Download Marcellus Shale Case Study Paper - Sites@PSU

 Marcellus Shale Case Study Hollenbeck 1H Tyler Erb ERM 413W 2/17/15 I. Executive summary The well that is being assessed is “Hollenbeck 1H” and is owned by WPX Energy Appalachia LLC (Figure 1). This site is located in Susquehanna County, PA. The area that was developed on resulted in minimal environmental impacts, no deforestation and roads were already present. Despite the minimal disturbance, the company has had twelve violations, mostly relating to Environmental Health and Safety. Several practices should be enforced to ensure the safety and sustainability of the area. II. Pre-­‐Development Site Assessment A. Soils and Relief The soils located on this site are mostly silt loams (Figure 2). Most areas have moderate slopes ranging from 12-­‐30 percent, while some areas have more intense slopes reaching up to 70 percent. The most common soil types are LsF (17.4% of area), LsD (11.7% of area), VcC2 (10.2% of area), and McC2 (7.2% of area). The two most prominent soils, LsF and LsD, are Lordstown and Oquaga very stony silt loams. The LsF soils have a slope ranging from 30 to 70 percent, while the LsD soils have a slope ranging from 12 to 30 percent. The VcC2 is a Volusia channery silt loam and has slopes ranging from 8 to 15 percent. McC2 is a Mardin channery silt loam and also has slopes ranging form 8 to 15 percent. The LsF and LsD soils water table is located at a depth of over 200 centimeters. These soils types wouldn’t result in issues with either drainage or groundwater contamination. The major concern for these soils is the slope, more so for the LsF. With such steep slopes, issues may arise during construction due to an increase erosion rate as well as a possible change in hydrology for the area. The VcC2 and McC2 have a depth of 23 and 43 centimeters to the water table, respectfully. With a lower depth to the water table there is an increased risk for groundwater contamination. Both soils have a restrictive layer that occurs lower than the water table level. The recommendation is to limit disturbance to LsF and LsD soils as much as possible, due to the stony nature of the soil. The VcC2 and McC2 soils are more appropriate to construct on, as long as the shallow depth to water table is cared for (Web Soil Survey). B. Land Use History and Vegetation The area of land has been a predominately grassy field with core forest surrounding the area. Prior to gas development, there was minimal fragmentation of forest (Figure 3). However, in more recent years the forest has become increasingly fragmented (Figure 4). According to a PNDI report, there are no species of concern located in the area. The proposed well site will not result in any deforestation of core forest. C. Water Resources There are four small wetland areas located near the well site (Figure 5). Although these wetlands are fairly small they are still of concern. The requirement for drilling near wetlands is a minimum of 300 feet between drill site and wetland areas greater than one acre. This will be of minimum concern due to the size of the wetlands. The greater concern will be the uptake of water. The site has two streams in the area, which limits the access to water for drilling. A major concern is the amount of water needed for drilling causing a negative impact on aquatic life. With such large quantities of water being removed, there is an increased risk for contamination of the stream. Water quality is connected to water quantity, with the removal of large amounts of water the aquatic ecosystem can be damaged. Another concern is the release of fracking fluid into the stream. With less water in the stream, there will be a greater concentration of contaminants, possibly resulting in the death of aquatic life (Bentley,2013). III. Post-­‐Development Conditions at the Site A. Violations at the Current Site This well has been documented to have twelve violations. These violations consist of pit and tanks not being constructed with sufficient capacity to contain pollutional substances, failure to adopt pollution prevention measures required or prescribed by DEP by handling materials that create a danger of pollution, failure to notify DEP of pollution incident, failure to properly store/transport/dispose of residual waste, discharging pollution material into waters of Commonwealth, and failure to minimize accelerated erosion (Figure 6). These violations result in an extremely negative impact on the surrounding environment. B. Other Vegetation and Soil Management Issues The construction of the well resulted in minimal changes to the landscape. The well was constructed in an area that was previously a grassy field and resulted in no deforestation. There was already a road present that allowed access to the site; therefore no areas were disturbed by construction of a new road. One area of concern is the level of the water table and a chance of hydrology change due to the soil the well was placed on. The McC2 soil has a water table depth of 43 centimeters and should be closely watched for contamination (Web Soil Survey). The area has also experienced a significant amount of erosion in the area surrounding the well. This erosion can have a negative affect on both wildlife and aquatic life and should be carefully monitored and minimized. Another issue that is of concern is the introduction of invasive species to the area (Eshleman). With constant traffic and machinery from outside areas, the ability for an invasive species to thrive is high. Since the area has undergone disturbance some species may have been negatively affected, also opening the door for invasive species. C. Water Resources There are two streams, the most promising being Snake Creek, nearby the well site that may be acceptable for use by the gas company. The well will use approximately 2.8 million gallons during its lifetime (Bentley,2013). The water that is used for drilling has sand and a variety of chemicals added to it. After being used the water has a very high level of total dissolved solids, which are harmful to all biotic life. For example, one contaminant found in returned water is radioactive radon that is released from the rock formations underground. This fluid must be disposed of carefully so that negative effects on the environment are minimized. One way to remove this fluid is through the injection of the fluid into deep wells, mostly located in Ohio. This deep well injection method has some negative consequences, such as causing earthquakes. Another method of disposal is to take the fluid to a water treatment plant that specialized in the treatment of fracking fluid (Chameldes, 2013). The amount of the treated water should still be monitored when disposing into streams. The soils surrounding the area will allow for storage containers to be constructed, which should be done, so that the fluid can be reused as much as possible and the impacts are reduced. The disposal of fluid directly into streams must be avoided. The DEP has many regulations on the use of water for fracking. The withdrawal of any water must be pre-­‐approved even if the proposed