RPSEA EFD Project 10122-06efdsystems.org/pdf/2016-06-30_Draft_Final_Report_website.pdf · 2016. 6. 30. · RPSEA EFD TIP Project 10122-06: Final Report Message from the Houston Advanced

RPSEA EFD Project 10122-06

Prepared for RPSEA

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DRILLING SYSTEMS (EFD) PROGRAM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PROGRAM Houston Advanced Research Center

Final Report

June 30, 2016

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page ii

RPSEA EFD TIP Project 10122-06: Final Report

Message from the Houston Advanced Research Center

We are pleased to submit the enclosed report, EFD-TIP Final Report, 2012-2016. This report was prepared by Houston Advanced Research Center, as an account of work sponsored by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, RPSEA. Neither members of RPSEA, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), nor any person acting on behalf of any of the entities: a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied with respect to accuracy, completeness, or

usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this document may not infringe privately owned rights, or

b. Assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or for any and all damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this document.

This is the final report. The data, calculations, information, conclusions, and/or recommendations reported herein are the property of the U.S. Department of Energy. Reference to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report does not represent or constitute and endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by RPSEA or its contractors of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service. The Report summarizes the accomplishments and potential next steps for the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) Program. This report is being provided to the following representatives of the Department of Energy and the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA):

Sandra McSurdy/Physical Scientist, Exploration and Production Team, Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy

Gary Covatch/ Petroleum Engineer, Exploration and Production Team, Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy

Kent Perry/Vice President – Onshore Programs, Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America

This work would not have been accomplished without the never-ending support of our EFD sponsors and advisors. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (281) 364-6053. Sincerely, Richard C. Haut, Ph.D. Houston Advanced Research Center EFD Program Director

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page iii


Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Tables .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Work Breakdown Structure ..................................................................................................................... 6

Performing and Tracking Field Trials ....................................................................................................... 7

Assessment of RPSEA Projects (Task 5.1) .................................................................................................... 9

EFD West Regional Center Field Tests (Task 5.3) ...................................................................................... 14

Eagle Ford Characterization (Task 5.3.1) ............................................................................................... 14

Research Activities Overview ............................................................................................................. 14

Accomplishments ............................................................................................................................... 15

Benefits to Producers ......................................................................................................................... 16

Field Trial Sites (Task 5.3.2) .................................................................................................................... 16

Water Management Strategy Support (Task 5.3.3) .............................................................................. 17



Pilot Plant Trials .............................................................................................................................. 20

Clean Membranes LLC Screening Tests...................................................................................... 20

Microbial Removal Tests ............................................................................................................ 21

Field Trials; Produced Water Characterization and Treatment .................................................... 23

Johnston County, OK .................................................................................................................. 23

Permian Basin, Ector County, TX................................................................................................ 24

Benefits/Impacts to Producers ...................................................................................................... 25

Remaining Knowledge Gaps .............................................................................................................. 25

Possible Next Steps ............................................................................................................................ 25

Drilling and Completion Operations (Task 5.3.4) .................................................................................. 26

Research Activities Overview – Emissions from Hydraulic Fracturing Engines, Dual-Fuel Research

(Task 5.3.4.1) ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Accomplishments ........................................................................................................................... 27

Remaining Knowledge Gaps .......................................................................................................... 27

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page iv


Possible Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ 27

Research Activities Overview – Powered by Natural Gas (PbNG) (Task 5.3.4.2) ............................. 27




Research Activities Overview – EFD Scorecard (Task 5.3.4.3) .......................................................... 28




Research Activities Overview – Environmental Issues in Osage County, Oklahoma (Task 5.3.4.4) 29




Research Activities Overview – Disappearing Roads (Task 5.3.4.5) ................................................. 30


Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................................. 31


Community Issues / Public Perception (Task 5.3.5) .............................................................................. 31



Findings/Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 32



Air Quality (Task 5.3.6) ........................................................................................................................... 34

Research Activities Overview – Estimating Emissions at Oil and Gas Sites (Task 5.3.6.1) .............. 34


Research Activities Overview – Flaring Mitigation Field Test – New Flare Boiler Technologies

(Task 5.3.6.2) ...................................................................................................................................... 36


Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................................. 38


Research Activities Overview –Wireless Sensor Evaluations (Task 5.3.6.3) .................................... 38


Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page v


Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................................. 40


Research Activities Overview – Public Health Enhancement Opportunities (Task 5.3.6.4) ............ 41


Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................................. 42


EFD East Regional Center Field Tests (Task 5.4) ........................................................................................ 42

Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................... 43

Possible Next Steps ................................................................................................................................ 44

Research Activities Overview – Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well

Development Operations (Task 5.4.1) ................................................................................................... 44


Research Activities Overview – Cardiovascular Toxicity of Ultrafine Particles from Shale Gas

Development (Task 5.4.2) ...................................................................................................................... 45


Research Activities Overview – Water Based Drilling Fluid Systems in the Utica and Marcellus Shales

(Task 5.4.3) ............................................................................................................................................. 46




Research Activities Overview – Comparison of Air Quality Results for Unconventional Natural Gas

Development to the Impact of Other Industrialized Activities and to Current Environmental

Standards and Health Benchmarks (Task 5.4.4) .................................................................................... 47




Research Activities Overview – Microseismic and 3D Seismic Interpretation (Task 5.4.5) ................. 48


Research Activities Overview – Utica Shale Resource Assessment (Task 5.4.6) .................................. 49


Technology Transfer and Access to Data (Tasks 3.0 and 7.0) ................................................................... 49

Research Activities Overview – EFD Website (Task 7.1) ....................................................................... 50



Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page vi


Research Activities Overview – Land Use Site Selection Information Tool (LUSSIT) (Task 7.2) ......... 51


Research Activities Overview – Sensorpedia (Task 7.3) ....................................................................... 53




Research Activities Overview – Best Management Practices and Comparative Law Sites ................. 54




Research Activities Overview – EFD Monthly Newsletter .................................................................... 56


Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 57

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page vii


List of Acronyms AF Acre Feet AP Air Pollutants APB Acid Producing Bacteria API American Petroleum Institute avg Average b/d Barrels/day BEG University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CAST Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies CEA Consumer Energy Alliance CFU Colony Forming Unit CNG Compressed Natural Gas CO Carbon Monoxide CO Colorado CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSPH Colorado School of Public Health d Day DNR Department of Natural Resources DOE U.S. Department of Energy DR Disappearing Road E&P Exploration and Production EFD Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERC East Regional Center eV Electron Volt FIST Flaring Issues, Solutions and Technologies Fm Formation ft Feet GC-MS Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry GHB General Heterotrophic Bacteria GIS Geospatial Information Systems GLO Texas General Land Office gpm Gallons per minute GPRI Global Petroleum Research Institute GTI Gas Technology Institute GWPC Ground Water Protection Council H2S Hydrogen Sulfide HARC Houston Advanced Research Center HDPE High Density Polyethylene HF Hydraulic Fracturing HR Hours IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors IASNR International Association for Society and Natural Resources

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page viii


IOGCC Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission IPAS Infrastructure Placement Analysis System IRB Iron Reducing Bacteria IRNR Institute for Renewal Natural Resources IT Intratacheal Instillation JPL Jet Propoulsion Laboratory kAF Thousand Acre Feet kg Kilogram km Kilometers kWh Kilo-Watt Hours KY Kentucky l Liters LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LUSSIT Land Use Site Selection Information Tool MD Maryland MF Microfiltration mg Milligram min Minutes ml Milliliters MOU Memorandum of Understanding MSEEL Marcellus Shale Energy and Environmental Laboratory NASA National Aeronautical and Space Administration NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NF Nanofiltration NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material NOx Nitrous Oxides NSPS New Source Performance Standards NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit O&G Oil and Gas OCCA Osage County Cattlemen’s Association OK Oklahoma OP-FTIR Open Path Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy ORC Organic Rankine Cycle ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PA Pennsylvania PbNG Powered by Natural Gas PID Photo-Ionization Detector PM Particulate Matter ppbv Parts per Billion by Volume PPE Personal Protection Equipment ppmv Parts per Million by Volume psi Pounds per square inch PTTC Petroleum Technology Transfer Council Q Quarter R/O Reverse Osmosis RPSEA Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America RRC Texas Railroad Commission

