Methane Hydraulic Fracturing Procedure - Research Paper Example

The Methane Hydraulic Fracturing Introduction Hydraulic fracturing technique, used by the gas and oil industry, entails the use of high hydraulic pressures to initiate a fracture. The process focuses on improving the production efficiency of coalbed methane and oil wells. The hydraulically made fracture acts as an outlet in coal or rock formation. The rock formation then allows coalbed methane or oil to move more without obstruction from the rock pores to the production well that brings it to the surface. The production of coalbed methane gas involves the adsorbed of the gas within small pores in the coal surrounding substance. During this process, water becomes produced first from the fractures present within the coal. This process continues until the pressure declines to the level where methane would begin to desorb from the coal surrounding substance itself. The extent of the coalbed fracture stays controlled by the characteristics of the geologic formation, the fluid used in fracturing, and the pressure employed in pumping. The distance at which the fracturing would be performed also comprises geological formation characteristics. The ability for a fracture to grow taller or longer would be determined by the material goods of the surrounding rock. A hydraulically generated fracture would take the route of least resistance through the surrounding rock formations and coal seams (EPA Chapter 1; 3-4). Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Marcellus Shale Team, and the Energy Institute have clearly confirmed the effectiveness of present-day state regulations in protecting water resources. This research paper positions itself to supporting that methane hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed wells pose a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources. Discussion EPA conducted a research study into evaluating the impacts of hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane to underground sources of drinking water. The study employed a methodology covering hydraulic fracturing processes and potential incidents of water quality associated with the process. Also, the methodology would determine hazardous constituents contained in hydraulic fracturing additives and fluids as well as identification of coalbed methane basins hydrogeology. The approach employed a detailed and extensive collection of reviews and information of theoretical and empirical data. EPA also reviewed cases of underground drinking water contamination alleged to have resulted from the injection of methane hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane beds (EPA Chapter 2; 2). Methane hydraulic fracturing fluids include foamed gels, acids, potassium chloride water and clear water, cross or linear linked gels and a combined treatment of any two or more of these fluids. On the other hand, hydraulic additives include biocides, friction reducers, breakers, acid corrosion inhibitors and fluid loss additives (EPA Chapter 4; 2-8). Their findings on water quality incidents reflected data from formal studies, in addition to the opinions of, residents living near coalbed methane sites namely Black Warrior, Powder River Basins, San Juan and Central Appalachian. Incidences of contamination could be attributed to common production activities such as surface discharge of fracturing and production fluids, and methane migration through fracturing and drilling made outlets. In addition, contamination could arise from improperly abandoned production well, aquifer dewatering and poorly installed or sealed production wells. Moreover, natural factors, resource development, historical practices and population growth also constitute potential sources of contamination to drinking water. However, the follow-up outcomes of the study concluded that underground drinking water sources could not be contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. According to EPA, the production of ground water would minimize the likelihood that chemicals contained in fracturing fluids could impact negatively on underground drinking water sources. In this regard, EPA study through the Federal Register reveals that methane hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed wells pose minimal threat to underground drinking water sources (EPA Chapter 6; 1-16, Chapter 7; 5-6). In a similar instance to EPA’s study, Ramudo and Murphy also conducted a research on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. This study originated as a result of the drive by United States to utilize natural gas from natural resources, such as Marcellus shale formations. On the other hand, this drive targeted at reducing the use of fossil fuels. The scope of their methodology encompassed risk issues of water quantity and quality and their possible alleviation measures, and a description of the hydraulic fracturing based on Horizontal High Volume Slickwater process. In addition, the study covered an analysis into the costs associated with hydraulic fracturing of producing shale gas (Ramudo and Murphy 1-3). According to their study, contamination of drinking water could be attributed to the use of improper methods and materials. For instance, issues relating to the preparation of the drilling pad, structural casing of the well, drilling process, improper treatment and storage of water flow back constitute potential cause of water contamination (Ramudo and Murphy 14-19). From their research findings, however, evidence shows no reports of water contamination emerged from the reported cases in relation to the hydraulic fracturing process. They also state that no effects could be reported on water quality if regulations remain upheld and proper precautions taken by drilling companies. Some of the regulations relate to water withdrawals, expanding the capacity for cleaning water flow back and the use of proper treatment alternatives. In this regard, hydraulic fracturing of shale gas poses minimal threat to underground drinking water sources. Hence, they recommend the move towards the utilization of renewable resources