Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

Scrivener Publishing

100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J

Beverly, MA 01915-6106

Publishers at Scrivener

Martin Scrivener(martin@scrivenerpublishing.com)

Phillip Carmical (pcarmical@scrivenerpublishing.com)

Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff , Ph.D. and Anton Davletshin

Edited by

M. Dayal

Handbook of Environmental Management Practices

Copyright © 2015 by Scrivener Publishing LLC. All rights reserved.

Co-published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, and Scrivener Publishing LLC, Salem,

Massachusetts.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or

by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or other wise, except as permit-

ted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior writ-

ten permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to

the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax

(978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be

addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030,

(201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best eff orts

in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or

completeness of the contents of this book and specifi cally disclaim any implied warranties of merchant-

ability or fi tness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representa-

tives or written sales materials. Th e advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your

situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author

shall be liable for any loss of profi t or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to spe-

cial, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact

our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at

(317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may

not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site

at www.wiley.com.

For more information about Scrivener products please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

Cover design by Kris Hackerott

Library of Congr ess Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

ISBN 978-1-118-94635-0

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v

Contents

Preface xiAcknowledgements xixAuthor and Editor Biographies xxi

1 Hydraulic Fracturing Overview 1

1.1 Technology Overview 1

1.2 Benefi ts, Environmental Deterents, Hurdles and

Public Safety 6

1.2.1 Key Drivers 6

1.2.2 Environmental Deterrents 10

1.2.3 Hurdles and Public Safety 20

1.3 U.S. Resources and Standing 27

1.4 Worldwide Levels of Activity 36

1.5 Th e Role of Water 50

1.5.1 Water Acquisition 50

1.5.2 Chemical Mixing 51

1.5.3 Well Injection 52

2 Oil and Gas Regulations 53

2.1 U.S. Environmental Regulations 53

2.1.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 53

2.1.2 Clean Water Act (CWA) 54

2.1.3 Oil Pollution Prevention (Spill Prevention,

Control and Countermeasures Regulations) 54

2.1.4 Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 55

2.1.5 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 55

2.1.6 Clean Air Act (CAA) 55

2.1.7 Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 56

2.1.8 Comprehensive Environmental Response

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA

or Superfund) 56

2.1.9 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 57

vi Contents

2.2 Historical Evolution of Regulations Aff ecting Oil and Gas 59

2.3 RCRA Exemptions 66

2.4 Permitting Rules 73

2.4.1 California Rules 75

2.4.1.1 Restrictions 81

2.4.1.2 Conditions 81

3 Management of Chemicals 85

3.1 Memorandum of Agreement Between the

U.S. EPA and Industry 85

3.2 Chemicals Used 86

3.3 Safe Handling and Emergency Response to

Spills and Fires 92

3.4 Storage Tanks 127

3.5 Risk Management 133

3.6 Establishing a Spill Prevention, Control and

Countermeasures Plan 141

3.6.1 Roles and Responsibilities 145

3.6.2 Standard Procedures for Any Spill 146

3.6.3 Training 150

4 Water Quality Standards and Wastewater 153

4.1 Overview 153

4.2 Water Quality Criteria, Standards, Parameters, and Limits 155

4.3 Wastewater Characterization 156

4.4 Wastewater Management Alternatives 187

4.5 Water Treatment Technologies 193

4.5.1 Separators 197

4.5.1.1 API Separators 197

4.5.2 Other Types of Separators 207

4.5.3 Dissolved Gas Flotation 209

4.5.4 Activated Carbon 216

4.5.5 Nut Shell Filters 228

4.5.6 Organi-Clay Adsorbants 234

4.5.7 Chemical Oxidation 254

4.5.7.1 Chemistry 254

4.5.8 UV Disinfection 275

4.5.9 Biological Processes 280

Contents vii

4.5.10 Membrane Filtration 300

4.5.11 RO and Nanofi ltration 303

4.5.12 Air Stripping 309

4.5.13 Chemical Precipitation 323

4.5.14 Th ickeners 339

4.5.15 Settling Ponds/Sedimentation 348

4.5.16 Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) 351

4.5.17 Ion Exchange 353

4.5.18 Crystallization 360