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page ix


RWJF Robert Wood Johnson Foundation SHRs Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats SIA Social Impact Assessment SPB Sodium Phosphate Buffer SRB Sulfate Reducing Bacteria sUAS Small Unmanned Aerial System SWDs Salt Water Disposals TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDS Total Dissolved Solids TEES Texas Engineering Experiment Station TIP Technology Integration Program TLS Tunable Laser Spectrometer TNC The Nature Conservancy TOC Total Organic Carbon TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRL Technology Readiness Level TSS Total Suspended Solids TWDB Texas Water Development Board TX Texas UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UCL University of Colorado Law School UF Ultrafiltration um Micrometer UNGD Unconventional Natural Gas Development USF&WL U.S. Fish & Wildlife USGS United States Geological Survey VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WRC West Regional Center WV West Virginia WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection WVU West Virginia University WVURC West Virginia University Research Corporation

RPSEA EFD Project 10122-06

Prepared for RPSEA

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY DRILLING SYSTEMS (EFD) PROGRAM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PROGRAM Houston Advanced Research Center

Executive Summary The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA) awarded Houston Advanced Research

Center’s (HARC) successful Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) program a contract to conduct

a comprehensive project called the Technology Integration Program (TIP). The goal was to identify and

demonstrate technologies and practices which require demonstration so they will be applied in

operations. Most of the technologies that were included in TIP were initiated from previous RPSEA,

Department of Energy (DOE), and EFD program Research and Development. This project assembled an

unprecedented broad based team of experienced project managers, universities, national laboratories,

service providers, operators, regulators, and environmental organizations all committed to working

together in order to meet the program’s objectives.

The EFD Technology Integration Program (EFD-TIP) addressed both exploration and production of

unconventional natural gas resources and consisted of two phases. Phase I was a planning phase with a

go/no go decision point at completion. An advisory committee comprised of operators, service providers,

academia, regulators, and environmental organizations was established. The decision to proceed to Phase

II was based upon satisfying RPSEA, the RPSEA Program Advisory Committee, and the DOE that adequate

plans had been developed for field tests to be executed. Phase II began in February of 2013. The TIP

addressed environmental impacts, including land, air, surface and ground water, emissions and societal.

Technologies came from several sources: (a) service providers that are developing technologies (b) other

RPSEA and NETL funded projects, and (c) the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) Program.

The TIP worked with other RPSEA programs and built upon the successful EFD program’s network of

operators, service companies/suppliers, universities, national laboratories and environmental

organizations that allowed for the identification of new and successfully applied technologies,

identification of technologies that have been developed for other industries that have application,

outreach to other funded programs to form teams that facilitated integrated efforts, and integrated

geologic concepts with engineering issues coupled to production and environmental issues.

This collaborative effort offered an organizational structure that both identified new technologies and

transferred those and currently existing technologies to areas of development that must incorporate new

practices to address environmental and societal concerns. The EFD program established regional partners

in order to manage regional issues and optimize technologies to fit local needs. These regional partners

worked to incorporate such systems into operations in various shale plays, including the Utica, Marcellus,

Eagle Ford, Permian, Niobrara, Uinta, and Bakken.

Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program Final Report page 2


Common stakeholders’ concerns across the United States focused upon water and air impacts. The EFD

Technology Integration Program (EFD-TIP) effectively investigated technologies and practices through

field trials across the U.S. in order to document findings. This unbiased data aids in the commercialization

of technologies, thus providing the impetus for more operators and service providers to adopt and utilize

newer technologies going forward. Cost effectiveness is a crucial component as industry moves to

implement newer practices. Data compiled from the EFD-TIP field trials has successfully provided the input

decision makers need to integrate most applicable practices.

Technology Transfer activities throughout the EFD-TIP included educating and informing industry,

regulators, and the public. All of these stakeholders benefitted from numerous outreach efforts such as

over 200 publications and presentations, close to 50 workshops, more than a dozen exhibits/webinars,

and a monthly newsletter, reaching almost 200,000 subscribers across the world over the course of the

program. Additionally, the program, as a whole and specific areas, were nominated and finalists for

various awards and won the Oil & Gas Environmental Award for Excellence in Environmental Stewardship

in 2015.

Overall mission: to identify and facilitate the integration of various projects/programs that can impact

the unconventional natural gas developments in an environmentally sensitive and cost effective manner.

Objectives of the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems – Technology Integration Program (EFD-TIP)

were to:

1. Establish a network of regional centers that test and integrate developing technologies into systems that lower cost and improve performance of unconventional gas shale development,

2. Plan and implement field testing of new technologies, 3. Demonstrate technology to reduce the environmental footprint of O&G operations, and 4. Disseminate the information

Goals:

• Speed the commercial development of technology developed through RPSEA programs. • Create an organizational structure that includes a network of regional centers that facilitate and

coordinate field deployment of such technologies and document effectiveness of field operations.

• Perform field trials so that results could be evaluated efficiently as to benefit both the industry, the organizations with the technology, and the public sector.

• Document and provide the results of technology field trials so that promising processes, systems and products could be utilized in a wider range of unconventional natural gas plays.

• Emphasize programs that reduce cost and improve performance, lessen the environmental impacts, or address the societal issues associated with unconventional natural gas development.

• Include and report on safety improvements in the planning/demonstration of technologies, emphasizing technologies that foster a culture of health / safety / environmental protection.



Acknowledgement The work would had been impossible without the never-ending direction and support from our sponsors and advisors. These include:

Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA)/National Energy Technology Laboratory US Fish & Wildlife Service/Texas General Land Office (GLO manages on behalf of the Texas Coastal Land Advisory Board) Alcoa Apache bp Chevron Hess Pioneer Resources Shell Statoil DNV-GL GE Halliburton Huisman Keane Group MI SWACO National Oilwell Varco Newpark Resources Inc. Schlumberger Tenaris

The EFD program also has environmental and regulatory advisors that provide cost share to the overall program, including:

The Nature Conservancy Environmental Defense Fund Ducks Unlimited Texas General Land Office Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Railroad Commission

The EFD team maintains a relationship with many more industry and environmental organizations as well as with various local, state and federal agencies across the USA and other governmental entities in other countries. This is an added and valuable benefit EFD provides to all sponsors. Organizations that the EFD team collaborates with include:

International Association of Drilling Contractors Hart Publications American Association of Petroleum Geologists Alamo Area Council of Governments Consumer Energy Alliance Groundwater Protection Council



Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Petroleum Equipment and Services Association Petroleum Technology Transfer Council Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America The Elder Ranch Trust Texas Water Recyclers Association Power Across Texas Association Center for Sustainable Shale Development

Introduction The objectives of the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Technology Integration Program (EFD-TIP)

were to:

(1) Establish a network of regional centers that test and integrate developing technologies into systems that lower cost and improve performance of unconventional gas shale development,

(2) Plan and implement field testing of new technologies, (3) Demonstrate technology to reduce the environmental footprint of O&G operations, and (4) Disseminate the information. The TIP funds will be used to field test identified technologies.

The overall mission was to identify and facilitate the integration of various projects/programs that can

impact the unconventional natural gas developments in an environmentally sensitive and cost effective

manner. The project addressed both exploration and production. Environmental impacts included: land,

air, surface and ground water, emissions and societal. Technologies came from a variety of sources:

(a) Service providers, (b) Other RPSEA and NETL funded projects, and (c) Tasks relate to the EFD Program.

The TIP worked with other RPSEA programs, building upon the successful EFD program’s growing network

of operators, service companies/suppliers, universities, national labs and environmental organizations.

The goals were to: 1. Speed the commercial development of technology developed through RPSEA programs. 2. Create an organizational structure that includes a network of regional centers that facilitate and

coordinate field deployment of such technologies and document effectiveness of field operations. 3. Perform field trials so that results could be evaluated efficiently as to benefit both the industry,

the organizations with the technology, and the public sector. 4. Document and provide the results of technology field trials so that promising processes, systems

and products could be utilized in a wider range of unconventional natural gas plays. 5. Emphasize programs that reduce cost and improve performance, lessen the environmental

impacts, or address the societal issues associated with unconventional natural gas development. 6. Include and report on safety improvements in the planning/demonstration of technologies,

emphasizing technologies that foster a culture of health/safety/environmental protection.



The program was divided into two phases. The majority of Phase I was a planning phase, focused on

identifying field trials for Phase II. Phase I was reviewed with the U.S. Department of Energy, Appendix

A.1, before Phase II was allowed to begin.

