Monday, 25 January 2016

Disposal of produced water during conventional oil extraction, and flowback fluid from fracking


The recent article “UK failing to learn U.S. lessons on fracking waste water” by O’Donnell, Gilfillan and Haszeldine (ODGH hereafter) is misleading, both in the way it describes events associated with fluid re-injection in the United States, and how it characterises the Environment Agency’s position with regards to the practice.  

ODGH describes at length the difference between produced water from conventional operations, and flowback fluid from shale gas hydraulic fracturing, and are correct to do so. However, under the terms of their own descriptions, the statements they then make using these definitions are false.

It is claimed that the increases in seismicity observed in Oklahoma are “linked to the subsurface re-injection of vast quantities of waste water from shale gas operations” (my emphasis added). This is not correct, and the USGS have been very clear in stating that this is a myth, propagated in the main by anti-fracking activists. In reality, the vast preponderance of wastewater being disposed of by deep injection in Oklahoma is produced water from conventional oilfields, and not hydraulic fracturing flowback fluids [1]. 

The same is true in California, where ODGH make claims of “environmental contamination due to leaks caused by poor borehole construction.” Firstly, we note that, as is the case in Oklahoma, the vast majority of such wells are disposing produced water from conventional oilfield operations, not flowback water from hydraulic fracturing of shale rocks. I also note in passing that the concerns raised regarding these wells were of an administrative nature, regarding how licenses were awarded and which formations did or did not qualify as protected aquifers. No actual environmental contamination is thought to have occurred: the State Water Resources Control Board found that “the injection wells have not degraded groundwater quality”[2], while CalEPA stated that: “To date, preliminary water sampling of select, high-risk groundwater supply wells has not detected any contamination from oil production wastewater.”[3] 

More importantly, I believe that through their selective quotation, ODGH have seriously misrepresented the position of the Environment Agency. Their full position on re-injection of flowback water in the document in question is quoted below [4]: 
Flowback fluid that cannot feasibly be re-used, is considered by us to be an extractive waste and may contain a concentration of NORM waste above the out of scope values. It will then require a radioactive substances activity permit for its disposal. You must send this to an appropriate permitted waste facility for treatment or disposal.  
The Environment Agency will generally not permit the re-injection of flowback fluid for disposal into any formation, whether or not it contains a concentration of NORM waste above the out of scope values. The re-injection of flowback fluid for disposal is not necessarily prohibited and may be permissible where, for example, it is injected back into formations from which hydrocarbons have been extracted and will have no impact on the status of water bodies or pose any risk to groundwater.  
The Environment Agency takes a precautionary approach to this activity and we do not consider it has been demonstrated that re-injection in these circumstances is BAT.
At present and in the absence of BAT being demonstrated we have determined that overall the long-term objective of ensuring good status of water bodies takes precedence over arguments in favour of the disposal of flowback fluid to underground formations.   
This is reinforced by our view that there are available and viable alternatives, namely disposal at permitted waste disposal facilities or by using onsite waste water treatment facilities. We consider that these techniques are a better environmental option.  
We will review this position in light of increased evidence from hydraulic fracturing operations and from the monitoring of underground waste facilities. 
The following image is also used to outline the EA position regarding flowback re-injection:

 

By neglecting to provide the full EA position, the ODGF give the impression that the EA are considering allowing “large volumes” of flowback re-injection in the UK. In fact, such disposal is very unlikely. However, the EA take the eminently sensible position that there may be exceptional circumstances under which disposal by re-injection does really present the optimum solution with respect to minimizing the risk of environmental contamination. I can’t think of any such conditions at present, but I think that it’s a wise position for a regulator to consider every individual case on its merits, and to then take the best available route to ensure environmental protection, rather than imposing an arbitrary blanket ban. Regardless, disposal of flowback at treatment facilities is considered BAT under usual circumstances, and subsurface re-injection is not, and therefore it is very unlikely to be allowed in the majority of cases. 

Importantly, even given the above position, the EA statement suggests that flowback is to be “injected back into formations from which hydrocarbons have been extracted”. ODGH appear to have missed the significance of this statement, because it renders most of their remaining arguments invalid. If re-injection is limited to formations from which hydrocarbons have already been extracted, then formation pressures will have been reduced. While their analogy with a clay-covered balloon is an interesting metaphor, it is not relevant to the situation at hand, if, as stated, flowback disposal were only allowed into formations that had already seen hydrocarbon production and pressure drawdown (if flowback re-injection is ever allowed, which as discussed above, is unlikely).