4.5.19 Advanced Integrated Systems 378

4.6 Deep Well Injection of Wastes 387

4.7 Overall Assessment of Wastewater Management

Alternatives 393

5 Water Utilization, Management, and Treatment 401

5.1 Introduction 401

5.2 Water Use by the Oil and Gas Energy Sector 402

5.3 Overview of Water Management Practices 403

5.3.1 Characteristics of Hydraulic Fracturing

Flowback Water 404

5.3.2 Characteristics of Produced Water 407

5.3.3 Water and Mass Balances 409

5.4 Wastewater Treatment Technologies 411

5.4.1 Infl uent Conditions 412

5.4.2 Technology Evaluation 413

5.4.3 Treatment End Points 414

5.4.4 Regulatory Compliance 415

5.5 Alternatives to Conventional Wastewater Treatment 416

5.5.1 Saltwater Disposal Well Solutions 416

5.5.2 Ponding and Land Disposal 417

5.5.3 Treatment for Recycle/Reuse 418

5.6 Project Management 419

5.6.1 Planning and Implementing a New System 419

5.6.1.1 Phase I: Engineering Feasibility Study 420

5.6.1.2 Phase II: Engineering Design 421

5.6.1.3 Phase III: Procurement, Fabrication,

Construction, and Start-up 422

5.6.2 Battery Limits and Interfaces 423

5.6.3 Mobile, Transportable, and Fixed Base

Treatment Systems 424

5.6.4 Contract and Pricing 424

5.6.5 Morphing Site Conditions 425

5.7 Economics of Wastewater Treatment 426

5.7.1 Traditional Engineering Cost Estimating 426

5.7.2 Accounting for Contingencies and Risk 427

5.7.3 Current Pricing for Water Management Services 429

5.8 State-of-the-Art Water Management Project 430

5.9 Special Challenges in the Oil and Gas Energy Sector 433

5.9.1 Overcoming an Image 433

5.9.2 Morphing into a Recycle/Reuse Mode 434

5.9.3 Concluding Remarks 435

References 435

6 Well Construction and Integrity 437

6.1 Overview 437

6.2 API Good Practices for Well Design and Construction 440

6.3 Integrity Failure 446

6.3.1 Blow-Out Preventers 461

6.4 Abandonment and Closure 465

6.5 Best Practices for Site Operations 469

References 474

7 Managing Air Pollution Discharges 477

7.1 Th e Problem 477

7.2 Methodology of Air Pollution Control 483

7.3 Remote Sensing and Monitoring 486

7.4 Leak Detection and Repair 493

7.4.1 Method 21 General Procedure 502

7.4.2 Auditing Practices 503

7.5 Use of Flares 509

7.5.1 Overview and Changing Practices 509

7.5.2 Terminology 510

7.5.3 Combustion Principles 512

7.5.4 Ignition 519

7.5.5 Flammability and Flammable Mixtures 520

7.5.6 Gas Mixtures 525

viii Contents

7.5.7 Practical Applications 526

7.5.8 MARAMA Guidelines for Calculating

Flare Emissions 585

7.5.8.1 Vent Gas Air Pollutant Equation

Emission Factors 585

7.5.8.2 Natural Gas Air Pollutant Equation

Emission Factors 586

7.5.9 Propane and Butane Air Pollutant

Equation Emission Factors 586

7.5.10 TCEQ New Source Review (NSR)

Emission Calculations 589

7.5.11 AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors 592

7.6 Fugitive Dust Discharges 596

7.6.1 Particle Attributes and Potential Health Eff ects 599

7.6.2 Estimating Dust Discharges 602

7.6.3 Managing Dust Emissions 612

7.6.4 Dust Monitoring 635

7.7 Compressor Stations 640

7.8 Dehydrators 679

7.8.1 Recommended References 703

8 Macro Considerations of Environmental and

Public Health Risks 705

8.1 Overview 705

8.2 Th e Challenges of Managing Water Resources 707

8.3 Th e Challenges of Managing Air Quality 716

8.4 Th e Challenges of Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 729

8.5 Th e Challenges of Managing Man-Made Seismicity 737

Index 743

Contents ix

xi

Preface

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to mine hydrocarbons trapped deep beneath the Earth’s surface. Th e principles underlying the technology are not new. Fracking was fi rst applied at the commercial level in the United States as early as 1947, and over the decades it has been applied in various countries including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Th e principle author worked with engineering teams up to 40 years ago in evaluating ways to improve oil and gas recovery from this practice. By and large fracking was not an economically competitive process and had limited applications until the last decade. Several factors altered the importance of this technology; among them signifi cant technological innovations in drilling practices with impressive high tech tools for exploration, well construction and integrity, and gas recovery along with the discoveries of massive natural gas reserves in the United States and other parts of the world. Th ese factors have cata-pulted the application of the technology to what is best described as the gold rush of the 21st century, with exploration and natural gas plays proceed-ing at a pace that seemingly is unrivaled by any recent historical industrial endeavor. Th is activity has invoked widespread criticism from concerned citizens and environmental groups in almost every nation across the globe.