There were two distinct tasks also included in Phase I. First, there was an assessment of RPSEA Projects,

designated as Task 5.1, to identify potential RPSEA funded projects that may be requiring additional field

trials that could fit within the work scope of the EFD-TIP.

Secondly, there was a task (Task 5.3.1) performed by the University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology

to produce a comprehensive technology assessment report of the Eagle Ford Shale Play. This effort

covered the entire areal extent of the Eagle Ford area and included both surface and subsurface geological

analysis and water resources. Features include topography, fresh water, brackish ground water and other

features that impact natural gas development. Ground water zones were identified with an analysis on

the capacity of these zones to provide adequate water for drilling fluid and fracturing water make up.

Analysis on the subsurface area also indicated zones that are best candidates for disposal.

The majority of the EFD-TIP effort was focused on performing field trials of various technologies, Phase II.

In 2008 the EFD program had created a Technology Alliance between top tier Universities, U.S. DOE

National Laboratories and RPSEA.1 The purpose was to identify emerging technology and to develop

critical new technology in order to accelerate development of domestic reserves in a safe and

environmentally friendly manner. The TIP leveraged the successful EFD Technology Alliance to establish a

network of regional centers with the goals of:

1. Provide synergistic approach to common issues. 2. Enable local issues to be addressed by local experts. 3. Provide unbiased science concerning local, regional and national policies. 4. Establish field test sites to develop prototype technologies. 5. Perform case studies of applying technologies on a regional level. 6. Provide public, legislators and regulators

an opportunity to view technologies being applied in a safe manner.

The network of Regional Centers started with

two centers, West and East, as illustrated in in

Figure 1. Through a collaborative effort, the

Regional Centers in Phase II managed field

tests, identified new applied technologies,

identified technologies that had been

developed for other industries that have

application, and reached out to other funded

programs to form teams that integrated

1 http://sites.google.com/a/pe.tamu.edu/efd-alliance/Home

Figure 1. Initial Two Regional Test Centers.

http://sites.google.com/a/pe.tamu.edu/efd-alliance/Home



efforts with engineering issues coupled to production and environmental issues. In addition, each center

worked with regional alliances, such as the Regional University Alliance.

Work Breakdown Structure The work breakdown structure, given in Figure 2, was used to help guide and manage the EFD-TIP effort.

As work progressed through Phase II, the project team identified tasks related to Phase I activities. All

Field Test Activities (Task 6.0 of Phase II) related back to the field test plans of phase I (given within Tasks

5.3 and 5.4)

Tasks listed in 7.0 – Access to Data, relate back to Task 3.0 –Technology Transfer.

This Final Report is organized by the Work Breakdown Chart with modifications as discussed above.

Figure 2. EFD-TIP Work Breakdown Chart.



Performing and Tracking Field Trials

Safety of research personnel was the primary concern throughout the EFD-TIP field trial implementation

program. The driving principle was to ensure that all researchers returned home unharmed. Prior to

entering a field site with active oil and gas operations, all team members, as well as any visitors associated

with the EFD-TIP effort, must have taken both the basic Safeland USA (Onshore oil and gas safety

awareness) and H2S awareness training. When entering a site with active operations, the following

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was required:

1. Hard hat 2. Safety glasses 3. Hearing protection 4. Gloves 5. Flame Resistant Clothing 6. H2S detector 7. Steel toe boots

During active operations, all electronics had to be intrinsically safe. The principle behind intrinsic safety is

to ensure that the available electrical and thermal energy in the device is always low enough that ignition

of the explosive atmosphere cannot occur. This is achieved by ensuring that only low voltages and currents

enter the explosive area, and that no significant energy storage is possible. Devices that may considered

intrinsically unsafe include:

Smart Phones

Tablet PCs

Laptops These items were not allowed on an active site during EFD-TIP field trials.

In addition, operators typically required that all research members attend daily safety briefings during

active operations like drilling and completions. Also, research members went through specific operator

safety training and orientation.

The EFD-TIP teams developed specific safety briefing books for specific field trials and, as necessary,

performed table top exercises prior to deployment to ensure that all new responsibilities and the

importance of safety.

Different methods were used to track the field trials and the research members that were involved. The

team first started tracking the various field trials by each test. As illustrated in Figure 3, this proved to be

cumbersome as there were often multiple tests that occurred at the same field site.



To simplify the tracking, a new methodology was developed, illustrated in Figure 4. Field test status and

plans were reviewed weekly by the EFD-TIP management team.

Figure 3. Tracking of EFD-TIP Field Tests: March 31, 2015.

Figure 4. Tracking of EFD-TIP Field Tests: October 1, 2015.



Assessment of RPSEA Projects (Task 5.1) The Gas Technology Institute (GTI) performed an initial assessment of all RPSEA funded projects that were

a part of the RPSEA Unconventional and Small Producers Programs. Work under this task was to include

a review of the status of technologies and techniques under development by RPSEA research teams and

identification of their data needs and field test requirements. Parallel to these efforts, GTI was to review

the state of the comparable technologies offered or being developed by the industry. In addition, GTI was

to contact the principal investigators of the relevant RPSEA projects for obtaining their desired data needs

and technology issues that may be included in the field experimentation plan.

GTI was unable to obtain the required information from many of the principal

investigators and many of those who responded were unable to provide the

details required for complete assessment of the proposed tests. Using the

Technology Readiness Scale developed by NASA (Figure 5), 22 technologies

ranking between TRL 1 and 9 were identified. Reviewing the available

information, the proposed tests fall in one of the two categories; i.e. 1)

testing of specific technologies from the EFD projects, and 2) field testing of

technologies from other RPSEA projects aiming at integration of results from

individual research efforts.

Appendices B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4 cover the GTI effort.

A second study was then performed, Appendix B.5, to more accurately evaluate the RPSEA projects. This

evaluation was performed by members of the EFD management team along with the RPSEA Onshore Vice

President. The summary of the evaluation is given in Table 1. Those in green were identified for further

review and discussed with the principal investigators. In blue are the projects identified that needed

further review. In grey are the projects that had insufficient information for further consideration and in

white are the projects that were eliminated.

Table 1. Evaluation of RPSEA Funded Onshore Projects.

Project Participants

Unconventional Resource - 2007 AWARDS

A Self-Teaching Expert System for the Analysis, Design and Prediction of Gas Production from Shales;

managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with Texas A&M University; University of Houston; University of California at Berkeley; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Southwestern Energy

Gas Production Forecasting from Tight Gas Reservoirs: Integrating Natural Fracture Networks and Hydraulic Fractures

managed by The University of Utah with Utah Geological Survey; Golder Associates; Utah State University; HC Itasca; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Wind River Resources Corporation

Improved Reservoir Access Through Re-fracture Treatments in Tight Gas Sands and Gas Shales

managed by The University of Texas at Austin with Noble Energy, Inc.; BJ Services Company; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Jones Energy; Pinnacle Technologies

New Albany Shale Gas

managed by Gas Technology Institute with Amherst College; University of Massachusetts; ResTech; Texas A&M University; Pinnacle Technologies; West Virginia University; Texas Bureau of Economic Geology; Aurora Energy; CNX Gas; Diversified Operating Corporation; Noble Energy, Inc.; Trendwell Mid-Con Corporation; BreitBurn Energy;

Figure 5. Technology Readiness Scale.