It is also worth considering the volumes involved. The existing onshore conventional industry in the UK disposes of approximately 12 million cubic metres of produced water every year. The Institute of Directors forecasts a UK shale industry developing, between now and 2030, 100 pads with 40 multilateral wells each, with each pad using 0.5 million cubic metres of water[5]. Assuming that 50% of this fracturing fluid flows back, a total of 27 million cubic metres of flowback will need to be disposed of during this period. In comparison, as stated above, the conventional industry will dispose of as much produced water every two-and-a-bit years. 

ODGH have mischaracterized hazard with risk. Hazard is the potential impact of a pollutant, while risk is the hazard posed multiplied by the probability of exposure. It may be true that flowback fluids have different chemical signatures to conventional produced waters that may make them more hazardous (although in reality the chemical signature of every fluid, whether flowback or conventional, will be specific to its geographic locality and rock formation, so the comparison provided by the authors is likely to be an oversimplification). 

However, no evidence is provided to suggest that groundwater contamination is more probable during flowback re-injection (nor have they provided evidence of such contamination from the USA). In fact, given that the volumes of flowback disposal are likely to be far lower, the likelihood of contamination from conventional produced water might be considered higher simply from a volumetric argument. 

With or without NORM, produced water from conventional oil production is usually hypersaline, and its spillage into freshwater sources would represent, I would expect, a significant environmental incident. The public can and should take reassurance from the fact that the existing onshore industry has been able to dispose of very large volumes of such fluid without causing environmental impacts. The risk of contamination, by either produced water or flowback fluid, would appear therefore to be low.  

I will close by pointing out that the authors of this piece are keen promotors of carbon capture and storage (CCS) for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. I share their belief in the potential this technology; I believe that without it, the UK will not be able to meet its emissions targets; and I share their dismay at recent government decisions to shelve the proposed demonstration projects. However, many of the issues raised here by ODGH are in fact far more applicable to CO2 storage than they are to flowback disposal for re-injection: the injected fluid is in chemical dis-equilibrium with the in situ geological formation – indeed CO2 will dissolve into formation waters to create a mildly corrosive acid, which is not a problem for flowback or produced water re-injection; the CO2 will likely be stored in saline aquifers that have not been depleted, leading to the same issues with pressure increases and potential seismicity described by ODGH (the clay-covered balloon), only the volumes of CO2 to be stored far exceed the volumes of flowback typically re-injected[6], which will exacerbate the risk of larger seismic events. I would appreciate it if the authors could outline in more detail how it is that they can be fully supportive of CCS development, and yet believe these same issues pose a major issue with respect to the re-injection of other waste fluids.  


[1] Rubinstein et al., 2015. Myths and facts on Wastewater Injection, Hydraulic Fracturing, Enhanced Oil Recovery, and Induced Seismicity. Seis. Res. Letts.. 
[2] State Water Resources Control Board September 23, 2014, Item 13 - Executive Director’s Report. 
[3] CalEPA Memorandum, 2015. CalEPA Review of UIC Program. 
[4] Environment Agency, 2015. Onshore Oil & Gas Sector Guidance Consultation Draft, November 2015. 
[5] Institute of Directors, 2013. Getting shale gas working.
[6] Verdon et al., 2014. Significance for secure CO2 storage of earthquakes induced by fluid injection: Env. Res. Letts..

35 comments:

  1. Have you sent this post to the ODGH team?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi jgdes,

      This post has now been re-blogged on the Energy and Carbon site (with a small amount of editing by the E&C team). "G" of ODGH certainly will have read this, so I imagine the other authors will also be aware.

      Delete
    2. Hi James,

      Response to your post is now up at the end of the original article on Energy and Carbon here: http://energyandcarbon.com/uk-failing-lessons-fracking-waste-water/

      Sorry its taken a while, been snowed under with undergraduate teaching of late.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is the source for the statement that "The existing onshore conventional industry in the UK disposes of approximately 12 million cubic metres of produced water every year"? That seems like an awful lot. Did you mean to say the offshore industry?

    ReplyDelete
  4. DECC. And if it seems like an awful lot, it's really not compared to a lot of other conventional oil plays.

    For example, produced water volumes for the UK North Sea are approximately 200 million cubic metres per year (http://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Environment-Report-2015-FINAL-for-PDF-reduced.pdf).

    So no, I did not mean to say the offshore industry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a link? Specific report? Thanks

      Delete
    2. Why not start with DECC's UK Production Data Releases, which would be the obvious place to look, I'd have thought.

      https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/pprs/report4.pdf

      Delete
    3. Thanks. These are mainly data about offshore operations. I looked on pp. 7 and 8 at the data on monthly water production (barrels per day) for Land Oil Fields. On the available data from the last 12 months, it seems - if my calculations are accurate, happy to be corrected - that about 30 million m3 of water was produced and this mainly from Wytch Farm. The data do not confirm that 12 million cubic water was disposed. I am looking for a specific source on the 12 million cubic meters of conventional oil & gas produced water that has been disposed on a yearly basis. It is an important element in the debate about the feasibility of injecting large volumes of waste water from onshore oil & gas operations. Thank you.