Mass media education over environmental concerns for the applica-tion of the technology were touched off by and large by the documentary Gasland, a 2010 American fi lm which focuses on communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifi cally, the method of horizontal drilling into shale formations. Th e fi lm explores how commu-nities are being negatively aff ected where a natural gas drilling boom has been underway over the past decade. But this documentary alone is but one media form that has raised a general public outcry against the oil and gas industry sector’s application of the technology. Th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reported on high rates of meth-ane leakage from natural gas fi elds and stated that if these are replicated, air

xii Preface

discharges would vitiate the climate benefi t of natural gas, even when used as an alternative to coal. Numerous studies have pointed to potential health risks to communities within close proximity of hydraulic fracturing opera-tions due to air pollution, both from fugitive dust emissions resulting from the construction stages of well drilling sites and from discharges of volatile organic vapors from well production and large-scale fl are gas practices. Other studies have raised concerns over the depletion and competition for groundwater resources, as the technology requires vast amounts of water. Concerns have also been raised over possible negative impacts to ground-water quality because of the reliance on a broad range of chemicals used for fracturing operations and the potential for well casing failures. While the chemicals used constitute a small percentage of the volume of total fracking fl uid required for a well, high water demands containing toxic chemical ingredients present signifi cant challenges in groundwater quality protection. Further concerns have been voiced concerning challenges in dealing with solid waste forms which include large quantities of salts, low-level radioactive wastes, and toxic heavy metals.

In the United States there seems to be almost hesitation on the part of the federal government to adequately address the risks of the technol-ogy. In March 2010, EPA announced its intention to conduct a study on the risks to groundwater in response to a request from the U.S. Congress. Since then, the Agency has held a series of public meetings aimed at receiving input from states, industry, environmental and public health groups, and individual citizens. EPA’s study was reviewed by the Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independent panel of scientists, to ensure the agency conducted the research using a scientifi cally sound approach. But it was not until 2011, that the EPA announced its fi nal research plan on hydraulic fracturing. Th e EPA’s fi nal study plan is intended to examine the full cycle of water in hydraulic fracturing, from the acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fractur-ing stage, including the management of fl ow-back and produced or used water as well as its ultimate treatment and disposal. Th e initial research results and study fi ndings were released to the public in 2012, but these fi nd-ings were inconclusive. It has been announced that the fi nal report will be delivered in 2014, but as of the writing of this volume, no formal evaluation had been published. Since 2011, the EPA has been reviewing their study on the eff ects of hydraulic fracturing but only on possible groundwater con-tamination near drilling sites in Wyoming. Up to this point in time, the EPA still hasn’t been able to conclusively determine that the chemicals they are detecting in groundwater are the result of hydraulic fracturing — which may explain why the Agency announced plans to abandon the study and instead

Preface xiii

returned the regulatory responsibilities back to the state of Wyoming.Further concerns lie with enforcement. Inspection and enforcement

of state and federal rules aimed at groundwater protection and land use planning are seemingly not being uniformly applied in the United States. Some states, as noted in this handbook, lack the infrastructure and man-power resources to properly inspect well site operations needed to verify well integrity and to ensure that best practices are being applied to chemi-cal and air pollution management. Such uneven and ambiguous enforce-ment actions on the part of state environmental regulators, leaves concerns and open-ended questions as to whether the accelerated pace of natural gas plays across North America are fully warranted. Th is raises further concerns for other countries where natural gas exploration is poised to expand. Th e U.S. has announced that as a matter of national policy frack-ing technologies will be shared with China, and clearly with the events in Ukraine and the geopolitical struggle that will draw that nation into the fold of NATO, fracking is likely have a sizable footprint in the future. Th ese countries lack enforcement infrastructure and basic instruments that are required to protect both the environment and public health.