Paleozoic Shale-Gas Resources of the Colorado Plateau and Eastern Great Basin, Utah: Multiple Frontier Exploration Opportunities

managed by Utah Geological Survey with Bereskin and Associates; GeoX Consulting; Halliburton Energy Services; Shell International Exploration & Production; Sinclair Oil & Gas; Encana Corporation; Bill Barrett Corporation; CrownCrest Operating Resources;

Petrophysical Studies of Unconventional Gas Reservoirs Using High-Resolution Rock Imaging

managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with Schlumberger Limited; BP America, Inc.; and Chevron Corporation

Advanced Hydraulic Fracturing Technology for Unconventional Tight Gas Reservoirs

managed by Texas A&M University with CARBO Ceramics; Schlumberger Limited; Halliburton Energy Services; BJ Services Company

Application of Natural Gas Composition to Modeling Communication Within and Filling of Large Tight-Gas-Sand Reservoirs, Rocky Mountains

managed by Colorado School of Mines with U.S. Geological Survey; The University of Oklahoma; The University of Manchester; Fluid Inclusion Technology; Permedia Research Group; Williams Exploration and Production; ConocoPhillips Company; ExxonMobil Corporation; Newfield Exploration; BP America, Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Encana Corporation; Bill Barrett Corporation

Biogeochemical Factors Enhancing Microbially Generated Methane in Coalbeds

managed by Colorado School of Mines with The University of Wyoming; U.S. Geological Survey; Pioneer Natural Resources; Pinnacle Gas Resources; Coleman Oil and Gas; Ciris Energy

Enhancing Appalachian Coalbed Methane Extraction by Microwave-Induced Fractures

managed by; The Pennsylvania State University with Nottingham University

Novel Concepts for Unconventional Gas Development in Shales, Tight Sands and Coalbeds

managed by Carter Technologies with The University of Oklahoma; University of Houston; MI-LLC

Optimization of Infill Well Locations in Wamsutter Field;

managed by The University of Tulsa with Texas A&M University; Devon Energy Corporation;

An Integrated Framework for the Treatment and Management of Produced Water

managed by Colorado School of Mines with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants; Argonne National Laboratory; Stratus Consulting; Eltron Research and Development; Chevron Corporation; Pioneer Natural Resources; Marathon Oil Company; Triangle Petroleum; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; Awwa Research Foundation; Stewart Environmental Consultants; Southern Nevada Water Authority; Veolia Water, Hydration Technologies; Petroglyph Operating

Gas Condensate Productivity in Tight Gas Sands managed by; Stanford University

Geological Foundation for Production of Natural Gas from Diverse Shale Formations

managed by Geological Survey of Alabama

Improvement of Fracturing for Gas Shales managed by The University of Texas at Austin with Daneshy Consultants; BJ Services Company

Novel Fluids for Gas Productivity Enhancement in Tight Formations

managed by The University of Tulsa with Williams Exploration & Production

Optimizing Development Strategies to Increase Reserves in Unconventional Gas Reservoirs;

managed by Texas A&M University with Unconventional Gas Resources Canada Operating, Inc.; Pioneer Natural Resources Company

Reservoir Connectivity & Stimulating Gas Flow in Tight Sands

managed by Colorado School of Mines with The University of Colorado; Mesa State University; iReservoir; Bill Barrett Corporation; Noble Energy, Inc.; Whiting Petroleum Corporation; ConocoPhillips Company

Unconventional Resources - 2008 AWARDS

Barnett and Appalachian Shale Water Management and Reuse Technologies

managed by Gas Technology Institute with The University of Texas at Austin/Bureau of Economic Geology; Texerra; GeoPure Water Technologies, LLC; Barnett Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee; Appalachian Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee

The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program

managed by Houston Advanced Research Center with Texas A&M University; Sam Houston State University; University of Arkansas; University of Colorado; Utah State University; University of Wyoming; West Virginia University, Argonne National Laboratory; Los Alamos National Laboratory; TerraPlatforms LLC; the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Joint Industry Partnership; The Nature Conservancy; Natural Resources Defense Council; New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

Pretreatment and Water Management for Frac Water Reuse and Salt Production

managed by GE Global Research with Southwest Resources Inc.

Multiazimuth Seismic Diffraction Imaging for Fracture Characterization in Low-Permeability Gas Formations

managed by The University of Texas at Austin/Bureau of Economic Geology with Bill Barrett Corporation

Evaluation of Fracture Systems and Stress Fields within the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale and Characterization of Associated Water Disposal Reservoirs: Appalachian Basin

managed by The University of Texas at Austin/Bureau of Economic Geology with University of Pittsburgh; Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Jeter Field Service; RARE Technology; AscendGeo; AOA Geophysics Inc.; Austin Powder Company; Seismic Source Company




Novel Gas Isotope Interpretation Tools to Optimize Gas Shale Production

managed by California Institute of Technology with Devon Energy Corporation; BJ Services Company; GeoIsoChem, Inc.;

Stratigraphic Controls on Higher-Than-Average Permeability Zones in Tight-Gas Sands in the Piceance Basin

managed by Colorado School of Mines

Coupled Flow-Geomechanical-Geophysical-Geochemical (F3G) Analysis of Tight Gas Production

managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with Texas A&M University; Stanford University; Baker Hughes Incorporated; Unconventional Gas Resources

Sustaining Fracture Area and Conductivity of Gas Shale Reservoirs for Enhancing Long-Term Production and Recovery

managed by Texas A&M University with TerraTek; Devon Energy Corporation; Encana Corporation; Pennsylvania General Energy Co


Prediction of Fault Reactivation in Hydraulic Fracturing of Horizontal Wells in Shale Gas Reservoirs

managed by West Virginia University with Range Resources Corporation; Appalachian, LLC

Cretaceous Mancos Shale Uinta Basin, Utah: Resource Potential and Best Practices for an Emerging Shale Gas Play

managed by Utah Geological Survey with The University of Utah; Halliburton Energy Services

Characterizing Stimulation Domains for Improved Well Completions in Gas Shales

managed by HIGGS-PALMER Technologies, LLC with Aetman Engineering; PCM Technical, Inc.; Southwestern Energy Company;

Simulation of Shale Gas Reservoirs Incorporating Appropriate Pore Geometry and the Correct Physics of Capillarity and Fluid Transport;

managed by The University of Oklahoma with BP America, Inc.; Chesapeake Energy Corporation; EXCO Resources, Inc.; Newfield Exploration Co.; Total E&P Research & Technology, LLC; Computer Modeling Group, Ltd.

Improved Drilling and Fracturing Fluids for Shale Gas Reservoirs;

managed by The University of Texas at Austin with ConocoPhillips Company; Chevron Energy Technology Company; M-I SWACO

Gas Well Pressure Drop Prediction Under Foam Flow Conditions

managed by The University of Tulsa with Marathon Oil Corporation; Chevron Corporation

Marcellus Gas Shale Project managed by Gas Technology Institute with The Pennsylvania State University; West Virginia University; The University of Texas at Austin/Bureau of Economic Geology; Pinnacle Technologies, Inc.; ResTech, Inc.

Integrated Experimental and Modeling Approaches to Studying the Fracture-Matrix Interaction in Gas Recovery from Barnett Shale

managed by The University of Texas at Arlington with Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.

Using Single-Molecule Imaging System Combined with Nano-Fluidic Chips to Understand Fluid Flow in Tight and Shale Gas Formation

managed by Missouri University of Science and Technology with Colorado School of Mines; BJ Services Company; HESS Corporation

A Geomechanical Model for Gas Shales Based on the Integration of Stress Measurements and Petrophysical Data from the Greater Marcellus Gas System

managed by The Pennsylvania State University with Chesapeake Energy Corporation; Schlumberger Limited; Range Resources Corporation


Technology Integration Program managed by Houston Advanced Research Center

Lowering Drilling Cost, Improving Operational Safety, and Reducing Environmental Impact Through Zonal Isolation Improvements for Horizontal Wells Drilled in the Marcellus and Haynesville Shales;

managed by CSI Technologies, Inc. with Chesapeake Energy Corporation; University of Houston

Novel Engineered Osmosis Technology: A Comprehensive Approach to the Treatment and Reuse of Produced Water and Drilling Wastewater

managed by Colorado School of Mines with Hydration Technology Innovations, LLC; Bear Creek Services, LLC; Pinnacle Operating Company, Inc.; MS Energy Services; Penn Virginia Oil & Gas Corporation

NORM Mitigation and Clean Water Recovery from Marcellus Frac Water

managed by GE Global Research with Endicott Interconnect Technologies; Inflection Energy LLC; Piceance Natural Gas, Inc.; Stearns & Wheeler, LLC

Development of Non-Contaminating Cryogenic Fracturing Technology for Shale and Tight Gas Reservoirs

managed by Colorado School of Mines with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Pioneer Natural Resources Company; CARBO Ceramics, Inc.