amount of water being withdrawn is believed to not affect the aquatic ecosystem. If the water withdrawal exceeds 10,000 gallons the company must register with the DEP, regardless of what water basin the well is located in. The DEP and EPA have created regulations for the amounts of contaminates allowed in the wastewater, such as 250 milligrams per liter of chlorides, to be released into streams (Bentley,2013). IV. Suggested BMPs On site and off site monitoring should become a regular practice for this well. Workers should regularly check on equipment and make sure no malfunctions are occurring. They should also check regularly in the surround area, both with homeowners and in streams. Regular visits should occur with homeowners where tests are conducted on their water supply to make sure levels of contaminates are acceptable and pose no threat to their well being. Visits should also be regularly scheduled to take water samples from the streams which water is being drawn from. These checks should include tests for affects on aquatic life as well as contamination levels and should occur once every six months in areas up to 1 mile away. This practice will ensure the safety of everyone, as well as catch issues with the well as quickly as possible (Eshleman). The company should install the most secure tanks for storing waste fluid. The amount of tanks should be one and a half times the required amount for normal functions. This extra storage will ensure that storage will never be an issue if a mishap occurs during removal, such as a delay. The increased storage will also serve as a safety net if a tank fails or begins to leak, so that the amount of waste that escapes will be minimal (Eshleman). Another practice that should be incorporated is erosion control. Vegetation should be planted in the area surrounding the well along. The vegetation should be native to the site to minimize invasive species. This should also be maintained regularly to ensure the maximum effects. By implementing erosion control, the stream will run less risk for having negative affects (Eshleman). V. Reclamation Plan The reclamation plan should consist of two phases, the first should occur before and during gas production and the second after production has ceased. The first stage of the reclamation plan should be taking data for the area before construction begins. The company should take water samples to determine levels of contaminates and check the area, including the roadway, for any invasive species. This data should be used a standard/goal for reclamation after drilling. Any machinery or personnel entering the site should undergo a cleaning, such as a car wash or boot scrub, before entering the site. Any gravel or stone used on the site should be washed or undergo an herbicide treatment so that no invasive species are brought to the area. Once the construction begins, any chemicals that are used should be monitored. When it is possible the amounts of chemicals used should be accounted for, for example if 200lbs of sand is added to the water a calculation of how much is removed when the fluid is returned should be done (Eshleman). Proper documentation should be kept for all resources used in the creation and maintenance of the site, so that if an issue would arise it could be dealt with in the most appropriate manner. For example if a truck came from a site that had an invasive species present the workers at the site could check regularly for that species. Environmental protection laws placed by the DEP and EPA should be followed and if any spills or malfunctions occur they should be reported as soon as possible (Eshleman). Any part of the site that isn’t a necessity once drilling occurs should be covered with new vegetation and monitored on a weekly basis for the first 2 months to ensure its success. Along with the addition of vegetation to the area, erosion practices such as sand bags should be used as necessary. These erosion practices should be regularly checked and maintained, occurring at minimum once a month. The second step of this plan should occur after the well production has ceased for a maximum of twelve months (Eshleman). Plugging of the well should be done as soon as possible (no more than twelve months) after production has stopped to prevent fluid migration. All tanks and other equipment should be moved for used at future sites. The site should be returned to pre-­‐well conditions, removal of gravel and replacement of topsoil and vegetation (Eshleman). The vegetation should be checked regularly, approximately once a month at minimum. The data that was collected should be used as an end goal for the presence of invasive species. If and invasive species are present, they should be removed before the species is able to colonize with the use of herbicide minimized. Samples of water contamination should be taken and compared to those that were taken before the well was constructed. If changes have occurred they should be dealt with accordingly. After completion of the reclamation plan, the site should be monitored regularly to ensure the success of the reclamation. The site reclamation should be considered successful if the vegetation coverage is at minimum 80 percent of the original value, there are no major changes in the aquatic ecosystem, and no invasive species are present. The site and surrounding area, minimum of two surrounding acres should be monitored for a minimum of two years. Data and samples from the stream should be taken and compared bi-­‐monthly for two years. The site should be checked once every five years after the successful conclusion of the reclamation plan for a minimum of twenty years. Appendix: VI. References Bentley, Jeffery. “Marcellus Education Fact Sheet.” Penn State Extention 23.3 (2013): n. pag. Web. Chameldes, Bill. "Fracking Water: It's Just So Hard to Clean." National Geographic. N.p., 04 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Eshleman, Keith N. and Elmore, Andrew. “Recommended Best Management Practices for Marcellus Shale Gas Development in Maryland.” Univeristy of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. 15 Feb. 2015. “Hollenbeck 1H.” 41o 55’01.98” N and 75o 49’58.13” Google Earth. 5 Oct. 2011. 15 Feb. 2015. PA DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website. DEP, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Pennsylvania State University Topography Maps. ftp://www.pasda.psu.edu/pubpasda/GeoPDF_topo/PA. 15 Feb. 2015. PNDI. DCNR, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Remote Water Quality Monitoring Network. SRBC, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. "Shale Play." StateImpact Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Web Soil Survey -­‐ Home. USDA, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. Figure 1. Hollenbeck 1H Well (Hollenbeck 1H, 2015) Figure 2. Soil Map (Web Soil Survey) Figure 3. Hollenbeck 1H, 1992 (Hollenbeck 1H, 2015) Figure 4. Hollenbeck 1H, Present (Hollenbeck 1H, 2015) Figure 5. Wetlands Map (Wetlands Mapper) Figure 6. Violations of Hollenbeck 1H (Shale Play) Figure 7. Topographic Map (PSU topography maps)