Th ere is evidence to support that fracking practices are environmen-tally damaging and may pose signifi cant health risks to the general public through multiple pathways; however, one may make the same observa-tion for steelmaking, copper smelting, coal mining, coke-chemical plants, wood treating and many other industry sectors. Th ere are both poor and good industry practices, the latter which can mitigate or reduce risks sub-stantially; but they need to be practiced and there needs to be enforcement, and not simply voluntary adoption. Th ere needs to be commitment on the part of the oil and gas industry to invest into and adopt best practices and leading technologies for pollution management. In other industry sectors that are mature, there are well-developed controls with many decades of experience. Th is does not appear to be the case for water pollution man-agement; nor can it be said that air pollution is being managed aggres-sively with well-established practices and technologies that are applied in other industry sectors. Th is is not to say that technologies are not within reach and that the oil and gas industry is sitting idly. One would expect that advanced water treatment technologies, some already at semi-commercial stages, will play a more dominant role over the next several years. One may expect a combination of existing and newer technologies being applied to managing groundwater quality issues. But as noted in this volume, a more cohesive approach is needed to address air pollution.

More comprehensive consideration is needed by industry and regulators on the increased footprint of air pollution and its potential negative impacts

xiv Preface

on communities. In this regard, there are arguments on both sides of the fence concerning air quality management. It is widely recognized that the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases are coal burning power plants. A typical (500 megawatt) coal plant burns about 1.4 million tons of coal each year. As of 2012, there are 572 operational coal plants in the U.S. with an average capacity of 547 megawatts. Coal-burning power plants constitute the greatest source of carbon dioxide (CO

2) emissions, a primary

cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO

2.  A typical coal plant generates as

much as 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year. Coal burning is a leading cause of

smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Pollutants that are released include:

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Which takes a major toll on public

health, including by contributing to the formation of small acid forming particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO

2 is also the

leading cause of acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifi es lakes and streams. A typical coal plant that is retrofi tted with modern emissions controls, including fl ue gas desulfurization can emit as much as 7,000 tons of SO

2 per year.

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – Which is a leading cause ground level ozone, or smog, can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make humans more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical coal plant with emissions con-trols, including best available technology like selective cata-lytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.

• Particulate matter – Sometimes referred to as soot or fl y ash, causes chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and pre-mature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plant can emit as much as 500 tons of small airborne particles each year.

• Mercury –For which coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. emissions, is a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. A typical uncon-trolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mer-cury each year. Less than 10% of the coal burning plants in the US rely on the best available technologies to control mer-cury discharges to air.

• Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include lead, various toxic heavy

metals, and trace amounts of uranium, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC).

In a recent article, Chinese scientists have warned that the “country’s toxic air pollution is now so bad that it resembles a nuclear winter, slowing photosynthesis in plants – and potentially wreaking havoc on the coun-try’s food supply.” Beijing’s concentration of PM 2.5 particles – those small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream – have been reported in the hundreds of micrograms per cubic meter, in contrast to the World Health Organization’s recommended safe level of 25 micro-grams per cubic meter. Th e worsening air pollution of that country has already exacted a signifi cant economic toll, grounding fl ights, closing high-ways and discouraging tourism. Much of China’s worsening air pollution may be linked to coal burning plants.

As a rough point of comparison, burning coal emits 206 pounds of car-bon dioxide per million British thermal units compared with 117 pounds per million Btu for natural gas, with profound reductions and elimination of the many chemicals associated with the air pollution from coal burning power plants. Th ese facts point towards the most profound reasons for sup-porting the fracking revolution – or do they? Clearly, over time, the shift to natural gas from coal and petroleum will reduce our environmental foot-print on Mother Earth, but there are other considerations. Investments into infrastructure needed to transition to a natural gas energy source on a scale that would benefi t global carbon footprint reduction are formidable. While U.S. energy experts point towards the U.S. as being posed to become a net energy exporter because of fracking, site is lost over the fact that there is lim-ited infrastructure such as few LNG plants that can capitalize on world mar-kets. LNG plants represent investments on the order of billions of dollars for a single facility and further raise additional concerns for public safety.

An accelerated transition to cleaner fuels seems unlikely in many parts of the world. While NATO has made bold statements on reducing dependency on Russian gas, a movement towards concrete commitment in major infra-structure investments has not been forthcoming. Th e large infrastructure investments that are needed for pipelines and LNG plants as well as trans-port fl eets and unloading stations to reach global markets are in various stages of planning, but seem to fall short of committed fi nancing for actual projects. Th ese needed investments, their detailed plans and environmental impact statements have yet to be formulated and carefully vetted for both

Preface xv

(see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/25/china-toxic-air-pollution-nuclear-

winter-scientists)

fi nancial and human risks. Th is is exemplifi ed by the fact that in some U.S. states where fracking operations are being conducted, more than 30% of the recovered gas has been reported to be fl ared (fl aring is the practice of burn-ing waste gases, subjecting communities to higher levels of air pollution).