with a precaution on the preservation of water quality and the environment (Ramudo and Murphy 19-21). Furthermore, the Energy Institute of the University of Texas in Austin carried out a research study on shale gas regulation. The Energy Institute’s study aimed at distinguishing fact from fiction in the development of shale gas. In their study, they assessed the perceived and real consequences as well as identified environmental protection regulation based on facts on shale gas development. Key findings into their research concerned a scientific investigation into groundwater contamination among other impacts. The findings focused on shale gas production and exploration in areas surrounding Marcellus, Haynesville and Barnett shale (Energy Institute n.p.). Evidence showed that aquifer contamination occurred in the subsurface due to the use hydraulic fracturing chemicals during the fracturing process. In addition, leakages remained unobserved from deep hydraulic fracturing. Moreover, methane found in water could be traced to natural sources within some shale gas sites such as Marcellus shale. On the other hand, methane could have remained present before the commencement of shale gas exploration and developments (Energy Institute n.p.). By contrast, the findings by the Energy Institute indicate that reports regarding ground water contamination occurred in conservative gas and oil operations. This could be attributed to improper casing and cementing of hydraulic fracturing wells. Considerable risks to underground water sources could also arise following surface spills of fracturing fluids. Additionally, the uncontrolled releases of hydraulic fracturing fluids during operation or construction remain documented as a rare occurrence in contamination of underground water sources. Lastly, they found out that negative public perception on hydraulic fracturing emerged from media coverage that never mentioned any scientific research outcomes related to the issue (Energy Institute n.p.). The protection of underground drinking water sources remains a fundamental element in protecting the quality and quantity of water adequate for sustaining human life, as well as eliminating health risks. The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) an association of state regulators clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of the current state regulations in protecting water resources. Current state gas and oil regulations in water protection have permit requirements governing the operation, location, completion and drilling of wells. This involves the submission of an application to a regulatory authority that grants an authorization before the commencement of drilling. Permitting enables regulatory agencies to evaluate whether the proposed well meets the current technical regulatory requirements. Well materials and construction requirements specify the composition of casing, length thickness and tensile strength, in addition to gas and oil, cements and cement additives. These standards continue to be most useful in the selection of gas and oil casing in the present day. State regulations also exist regarding formation stimulation process using hydraulic fracturing, exposure pathways, isolation techniques and fracture fluids. Hence, sealing wellbores and proper cementation prevent fluid movement into underground water sources (Nickolaus et al. 17-25). The allowance of temporary abandonment of wells enables gas and oil operators to avoid drilling replacement wells. This allowance also prevents wells from plugging when there exists not any production from the well. Well plugging also seals permanently the wellbore and internal parts of the well. This consequently prevents reservoir problems emanating from downward drainage. Reservoir problems could also originate from fluid movements from deep to shallow zones. Newly constructed or replaced tanks must be constructed, maintained and designed in accordance with the state Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures, as well as the Code 30 outlined by the National Fire Protection Association. This helps reduce the potential risks for stored fluid releases from tank failures and leaks. The use of pits for temporary storage of oil, produced water, treatment fluids and well completion, emergency overflow and burn off of waste oil remain governed through permit authorization. This significantly helps in preventing contamination of shallow ground water sources and downward movement of fluids into underground water sources. The subsurface disposal and reuse of produced water by means of underground injection remains the principal method of waste and spill management. Alternative advanced water treatment technologies or management practices include the use of infiltration, ion exchange, decomposition in constructed wetlands and reverse osmosis (Nickolaus et al. 25-31). In the United States, coalbed methane remains a substantial source of methane. It stands as a more environmentally satisfactory energy source as compared to coal. The gas becomes generated during coalification process and gets sorted within the internal surfaces of coal. Characterized by widespread resources, its production neither transmits any environmental damages as that of coal mining nor production of waste sulfur or ash. Considerable coalbed methane resources could be reached at shallow depths. However, essential concerns regarding the production of coalbed methane would result from uncontrolled gas releases from coal reservoir to sources of underground water. Also, need to dispose large quantities of produced water and downward movement of shallow water would pose a potential risk of contaminating underground drinking water sources. Moreover, the potential by certain technologies for well completion to affect water sources constitutes causes for water contamination (Fisher 1-3). The production of coalbed methane gas entails a conventional method which does not produce large quantities of disposable water. On the contrary, water infiltrating coal beds would exert pressure which in turn holds methane gas within coal. The addition