      Delete
    4. <a href="https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/pprs/report2.pdf>https://itportal.decc.gov.uk/pprs/report2.pdf</a>

      The 12 million is now out of date (was the number from a couple of years ago). Now it's 17 million m3 - volumes generally get larger through time, as more water is produced for less oil as reservoirs mature.

      Delete
  5. Off topic but (if you can stand it) any chance of you casting your eye over David Smythe's latest open-source paper "Hydraulic fracturing in thick shale basins: problems in identifying faults in the Bowland and Weald Basin". Thanks in anticipation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already have done. Look in the "Discussion" section on the Solid Earth page.

      Delete
  6. It doesn't add up...8 March 2016 at 11:55

    I would hate to think you missed this story:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-35752099

    Football supporters cause 0.3ML quake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks a lot for sharing such a good source with all, i
    appreciate your efforts taken for the same. I found this worth sharing and must share this with all.
    Bangalore
    Website Design Company

    ReplyDelete
  8. It doesn't add up...12 July 2016 at 09:54

    I'm sure you will have spotted this, but for the benefit of those who still visit the site from time to time here it is:

    http://energyindepth.org/ohio/uc-study-claiming-air-pollution-from-fracking-quietly-retracted-due-to-bad-data/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good! Useful
    --------------
    I'm working in the thay man hinh xiaomi. It's amazing. And i realy like thay man hinh xiaomi mi4 so much

    ReplyDelete
  10. By developing inexpensive oil extraction and purification processes is becoming a major challenge which facing both the micro-algae to bio-product, and bio-fuel industries.
    sewage treatment service

    ReplyDelete
  11. I want to thank Julia Navaro for the loan given to me by her loan company NAVARO LOAN COMPANY. Needed a loan to start a my boutique and didn't know how to get a loan until I was introduce to NAVARO LOAN COMPANY by a friend online and she approved my loan of $300,000 with minimum income of $10 and now am a successful woman. If you need any type of loan from any country and of any amount at an interest rate of 2% contact Julia Navaro at
    Navaroloancompany@yahoo.com and live a happy life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello Everybody!!!
    Can you give me some minutes for introduct my service? I'm providing:cool: máy tập bụng | and máy tập cơ bụng New Six Pack Care đạp chân | and special is xe đạp tập thể dục | and máy xay đậu nành | and máy xay sinh tố | and máy tập bụng SIXPACKCARE 2018 | and máy ép miệng cốc D6. Contact with me.
    Thanks for reading! And have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello Everybody!
    Can you give me some minutes for introduct my service? I"m providing máy xay đậu nành | Special is máy bào đá | and máy xay đậu nành đa năng Q10 | and máy bào đá tuyết ET200 | and máy bào đá ZY-SB114 | and xe đạp thể dục IBIKE 8.2i | and xe đạp thể dục IBIKE 4000. Contact with me.
    Thanks for reading! And have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hello Everybody!
    Can you give me some minutes for introduct my service? I"m providing máy xay sinh tố | Special is máy làm bắp rang bơ | and bắp mỹ | and bơ làm bắp rang bơ | and máy làm bắp rang bơ bằng ga | and máy làm bắp rang bơ VBG 1608 | and máy làm bắp rang bơ VBG-1708. Contact with me.
    Thanks for reading! And have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Australian Risk Services have many years of experience providing plant risk assessments for clients across many different industries.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nice Sharing..! I have been following you for a couple of months now but this is my first time commenting on a blog post. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience with us. Keep up the good work. Already bookmarked for future reference.

    Installment loans in Mississippi
    Payday loans in Mississippi
    Title loans in Mississippi

    ReplyDelete
  17. I got to know about the blog by my friend's reference.If anyone wants to read a good content...?Then this blog will be the answer for you.Such a worthy content out of it.
    Telecom analytics company
    Healthcare analytics company
    Finance analytics company
    Retail analytics company

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for spending your valuable time in delivering the most valuable content here.I loved the way you write and suggest my friends too for getting aware of your blogs.
    Pawn Shops in Alabama
    Pawn Loans in Alabama
    Pawn Brokers

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for sharing such a useful content with us that Disposal of produced water during conventional oil extraction

    ReplyDelete
  20. This information is impressive; I am inspired with your post writing style & how continuously you describe this topic.


    Pawn Shop

    Pawn Loans

    Pawn Shops

    Pawn Loan

    Pawn Shop near me

    ReplyDelete
  21. this is really nice and effective blog, i found lots of information in this blog and sites for commenting is best.Very nice I like a lot of these topics...
    Packers And Movers Chennai

    ReplyDelete