Additional concerns addressed in this volume focus on the manner in which industry monitors and reports air pollution discharges. Air pollu-tion discharges are quantifi ed for reporting purposes based on calculation through the application of emission factors. Emission factors are ‘indus-try’ reported mass discharges expressed on a per unit value of production basis. Emission factors represent long-term averages of typical operations or pieces of equipment. Th ese factors do not take into consideration the age of controls, the condition of pollution controls, the degree of preven-tive maintenance applied by the operator to its controls and many other factors which may impact on control effi ciency. Furthermore, because emission factors are averages, they do not necessarily account for site-spe-cifi c operations, nor do they take into consideration the eff ects of transient operating conditions such as start-ups, shutdowns, malfunctions, surges, and various operational abnormalities which may result in high pollution discharge episodes. It may be argued that a fl awed methodology is relied on for quantifying air pollution discharges, whereby calculated aggregate estimates of pollution are accepted as being more precise than the applica-tion of real time measurements and control. Th ese calculation practices when coupled with air pollution modeling tools that are fi rst and foremost intended to meet statutory obligations for permits tend to lack formal pro-tocols for performing human health risk evaluations. Th ese represent areas of concern that should give lawmakers, industry and citizens impetus to take the time to step back to consider:

• placing greater resources and emphasis on regional and local planning for gas plays,

• investing into better pollution control technologies, • committing higher government allocations to support more

aggressive inspections and monitoring, • assigning higher levels of accountability by industry, • incorporating risk assessment tools into the permit process,

and • in closing loopholes in existing statutes in order to strengthen

environmental standards.

To quote Albert Einstein – “Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavor. Never forget this in

xvi Preface

the midst of your diagrams and equations.” Einstein’s remarks emphasize the need to look before leaping.

Th e reader should not walk away with the impression that fracking is a technology that should not be invested into. To the contrary, it off ers the enormous potential for reducing the carbon footprint that is universally recognized by scientists around the world as causing harm to humans and Mother Earth. However, environmental management of this technology and practices employed need to be at the forefront.

Th is handbook was assembled for two reasons. First, it was felt that there are misunderstandings about the hydraulic fracturing technology among the general public. Part of this stems from disconnect between the language of engineers and that of laypersons. From that standpoint, there is attempt to explain the environmental issues and also to relay the fact that while the technology poses signifi cant environmental threats, there are both controls and good industry practices that that can manage a num-ber of the pollution concerns, but certainly not all. Without uniform and rigorous application of good industry practices coupled with the oversight of enforcement the public is placed at an indeterminate level of risk from the current gas play activities.

Th e second reason for assembling the handbook is to provide a road-map to the best practices and emerging technologies for pollution manage-ment. To this end, many chapters are written with practicing engineers and industry specialists in mind.

Th ere are eight chapters that span a range of topics addressing the basics of hydraulic fracturing operations, chemical management, U.S. environ-mental regulations, current and emerging technologies for water treatment, risk aversion, and air pollution control and management. Consideration has been given to the international scientifi c literature as well good industry practices promoted by authoritative bodies like the American Petroleum Institute, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and other recog-nized scientifi c and trade industry organizations. Although various com-panies and brand names are cited in this volume, the reader should not consider statements to refl ect any form of endorsement. Th e information presented in this handbook should be considered as survey oriented and not suitable for scale-up, design and operational purposes.

In addition to the contributors and individuals that assisted in the prep-aration of this volume, a special thank you is extended to the Publisher for its fi ne production of this volume.

Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff , Ph.D.Charles Town, West Virginia

Preface xvii

xix

Acknowledgements

Randy D. Horsak is a contributing author to this volume. Mr. Horsak is a scientist and registered Professional Engineer and Founder of the Marcellus Shale Water Group, LLC, with more than 40 years of experience in environmental science and engineering, including water and wastewa-ter treatment. He has managed and directed environmental projects in a variety of areas, including water and wastewater sampling and analysis, bench-scale and fi eld pilot studies, engineering economic evaluations, con-ceptual design of water and wastewater treatment systems involving the treatment of raw sewage, industrial waste, chemical-contaminated water, and pathogen-contaminated water. He has evaluated a wide array of tech-nologies: electro-coagulation, fi ltration, reverse osmosis, ultra-violet light purifi cation, ozonation, chlorination, carbon block fi ltration, and other systems. Mr. Horsak has authored more than 50 professional publications and serves as an expert witness in environmental science, engineering, and forensics. (3TM Consulting, LLC, Marcellus Shale Water Group, LLC, PO Box 941735, Houston, Texas USA 77094; (281) 752-6700; rhorsak@marcel-

lusshalewatergroup.com; rhorsak@3tmconsulting.com).