of coalbed methane water into an aquifer enables the produced water to be recycled for valuable purposes such as irrigation. The commercial use of evaporation or freeze-thaw technology helps in reducing the quantity of water disposed by means of injection. Evaporation would be carried out during the summer whereas factional freezing during winter. Furthermore, the least expensive method of disposing produced water would be through surface discharge. Permission for surface discharge could be attributed to the low composition of good quality total dissolved solids in coalbed methane produced water (Fisher 6-8). Coalbed methane remains an environmentally satisfactory energy source. Despite this fact, the opponents of coalbed methane development have consistently raised criticisms against its development. Recent oppositions by various organizations against the development of coalbed methane include Powder River Basin Resource Council, Green Mountain Alliance, Citizens for Responsibility to the Environment and Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation. Complaints raised by these organizations concerned methane pollution of ground aquifers, noise emanating from compressors and its effects on nearby residents, and the need to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Disturbance created by the construction of pipelines, well pads among other facilities, in addition to air pollution caused, by methane leakage, dust and exhaust gases also constitute the raised concerns (Fisher 15-19). These environmental concerns do not relate to coalbed methane development. Therefore, they do not relate to the use of methane hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed wells that would pose a threat to underground drinking water. Evidence shows that coalbed methane exploration and development pose a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources. This occurs in the event that certain aspects would not have appeared observed. The criteria discussed in this paper apply across all operations involving methane hydraulic fracturing process. The same would also apply to cause of contamination to underground drinking water sources. Conclusion and recommendations The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study became undertaken in the United States in 2004. The study concluded that the hydraulic fracturing process remained safe and did not merit further research. This resulted due to the absence of undisputable evidence on potential health risks. In addition, the hydraulic fracturing fluids utilized during the process could not travel far underground, in addition to, remaining nonhazardous. The EPA study, however, never existed as an intended general study of hydraulic fracturing, but only of its operations in coalbed methane deposits. The methodology of the three research studies never took account in considering the impacts of methane hydraulic fracturing process above the ground. However, all the research findings show explicit evidence that the utilization of methane hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed wells pose a minimal threat to underground drinking water sources. On the contrary, contamination of water could be associated with several factors. Such include surface discharge of fracturing and production fluids, and methane migration through fracturing and drilling made outlets. In addition, contamination could arise from improperly sealed production wells, abandoned production wells, aquifer dewatering and poorly installed production wells. Moreover, natural factors, resource development, historical practices and population growth also constitute potential sources of contamination to drinking water. Issues relating to the preparation of the drilling pad, structural casing of the well, drilling process, improper treatment and storage of water flow back constitute potential cause of water contamination. Lastly, methane could have remained present before the commencement of shale gas exploration and developments. From the three research outcomes, several recommendations towards the exploration and development of hydraulic fracturing operations became presented. Some of the recommendations include the regulation of shale gas with a focus on proper casing of wells to prevent aquifer contamination, as well as disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. In addition, regulation should focus on the management of produced water and wastewater from flow back. Regulation should be directed towards more urgent issues that may be of greater risk to the hydraulic fracturing process. Such issues include waste storage and disposal, spill prevention, water usage and withdrawal, and proper well casing and cementing. The enforcement of state regulations needs to be focused more on subsurface releases of contaminants rather than those above the surface. Media coverage of any form needs to include issues relating to scientific research studies on hydraulic fracturing. This inclusion would be significant to preventing a negative perception by citizens over contaminated underground water sources. I agree with the studies that Methane Hydraulic Fracturing does not contaminate drinking water aquifers. Works Cited "Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Study (2004) | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA." Home | Water | US EPA. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. . Fisher, J. Berton. "Environmental issues and challenges in coalbed methane production." 18th Internatuional Low Rank Fuels Symposium, June. 2003. 1-19. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. . Nickolaus, M., Bryson, W., and Jehn, P. State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources. 17-31. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. . Ramudo, Andrea, and Murphy, Sean. "The CCE/Cornell Marcellus Shale Team." Cornell Cooperative Extension. 1-21. 12 Dec. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. . "Shale Gas Regulation." Energy Institute - The University of Texas at Austin. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2012. . Read More