A Geomechanical Analysis of Gas Shale Fracturing and Its Containment

managed by Texas A&M University with Shell International Exploration & Production; Matador Resources; TerraTek, A Schlumberger Company; Apex HiPoint, LLC

Diagnosis of Multiple Fracture Stimulation in Horizontal Wells by Downhole Temperature Measurement for Unconventional Oil and Gas Wells

managed by Texas A&M University with Hess Corporation; Shell International Exploration & Production




Predicting Higher-Than-Average Permeability Zones in Tight-Gas Sands, Piceance Basin: An Integrated Structural and Stratigraphic Analysis

managed by Colorado School of Mines with Bill Barrett Corporation; Williams Exploration & Production


15 Unconventional Resource Projects Recently Approved.

These Projects are Undergoing Review and Discussions to Determine Potential for Field Testing.

Not Included in Numbers Above.

Small Producer Program - 2007 AWARDS

Cost-Effective Treatment of Produced Water Using Co-Produced Energy Sources for Small Producers

managed by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology with Robert L. Bayless, Producer, LLC; Harvard Petroleum Company

Low Impact Oil Field Access Roads: Reducing the Footprint in Desert Ecosystems

managed by Texas A&M University with Rio Vista Bluff Ranch; Halliburton Energy Services

Near Miscible CO Application to Improve Oil Recovery for Small Producers

managed by The University of Kansas with Carmen Schmitt

Enhancing Oil Recovery from Mature Reservoirs Using Radial- Jetted Laterals and High-Volume Progressive Cavity Pumps

managed by The University of Kansas with Kansas Geological Survey; American Energies Corporation

Seismic Stimulation to Enhance Oil Recovery managed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory with U.S. Oil & Gas Corporation; Berkeley GeoImaging Resources

Reducing Impacts of New Pit Rules on Small Producers

managed by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology with Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico; New Mexico Oil Conservation Division

Preformed Particle Gels for Mitigating Water Production and Extending the Life of Mature Oil Wells and Further Improve Particle Gel Technology

managed by Missouri University of Science and Technology with ChemEOR Company; BJ Services Company

Small Producer - 2008 AWARDS

Electrical Power Generation from Produced Water: Field Demonstration of Ways to Reduce Operating Costs of Small Producers

managed by Gulf Coast Green Energy with Denbury Resources; ElectraTherm Inc.; Dry Coolers Inc.; Southern Methodist University; Texas A&M University (GPRI)

Commercial Exploitation and the Origin of Residual Oil Zones: Developing a Case History in the Permian Basin of New Mexico and West Texas

managed by The University of Texas of the Permian Basin with Chevron Corporation; Yates Petroleum Corporation; Legado Resources, LLC

Evaluation and Modeling of Stratigraphic Control on the Distribution of Hydrothermal Dolomite Reservoir Away from Major Fault Planes

managed by Western Michigan University with Polaris Energy Company

Development Strategies for Maximizing East Texas Oil Field Production

managed by The University of Texas at Austin/Bureau of Economic Geology with Danmark Energy L.P. and John Linder Operating Co., LLC

Field Demonstration of Alkaline Surfactant Polymer Floods in Mature Oil Reservoirs, Brookshire Dome, Texas

managed by Layline Petroleum 1, LLC with Tiorco, LLC; The University of Texas at Austin

Mini-Waterflood: A New Cost Effective Approach to Extend the Economic Life of Small, Mature Oil Reservoirs;

managed by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology with Armstrong Energy Corporation


Field Testing and Diagnostics of Radial-Jet Well-Stimulation for Enhanced Oil Recovery from Marginal Reserves

managed by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology with Well Enhancement Service; Harvard Petroleum Company

Treatment and Beneficial Reuse of Produced Waters Using a Novel Pervaporation-Based Irrigation Technology

managed by University of Wyoming with Imperial College London; WyoTex Ventures, LLC; Design Technology & Irrigation Ltd.

Enhanced Oil Recovery from the Bakken Shale Using Surfactant Imbibition Coupled with Gravity Drainage

managed by The University of North Dakota with North Dakota Industrial Commission; TIORCO, LLC; Champion Technologies, Inc.; HESS Corporation

Creating Fractures Past Damage More Effectively with Less Environmental Damage

managed by DaniMer Scientific, LLC with CSI Technologies Inc.; Texas A&M University; Ampak Oil Company; Burleson Cooke L.L.P.

Green Oil™ CO2 -Enhanced Oil Recovery for America’s Small Oil Producers;

managed by Pioneer Astronautics with Pioneer Energy, Inc.; J&L Allen, Inc.; Carnegie Mellon University; American Power Ventures

Characterization of Potential Sites for Near Miscible CO2 Applications to Improve Oil Recovery in Arbuckle Reservoirs

managed by The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc. with Kansas Geological Survey; Carmen Schmitt Inc.





Game Changing Technology of Polymeric-Surfactants for Tertiary Oil Recovery in the Illinois Basin;

managed by Power Environmental Energy Research Institute (PEER Institute) with MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company

Identifying and Developing Technology for Enabling Small Producers to Pursue the Residual Oil Zone (ROZ) Fairways of the Permian Basin, San Andres

managed by The University of Texas of the Permian Basin with Timberline Oil & Gas Corporation; Legado Resources, LLC; ER Operating Company; Tabula Rasa Energy, LLC; Kinder Morgan, Inc.; Advanced Resources International, Inc.; Applied Petroleum Technology Academy; University of Houston; Melzer Consulting; Petroleum Technology Transfer Council


Cost-Effective Treatment of Produced Water Using Co-Produced Energy Sources Phase II: Field Scale Demonstration and Commercialization

managed by New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology with Harvard Petroleum Corporation, LLC

Field Demonstration of Eco-Friendly Creation of Propped Hydraulic Fractures

managed by DaniMer Scientific, LLC with CSI Technologies, LLC; Texas A&M University; EnerPol, LLC; Petroleum Technology Transfer Council; Ampak Oil Company

Field Demonstration of Chemical Flooding of the Trembley Oilfield, Reno County, Kansas

managed by The University of Kansas Center for Research with Berexco, LLC; SNF Holding Company; Huntsman Petrochemical, Corp.; EOGA IOR Services, LLC; Tracer Technologies International, Inc.

Hybrid Rotor Compression for Multiphase and Liquids-Rich Wellhead Production Applications

managed by OsComp Systems, Inc. with Red River Compression

Study and Pilot Test of Preformed Particle Gel Conformance Control Combined with Surfactant Treatment

managed by Missouri University of Science and Technology with Blue Top Energy, LLC; Colt Energy, LLC; TMD Energy; Baker Hughes Incorporated

Basin-Scale Produced Water Management Tools and Options – GIS Based Models and Statistical Analysis of Shale Gas/Tight Sand Reservoirs and Their Produced Water Streams, Uinta Basin, Utah

managed by Utah Geological Survey with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; El Paso Exploration & Production Company; EOG Resources, Inc.; QEP Resources, Inc.; XTO Energy, Inc.; Wind River Resources,

Upstream Ultrasonic Processing for Small Producers: Preventative Maintenance for Paraffin Management in Production Tubing Using Non-Invasive Ultrasonic Technology

managed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory with Falcon Exploration, Inc.; Baker Hughes Incorporated

Water Management in Mature Oil Fields Using Advanced Particle Gels

managed by The University of Texas at Austin with Missouri University of Science and Technology; Legacy Reserves LP; Hilcorp Energy Company

Reduction of Uncertainty in Surfactant-Flooding Pilot Design Using Multiple Single Well Tests, Fingerprinting, and Modeling

managed by The University of Oklahoma with Mid-Con Energy Operating Company, Inc.; Mid-Con Energy III, LLC

In addition, EFD management then used the University of Tulsa Abstracts to conduct a literature search

of emerging technology that meets the goals of the EFD-TIP effort. The Tulsa literature search (given in

Appendix B.6) did not find any candidates for including in the EFD-TIP plans; it did, however, identify best

practices and commercial technologies that were considered by the research team. To complete a

thorough review, the EFD management reviewed all NETL research ongoing at the time (Appendix B.7).

Based on the assessment, one project rose to the top. This was the 2008 RPSEA Small Producer Project:

Electrical Power Generation from Produced Water: Field Demonstration of Ways to Reduce Operating

Costs of Small Producers, managed by Gulf Coast Green Energy. The EFD-TIP management team

recognized that the technology used in this project may have potential application in flare mitigation. A

project plan was developed and a field trial, discussed in Air Quality (Task 5.3.6), was performed.