Gary Bush is the President of Western FracVac, located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Western FracVap provided corporate descriptions and information on the company’s technology for fracking fl uid water treat-ment applications.

Jay Radchenko is a Graphics and Research Specialist at No-Pollution Enterprises. He has contributed to this volume with the preparation of a number of the line drawings and various artwork.

xxi

Author and Editor Biographies

Nicholas P. Cheremisinoff is a chemical engineer with more than 40 years of industry, R&D and international business experience. He has worked extensively in the environmental management and pollution prevention fi elds, while also representing and consulting for private sector companies on new technologies for power generation, clean fuels and advanced water treatment technologies. He is a Principal of No Pollution Enterprises. He has led and implemented various technical assignments in parts of Russia, eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Korea, in parts of the Middle East, and other regions of the world for such organizations as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Trade & Development Agency, the World Bank Organization, and the private sector. Over his career he has served as a standard of care industry expert on a number of litigation mat-ters. As a contributor to the industrial press, he has authored, co-authored or edited more than 160 technical reference books concerning chemical engineering technologies and industry practices aimed at sound envi-ronmental management, safe work practices and public protection from harmful chemicals. He is cited in U.S. Congressional records concern-ing emerging environmental legislations, and is a graduate of Clarkson University (formally Clarkson College of Technology) where all three of his degrees - BSc, MSc, and Ph.D. were conferred.

Anton R. Davletshin is Program Manager at No Pollution Enterprises, a fi rm specializing in standard of care assessments. Anton oversees sampling and research programs, and conducts historical environmental impact assessments that aid in forensic reconstruction of legacy pollution prob-lems. His expertise also extends to application of air dispersion simula-tions using the EPA-approved AERMOD program used in the evaluation of community impacts from point and area sources of emissions from within industrial complexes. He is a FLIR certifi ed infrared thermogra-phy scientist, and oversees teams performing inspection of industrial

sites. A graduate of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, he holds a degree in Construction Management.

Mohit Dayal is a Senior Analyst and Project Manager for No Pollution Enterprises. Mr. Dayal is a 2008 graduate of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and holds a degree in Political Science focusing on Legal Studies. His expertise includes performing industrial data documentation and analysis, technical report analysis and data validation, as well as assisting scientifi c research and editing of publications.

xxii Author and Editor Biographies

1

1.1 Technology Overview

Oil and gas are naturally occurring hydrocarbons sought aft er by all of mankind because of their energy value and ability to manufacture an almost infi nite number of chemically derived products. Two elements, hydrogen and carbon, make up a hydrocarbon. Because hydrogen and car-bon have a strong attraction for each other, they form many compounds. Th e oil industry processes and refi nes crude hydrocarbons recovered from the Earth to create hydrocarbon products including: natural gas, lique-fi ed petroleum gas (LPG, or hydrogas), gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, and a vast array of synthetic materials such as nylon, plastics and polymers. Crude oil and natural gas occur in tiny openings of buried layers of rock. Occasionally, the crude hydrocarbons literally ooze to the surface in the form of a seep, or spring; but more oft en, rock layers trap the hydrocarbons thousands of feet below the surface. To harvest the trapped hydrocarbons to the surface, mankind drills wells.

1Hydraulic Fracturing Overview

2 Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

Th e simplest hydrocarbon is methane (CH4). It has one atom of carbon

(C) and four atoms of hydrogen (H). Methane is a gas, under standard con-ditions of pressure and temperature. Standard pressure is the pressure the atmosphere exerts at sea level, about 14.7 psia (101 kPa). Standard tempera-ture is 60°F (15.6°C). Methane is the primary component in natural gas. Natural gas occurs in buried rock layers usually mixed with other hydrocar-bon gases and liquids. It may also contain non-hydrocarbon gases and liq-uids such as helium, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and hydrogen sulfi de. Hydrogen sulfi de is toxic and corrosive – it has a detectible sour or rotten-egg odor, even in low concentrations. Natural gas that contains hydrogen sulfi de is called sour gas. Aft er natural gas is produced or recovered, a gas processing facility removes impurities so consumers can use the gas.

