With a total of 62 companies operating in PA at this time,6 the cumulative effects of waste transportation undoubtedly add up. Serious efforts should be made on the part of all oil and gas companies to reduce their waste and provide accurate and timely waste reports.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Waste-Data-Feature.png400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-10-22 12:26:262020-07-21 10:42:47Digging into Waste Data