EFD West Regional Center Field Tests (Task 5.3) The EFD-TIP created an organizational structure that included two regional centers (West and East) that

facilitated and coordinated field deployment of technologies and documented effectiveness of field

operations. The West Regional Center was managed by the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural

Resources. The East Regional Center will be discussed in Task 5.4 in this document. The West Regional

Center managed field tests, documented results, transferred technologies, identified new applied

technologies and reached out to other funded programs so that efforts could be integrated, focusing on

the United States, west of the Mississippi River.

The West Regional Center (WRC) goals were to:

1. Provide synergistic approach to common issues. 2. Enable local issues to be addressed by local experts. 3. Provide unbiased science to local policies. 4. Establish field test sites to develop prototype technologies. 5. Perform case studies of applying technologies on a regional level. 6. Provide public, legislators and regulators an opportunity to view technologies in action in a safe

manner.

Field tests were documented in various case studies which are located in Appendix C of this document.

Field trials included lower impact oil and gas lease roads, low-cost water test kits, soil sampling, and

different air monitoring technologies.

Eagle Ford Characterization (Task 5.3.1) One of the most active shale plays in the US, and, one of the focus areas of the EFD-TIP, is the Eagle Ford

in Southwest Texas. This area is arid and fresh water is a premium. TIP phase 1 conducted a study with

the Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas (BEG) to identify sources for water used in hydraulic

fracturing operations. The BEG Report and Executive Summary are given in Appendix D.

Research Activities Overview A study was performed to provide an overview of geological characteristics of formations in the footprint

of the South Texas Eagle Ford Shale play with a focus on water. The ~25-county Eagle Ford play has seen

a dramatic development in the past few years and it keeps expanding to additional counties towards the

north of the play. However, the Eagle Ford area is not new to oil and gas exploration and production. At

least 110,000 wells, not including the ~5000 Eagle Ford wells (as of March 2013), has been drilled in the

Eagle Ford footprint during the past century, many of them still active. The Eagle Ford shale is actually a

source rock and has supplied oil and gas reservoirs such as the Big Well and Pearsall fields and the very

large Giddings field. Despite the fact that most of the Eagle Ford lies in rural areas, several large cities (San

Antonio, Laredo) are located at its edges. The document focuses on those two key aspects of hydraulic

fracturing (HF): water use and water disposal. The South Texas location of the play with its scarcity of

surface water resources exacerbates perceived conflicts with other water users.



The large depth of the folded Paleozoic basement below the Eagle Ford (>15,000 ft) allows for a thick

sediment sequence of Jurassic and younger age. The Eagle Ford shale is positioned towards the middle of

the sequence (~4000 to 11,000 ft deep) leaving many formations between it and the ground surface,

particularly the thick Midway Clay, and providing several horizons for disposal of fluids. Its thickness varies

from ~100 ft East of Austin to >500 ft at the Mexican border. The sedimentary sequence is initially

carbonate-rich with platform carbonate formations such as the Edwards or Glenrose formations or the

Austin Chalk, including the Eagle Ford which is a carbonate mudrock. Toward the end of the Cretaceous

the succession turned siliciclastic with alternating sandstones and claystones deposited in mostly fluvial

and/or deltaic environments. Some of the sand-rich intervals of the succession compose the fresh water

aquifers in the Eagle Ford footprint such as the Carrizo aquifer and other aquifers of lesser water quality

such as the Wilcox and Yegua-Jackson aquifers. Shallow subsurface water tends to be brackish outside of

the outcrop area and of the Carrizo aquifer.

Water use was ~24 thousand acre-feet (AF) in the Eagle Ford play in 2011. In the same year, the top HF

users in the Eagle Ford consist of Webb (4.6 kAF), Karnes (3.9 kAF), Dimmit (3.7 kAF), and La Salle (2.9 kAF)

counties. Although overall water use has increased, water use per well has decreased. The change is

related to the switch by most operating companies from the gas to oil and condensate windows and the

use of gelled rather than slick-water HF jobs. Currently operators recycle very little of the flowback /

produced water but use brackish water (likely in the vicinity of 20% of total water use). One reason why

recycling is minor to negligible is that flowback volumes are far from providing enough water for a

subsequent HF operation, especially at early times. The median well produces ~25% of the injected

volume after 6 months and ~40% and plateauing after 1 year. Flowback / produced water is actually

disposed of in injection wells. Approximately 2500 Class II injection wells were active at least part of one

year during the 2008-2012 period. Many are related to waterflood operations not disposal. Preferred

horizons for disposal are the formations of the Navarro-Taylor Groups in the Maverick Basin, a multi-

county area next to the Mexican border as well as the Wilcox and Edwards formations.

Accomplishments South Texas has been the focus of oil and gas exploration for decades and its geology is relatively well-

known. Many publications, peer-reviewed papers and reports, have been produced in the same time

interval. The work carried out by the research team included the following:

General description of the stratigraphic column in the footprint of the Eagle Ford in terms of nature of the sediments, their depositional environment, and likely groundwater flow behavior. The work will not entail well-correlation efforts specific to the study.

Description of water-bearing zones: alluvial aquifers if any of significance (fresh water), Carrizo Fm. (mostly fresh water), Wilcox/Indio, Queen City/Bigford, and Yegua-Jackson Fms. (mostly brackish), in particular in terms of capacity, salinity, and yield. Rely on published data (BEG, TCEQ, TWDB, USGS) and other data possibly available to us (operators, etc.). GIS mapping of aquifers footprint and other attributes if relevant such as pump tests results. We will not undertake a specific study of geophysical logs to map salinity isolines.

GIS-mapping of water samples showing likely formation, depth, salinity, ionic makeup, their use (domestic, municipal, irrigation, hydraulic fracturing) if known.



GIS mapping of all oil and gas wells in the Eagle Ford with available attributes

GIS mapping of disposal wells with available attributes

An ArcGIS data file is provided with the report, presented in Appendix D.3.

Benefits to Producers Two of the EFD sponsors, Statoil and Pioneer, used the data in these reports throughout their operations

to reduce or eliminate their dependence upon fresh water. The information has also been provided to the

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Water Development Board, United States

Geographical Survey, service companies and many other operators.

An April 5, 2014 article in the Houston Chronicle “Water recycling companies getting a foothold in the

Eagle Ford” references the EFD BEG study and documents the increased recycling use in that region.

Field Trial Sites (Task 5.3.2) The EFD-TIP program placed emphasis on planning and implementing field testing of new technologies in

order to demonstrate technology that may reduce the environmental footprint of oil and goas operations.

The network of industry sponsors and advisors that the EFD team has been able to establish, nurture and

maintain provided the opportunity for the EFD-TIP research team to work with operators to select and

discuss the testing of various processes and technologies at the operators’ locations. The solid track record

of the EFD research team of providing unbiased science, coupled with the excellent safety record and

standards maintained by the EFD team, enabled industry to have a high level of trust that the researchers

will work side-by-side with their operations in reaching common goals of safety and environmental

awareness.

Figure 6 illustrates the diversity of locations of the various field trials that were a part of the EFD-TIP effort.

Figure 6. EFD-TIP Field Test Sites.



Water Management Strategy Support (Task 5.3.3) This project has identified new technology that can significantly improve the economics of produced

water management for unconventional recovery operations. We have identified new types of filtration

techniques that remove suspended solids in brines and demonstrated new instrumentation for detecting

organic materials and microbial activity in produced water.

In the oil and gas industry, standard water management operations include handling large volumes of

water, both fresh water and brine water. Well completions including fracturing operations use very large

amounts of water, some of which may be fresh water when injected downhole, but are mixed with

formation fluids when flowing back to the surface. Production operations use produced brine to enhance

petroleum production and maintain reservoir pressure. Different well operations require different water

management strategies to minimize waste and to protect the environment. Generally water needs and

issues can be grouped into two categories, drilling and completion including stimulation (fracturing)

operations and production operations.

The term “flowback” is used to describe fracturing fluids returning to the surface after subsurface

fracturing. Water produced from the formation itself is referred to as “produced water.” According to the

EPA, approximately 21 billion barrels of produced water is pumped to the surface per year in the United

States and approximately 91% of that water is injected back into the ground as wastewater. Oil companies

spend around $40 billion per year producing unwanted water which amounts to triple the amount of total

oil produced.