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to mine hydrocarbons trapped deep beneath the Earth’s surface. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as “fracking” or fracturing is an industry-wide practice that has received signifi cant attention and increased scrutiny from the media and environmental community.  Fracturing involves the injec-tion of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into prospective rock for-mations to stimulate oil and natural gas production.  In recent years there has been a dramatic rise in unconventional natural gas and oil production largely attributable to the application of fracturing technology. Th e basic technology is comprised of the following. Vertical well bores are drilled thousands of feet into the earth, through sediment layers, the water table, and shale rock formations with the objective of reaching oil and gas depos-its. Drilling operations are then angled horizontally, where a cement casing is installed and is intended to serve as a conduit for the massive volume of water, fracking fl uid, chemicals and sand needed to fracture the rock and shale. In some cases, prior to the injection of fl uids, it is necessary to employ small explosives in order to open up the bedrock. Th e fractures allow the gas and oil to be removed from the formerly impervious rock formations.

Fracking has technically been in existence for many decades, however, the scale and type of drilling now taking place (i.e., deep fracking) is a new form of drilling and was fi rst used in the Barnett shale of Texas in 1999. Figure 1.1 illustrates the basic principles of the technology.

Th e science and engineering behind the use of horizontal wells is very much an evolving technology. Horizontal wells are viewed by the oil and gas industry as off ering benefi ts that improve the production performance for certain types of producing formations. Horizontal wells allow operators to develop resources with signifi cantly fewer wells than may be required with vertical wells – operators can drill multiple horizontal wells from a

Hydraulic Fracturing Overview 3

single surface location, thereby, reducing the cumulative surface footprint and impact of the development operation. On the other hand, horizon-tal wells are signifi cantly more expensive to drill and maintain. In some areas, the cost of a horizontal well may be 2–3 times the cost of a vertical well. Horizontal wells are typically drilled vertically to a “kick-off ” point where the drill bit is gradually re-oriented from vertical to horizontal. Figure 1.2 is a schematic, which illustrates a vertical and horizontal well for comparison.

In horizontal wells, an “open-hole” completion is an alternative to setting the casing through the producing formation to the total depth of the well. In this case, the bottom of the production casing is installed at the top of the productive formation or open-hole section of the well. In this alternative, the producing portion of the well is the horizon-tal portion of the hole and it is entirely in the producing formation. In some instances, a short section of steel casing that runs up into the production casing, but not back to the surface, may be installed. Alternatively, a slotted or pre-perforated steel casing may be installed in the open-hole portion. These alternatives are generally referred to by the industry as a “production liner,” and are typically not cemented into place. In the case of an open-hole completion, tail cement is extended above the top of the confining formation (the formation that limits the vertical growth of the fracture).

Figure 1.1 Illustration of the basic fracking process.

Fracking Fluid

Shallow Aquifier

Deep Aquifier

Aquiclude

Pre-Existing

Fault

Induced

Seismicity

Gas-Bearing

Formation

Casing

Hydraulic

Fractures

Methane

Aquiclude

Wastewater Ponds

4 Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

Th e term reservoir refers to the subsurface hydrocarbon bearing for-mation. An important term applied in hydraulic fracturing is perforating. A perforation is the hole that is created between the casing or liner into the reservoir. Th is hole allows communication to the inside of the produc-tion casing, and is the hole through which oil or gas is produced. By far the most common perforating method utilizes jet-perforating guns that are loaded with specialized shaped explosive charges. Figure 1.3 illustrates the perforation process. Th e shaped charge is detonated and a jet of hot, high-pressure gas vaporizes the steel pipe, cement, and formation in its path. Th e result is an isolated tunnel that connects the inside of the produc-tion casing to the formation. Th e cement isolates these channels or tunnels. Th e producing zone itself is isolated outside the production casing by the cement above and below the zone.

Hydraulic fracturing is not a new technology – rather its origins go back to as early as the late 1940s as a well stimulation technique. Ultra-low per-meability formations such as fi ne sand and shale tend to have fi ne grains or limited porosity and few interconnected pores (low permeability). Th e term permeability refers to the ability for a fl uid to fl ow through a porous rock. In order for natural gas or oil to be produced from low permeability reservoirs, individual molecules of fl uid must fi nd their way through a tor-tuous path to the well. Hydraulic fracturing facilitates the process because without it too little oil and/or gas would be recoverable and the cost to drill and complete the well would be impractical based on the rate of recovery.

Th e process of hydraulic fracturing increases the exposed area of the producing formation, thus creating a high conductivity path that extends from the wellbore through a targeted hydrocarbon bearing formation over a signifi cant distance – subsequently, hydrocarbons and other fl uids can

Figure 1.2 Illustrates horizontal and vertical wells.

Hydraulic Fracturing Overview 5

fl ow more readily from the formation rock, into the fracture, and ultimately to the wellbore. Hydraulic fracturing treatments rely on state-of-the-art soft ware programs and are an integral part of the design and construction of the well. Pretreatment quality control and testing are considered integral actions in producing wells.

During fracking, fl uid is pumped into the production casing, through the perforations (or open hole), and into the targeted formation at pres-sures high enough to cause the rock within the targeted formation to fracture. Th is is referred to as “breaking down” the formation. As high-pressure fl uid injection continues, this fracture can continue to grow, or propagate. Th e rate at which fl uid is pumped must be fast enough that the pressure necessary to propagate the fracture is maintained. Th is pressure is referred to as the propagation pressure or extension pressure. As the fracture continues to propagate, a proppant (e.g., sand) is added to the fl uid. When the pumping is stopped, and the excess pressure is removed, the fracture attempts to close. Th e proppant serves the purpose of keeping the fracture open, allowing fl uids to then fl ow more readily through this higher perme-ability fracture.

Some of the fracturing fl uid may leave the fracture and enter the tar-geted formation adjacent to the created fracture (i.e. untreated forma-tion). Th is phenomenon is known as fl uid leak-off . Th is fl uid fl ows into the micropores of the formation or into existing natural fractures in the forma-tion or into small fractures opened and propagated into the formation by the pressure in the induced fracture. Th e fracture tends to propagate along the path of least resistance. Since this technology has been practiced for many years, experience allows predictable characteristics or physical prop-erties regarding the path of least resistance for horizontally and vertically formed fractures.

In executing hydraulic fracturing operations, a fl uid must be pumped into the well’s production casing at high pressure. It is necessary that

Figure 1.3 Illustrates the process of perforation.

Detonation

Cord

Perforating

GunCement

Jet

Charge Casing Formation

6 Hydraulic Fracturing Operations

production casing has been installed and cemented and that it is capable of withstanding the pressure that it will be subjected to during hydraulic frac-ture operations. Th e production casing in some applications is not exposed to high pressure except during hydraulic fracturing. In these cases, a high-pressure “frac string” may be used to pump the fl uids into the well to iso-late the production casing from the high treatment pressure. Once the hydraulic fracturing operations are complete, the frac string is removed.

Hydraulic fracturing operations employ a host of specialized equipment and materials. Th e required equipment includes storage tanks, proppant transport equipment, blending equipment, pumping equipment, and ancil-lary equipment such as hoses, piping, valves, and manifolds. Hydraulic fracturing service companies also provide specialized monitoring and con-trol equipment that is required in order to carry out a successful execution. During the fracture treatment, data are being collected from the various units, and sent to monitoring equipment – various data collected include fl uid rate coming from the storage tanks, slurry rate being delivered to the high-pressure pumps, wellhead treatment pressure, density of the slurry, sand concentration, chemical rate, etc.

1.2 Benefi ts, Environmental Deterents, Hurdles and Public Safety

1.2.1 Key Drivers

Key drivers for fracking are energy independence, jobs and the possibil-ity of the U.S. becoming a major LNG (liquefi ed natural gas) exporter. Th ese are obvious from changes in market forces over the past decade. Shale gas production in North America has caused a collapse of natural gas market forces over expectations that the U.S. could become a major exporter of LNG. North American natural gas prices collapsed from over $10 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2008, to under $3/ MMBtu at various times during 2012. On the other hand, gas prices in Asia and Europe remain strong, thus creating huge spreads above U.S. prices. Th e large price spreads between the U.S. and other regions of the world have enticed foreign buyers to seek sources of lower cost gas – thus North American supplies are quite attractive. Obviously, North American producers are eager to capture higher prices off ered in overseas markets. Th ese drivers have prompted U.S. LNG project developers to submit plans for multiple LNG export projects to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for approval.