Recycled water for hydraulic fracturing fluid is becoming more of a need than a want as tougher

government regulations on water come into place and as oil & gas wells are drilled in areas prone to

drought. Along with the costs of obtaining fresh water for a well, the water produced alongside oil & gas,

called produced water, costs upwards of $8 per barrel but averages at around 0.8 cents per barrel2.

Depending on the distance to the disposal well, trucking or piping costs could result in disposal costs that

are a lot higher. Obtaining fresh water may also be expensive. The main sources to provide fresh water

for fracturing jobs are ponds, rivers, and aquifers which may be far away from drilling locations.

Recycled water for hydraulic fracturing is a strategic use as companies face growing costs of obtaining

water to be used for hydraulic fracturing and disposing of produced water. Up to 40% of the water used

to fracture a well is returned to the surface. This water often contains bacteria, hydrocarbons, heavy

metals, and solids. It takes between 70 billion and 140 billion gallons of water to fracture the current

35,000 wells a year3. Fresh water delivered to a drill site in the Bakken Shale is estimated to cost $5-$8

2 Creed, J.T.; Brockhoff, C.A.; Martin, T.D. 1994. Method 200.8. Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3 Frota, T.M.P.; Silva, D.R.; Aguiar, J.R.; Anjos, R.B.; Silva, I.K.V. 2013. Assessment of scale formation in the column of an oil and natural gas producing well: A case study. Brazilian Journal of Petroleum and Gas, 7(1): 15-29



per barrel of water4. Treating water from North American oil and gas wells was a $2.5 Billion industry in

2010. There were more than 7 Billion barrels of water produced in Texas with approximately 3% of that

water recycled. The remaining 97% was either disposed of or pumped back into the reservoir for pressure

maintenance.

When water is available, it is often difficult to know whether the water is of acceptable quality. Two

processes, slick water and cross-linked gels, account for over 75% of fracturing systems used5 and each

“frac chemical” package is sensitive to water content. “Communal” water sources make proper fluid make

up even more of a problem.

Rapid and accurate determination of brine water content is the key to effective fluid design. When water

contaminant details are known and an evaluation of whether or not the water can be used for hydraulic

fracturing has been completed, several things can be done with the water. The water can be used directly

in making new frac fluid if it is clean enough. If it is not clean enough, it can either be diluted with fresh

water until it meets quality standards or it can be filtered through a membrane, or both. Some companies

have found uses for produced water such as to produce soda ash or to extract heavy metals.

Currently, most of the produced water generated from oil and gas extraction activities is re-injected into

deep water disposal wells. Selecting a process for treating the water on site, and either recycling it in

hydraulic fracturing operations or using it for other commercial purposes in the area, would be of great

benefit, both to the industry and to the community. Recycling water must involve cost-effective treatment

in order to achieve suitable re-use standards. The technologies evaluated in this research allow water to

be treated on site to a quality commensurate with its intended re-use application. Using a combination of

pre-treatment and subsequent membrane filtration processes together creates a viable cost-effective re-

use alternative to simply injecting produced water back into the ground.

Rapid field evaluation of the chemical characteristics of fluids associated with hydraulic fracturing is also

critical to developing effective treatment and cost-effective disposal options. Accurate and timely analysis

of field fluids at any point in the treatment train allow oil and gas operators to meet environmental

reporting requirements for fracturing fluids and effectively manage and treat flowback and produced

water. Having real-time field site results for water quality enables more effective water treatment process

trains to be designed and demonstrated.

Appendix E contains the various reports generated by the water management strategy research team.

Research Activities Overview The EFD-TIP Team performed research to identify reliable and cost-effective pre-treatment

methodologies for use in processes employed to treat and re-use field-produced brine and hydraulic

4 Nasr-El-Din, H.A.; Fadhel, B.A.; Al-Humaidan, A.Y.; Frenier, W.W.; Hill, D. 2000. An experimental study of removing iron sulfide from well tubulars. Paper SPE-60205-MS presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, 26-27 January, Aberdeen, United Kingdom. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/60205-MS

5 Pfaff, J.D. 1993. Method 300.0 Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/60205-MS





fracturing flowback waters. The project aimed to develop a mobile, multifunctional water treatment

specifically for “pre-treatment” of field waste brine and conducted field tests of the technology. The Texas

A&M Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) Mobile Lab was used to test the various methodologies.

Demonstrations were conducted using a trailer mounted platform that allowed installation of multiple

types of purification techniques that are a necessary precursor to the most common methods of flow back

brine treatment, such as thermal desalination processes and membrane desalination techniques.

The objective was to evaluate treatment technologies for flowback and produced water from

unconventional gas operations. Treatment technologies, such as hollow tube microfiltration, ceramic

filters, and membranes were tested to evaluate removal efficiencies for total suspended solids (TSS).

Preliminary trials using these filtration technologies resulted in promising results: even after passing

16,000 gallons of brine through coated and uncoated membranes, no significant fouling was observed,

with no reduction in the throughput rate and pressure. Further, turbidity was significantly reduced after

application of these filtration technologies; for instance, at one site, turbidity decreased from 140 NTU to

values between 2 and 11 NTU.

Field trial demonstrations were performed at a centralized produced water collection and disposal facility

in 2014 followed by extended duration pilot plant tests in the northern extension of the Eagle Ford

development. A combination of oil removal, suspended solids removal, and scaling ions removal was used

to treat produced water and make it acceptable for re-use. The process technology for re-use was

monitored by analytical tests of water quality before, during, and after produced water treatment.

Identifying new analytical water technologies, has been the goal of this effort in order to develop a cost-

effective process train. Currently the A&M GPRI team is the only research group in the country with the

ability to conduct real-time analysis of various technologies in the field and to evaluate the commercial

viability of the testing process for this industry sector. Field trials performed during this project include

the following new technologies:

Free oil coalesce filter (hydrocarbon removal)

Self-cleaning hollow tube fiber micro-filtration (TSS removal)

Self-cleaning ceramic micro-filtration (TSS removal)

Self-cleaning fouling resistant capillary hollow fiber micro-filtration (TSS removal)

High performance nano-filtration (TDS removal)

Accomplishments The objectives of this project were to identify promising technology in the water resources related

research or development programs and to perform field trial under actual petroleum production

operations scenarios. This program showed effectiveness of new processes developed through federally

funded research. Additionally it has shown effectiveness by demonstrating the technology in field trials

performed in gas shale plays.



a. Advanced pre-treatment for removal of hydrocarbons

CETCO (used in Woodford Shale, Permian Basin trials, and Eaglebine pay trial)

b. Advanced pre-treatment for removal of suspended solids; Active Cleaning

Nanostone Micro-filtration (used in Permian Basin and Eaglebine Field trials)

Clean Membranes (used in Eaglebine extended duration Field trials)

c. Utilization of nanofilters to create “clean brine” (used in Permian Basin trial, Woodford Field

trial, and Eaglebine trials)

d. New advanced analytical technology for real time monitoring in the field (used in Riverside pilot

plant and all field trials)

Pilot Plant Trials

A&M’s Riverside campus lies adjacent to a number of different oil and gas operating leases with

production from the Buda, the Austin Chalk, and the Eaglebine formations. The Eaglebine is the northern

most extension of the Eagle Ford formation and has been actively developed in the past 5 years. The team

took advantage of the proximity of the leases and the numerous SWDs in the area to create a large scale

pilot plant. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the recent upgrade of the mobile facility to increase processing

from 20 b/d to 200 b/d. The site was instrumented to allow for 24-hour unattended filtration testing with

remote monitoring.

Figure 7. GPRI Mobile Laboratory.

Figure 8. Interior of Mobile Laboratory. Membrane filtration testing coupled with real-time microbiological analysis of filtered samples proved

that microbial contamination could be substantially reduced by either microfiltration or nanofiltration.

The pilot test served as a side by side comparison of different analytical techniques appropriate for field

operations.

Clean Membranes LLC Screening Tests

The goal of the test program was to process oil and gas wastewaters with minimum pretreatment while

using back pulsing (air) to keep fouling minimized while operating in the tangential flow filtration mode.

Testing involved three (3), polymeric, hollow fiber, UF – Ultrafiltration membranes. All membranes were

supplied by Clean Membranes and were flushed with reverse osmosis (R/O) water before processing to

remove the sanitizing solution. The MP4 Membrane Filtration skid had a feed flow rate to each membrane

of ~ 0.70 ml/min and the Alpha unit had a feed flow rate of 5.5 l/min and both units focused on reducing



TSS – Total Suspended Solids, free oil and TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Analytics include

monitoring hydrocarbon content in brine (TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids

(TDS).

This test was the first opportunity to test newly designed fouling resistant capillary hollow fiber

microfilters. The filtration system had active cleaning combined with fouling resistant polymeric filtration

material. Results of the filtration tests were good. Cleaning was limited to physical and no chemical

cleaning was conducted. However when the vendor attempted to scale up their equipment in order to

run extended duration trials with large volumes of brine, it was found that the control system failed before

any meaningful testing could be performed.

The membrane testing was conducted in concentration mode with the permeate stream being collected

in a separate tote. Air sparging (10 psi @ 2 minutes MP4 unit, Alpha Unit) was conducted periodically (30

minutes) to remove any fouling materials from the membrane surfaces. This initial back pulsing took the

fouling material to a separate “waste tank”. The air sparging assisted with recovery of flux during the

testing period. The concentration mode allows any oil to be separated from the feed stream and remain

in the concentrate stream, which then can be separated out and recovered for sale. The permeate stream

was low in TSS – Total Suspended Solids and oil and hydrocarbons.

Flux was improved at air sparging intervals. Data were recorded and plotted. Samples were collected for

analysis. Turbidity, Salinity, Conductivity, pH, Hardness, Iron, TOC – Total Organic Carbon and analysis by

a Horiba Aqualog were utilized during the testing by GPRI personnel. Additional analyses were conducted

for TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and TSS – Total Suspended Solids by Energy Labs of College

Station.

Microbial Removal Tests

Microbial activity in raw repurposed waters from oil and gas production operations is known to cause

enhanced corrosion and fouling in surface flow lines and storage facilities as well as causing “souring” in

the reservoir if left un-treated. For this reason, shale operators prefer to treat raw production waters with

biocides. However, field experience has shown most biocide treatments to be both expensive and

ineffective. Additionally, stability of treated water during storage has not yet been explored due to

difficulty in obtaining timely and accurate microbial levels. To solve this problem, A&M researchers

conducted a research study on Eaglebine Formation samples to find cost-effective and “field deployable”

analytical technologies for determining biological activity in high salinity contaminated brines.

Using the new screening tests, the team evaluated the efficiency of membrane filtration as a technique

to remove primary metabolites and microbiological activity. Figure 9 depicts the bench top ceramic

filtration unit used in a study of the effectiveness of membranes to remove metabolites from produced

water. The pilot plant’s main area allowed microfiltration and nanofiltration using small volumes of

produced water. Technicians utilized a combination of microfiltration and nanofiltration to determine if

the membrane treatment would remove microbiological materials. The test served as a proof of concept

for treating high biomass loads in oilfield water.



Figure 9. Small Scale Membrane Testing.

Ceramic microfiltration was used to remove suspended solids larger than 0.2 micron size. Following this

step, nanofiltration was used to remove colloidal material and remove remaining material. Microfiltration

and samples were collected on equipment shown above. Nanofiltration was carried out to determine

proof of concept for treating high biomass loads in oilfield water. Baseline sample for overnight storage

collected on the morning of the second day prior to MF unit start up.

Figure 10 shows microbial activity before and after each step in the filtration process. The Y axis

(“Bactiquant Value”) corresponds roughly to bacteria counts in colonies per ml. Results of testing show

that utilization of this new methodology in gas shale drilling and production should result in reduced costs

of production chemicals and longer lifetimes of field facilities.

Figure 10. Microbial Activity Study Findings.

Findings: • Microbial activity decreases

as water treatment intensifies.

• Continuous operation achieves higher percent of removal.

• Halting operation due to equipment failures during treatment will result in a lower percent of removal.

The GPRI group were invited to demonstrate membrane treatment of produced water during production

operations. Researchers used a membrane from Membrane Specialists, a Dow-spiral wound NF

membrane, and a Nano Stone ceramic MF membrane to carry out filtration. Membranes were fitted inside



a mobile filtration trailer and driven to the production site in Midland, TX. Analytical tests included TOC,

TSS, and TDS measurement. Additionally, microbial activity tests were run. Table 2 listed below

demonstrates microbial activity observed in both the feed and permeate waters during filtration

treatment.

Table 2. Microbial Activity During Membrane Filtration.

Sample Method of Analysis

Date/Time of Collection

SPB (CFU/ml)

APB (CFU/ml)

GHB (CFU/ml)

IRB (CFU/ml)

SRB (CFU/ml)

Raw Feed Commercial Lab

9/30/14 9:10 AM

66500 1500 <7000 1400 1200

MF Membrane Specialists Permeate

Commercial Lab

9/30/14 3:20 PM

<500 <100 <7000 <25 <200

NF Dow Spiral Wound Permeate

Commercial Lab

10/1/14 2:00 PM

<500 <100 <7000 <25 <200

The Eaglebine tests served as a good opportunity to test analytical techniques for microbial

contamination. With the opportunity to test for the presence of bacteria in water samples, technicians

were able to analyze fluids produced during the trial. Filtration treatment efficiently reduced biomass

levels in produced water. Using a two-stage filtration scheme with micro and nano filtration membranes,

a significant reduction of divalent ion species and of biological activity was observed in permeate waters.

Field Trials; Produced Water Characterization and Treatment

The GPRI team conducted a number of field trials to identify most effective technologies. Field trials

conducted in Phase I of the RPSEA Advanced Analytics Program utilized a number of different analytical

techniques with two separate types of membrane filtration. The experience provided a basis to select the

most effective techniques to employ in subsequent trials. In particular, trials in Tishomingo Oklahoma

were especially insightful.

Johnston County, OK

It is helpful to turn back to late 2013 as the GPRI water treatment team was evaluating new filtration

technologies. Membrane Specialists provided hollow tube microfiltration assemblies to test as TSS

removal agents. The filters performed well with little fouling observed. Permeate flow as a function of

gallons produced was slightly lower than expected but better than early microfilters tested previously.

Figure 11 shows performance of a dual set of microfilters during the trial. Permeate rates were

determined by flow meters and by time sample collection. Total permeate flow rate was approximately

0.5 gpm for both of the four ft. modules. The uncoated membrane gave slightly higher flux data. No

significant fouling was noted with either of the filters.



Figure 11. Hollow Tube Membrane Performance.

Information from this early trial is provided as a contrast to later field trials performed during the

Advanced Sensor project. For filter performance compare Figure 11 with Figure 12 showing the new

ceramic microfiltration modules from Nanostone. Performance is approximately twice as good as the

hollow tube filters with no fouling tendencies.

As water treatment process trains became more efficient, it became necessary to find new types of

sensors that could help to monitor performance. Several types of oil in water sensors were monitored as

well as testing begun to identify presence of microbial activity.

Permian Basin, Ector County, TX

This trial was performed during the fall of 2014, to demonstrate treatment of produced water from

Permian wells using a modified process train, which included ceramic microfiltration from Nanostone

Technology. The trial was set up at a salt water disposal well (SWD) which received brines from three

different well pads and a number of individual wells. The test included oil adsorbant and oil coalesce pre-

treatment and two types of membrane

micro-filtration membranes. Analytical

technology included TOC, TSS, and TDS

measurements along with special

techniques to measure microbial activity in

both untreated and treated brines.

The ceramic microfiltration filters were

designed to be cleaned automatically using

back pulses of permeate brine to remove

occluded foulant. Figure 12 shows a chart

summarizing that portion of the trial.

Figure 12. Nanofiltration Filter Performance Test.



Another major trial performed at this site was to test microbial activity present in the communal waters

of field operations. At the time of the trials, the most common field technique was to use Hach vials to

perform semi-quantitative analysis of the presence of microbial activity. Testing requires incubation of

field samples to determine biological activity. The results of the vial tests are shown in Table 3. Incubating

sample vials yielded results showing the presence of the most common and troublesome bacteria. The

sample vials need to be incubated for at least five days to determine possible presence of offending

biological activity. Five types of bacteria were tested as shown. Results show the presence of all five

common types of microbial contamination.

Table 3. Bacteria Tests for Field Trial in Permian Basin.

Benefits/Impacts to Producers

Hydraulic fracturing technology costs can be significantly reduced if produced brines or brackish water

are used as make up brine for oil and gas operations. Numerous studies have shown that such waters are

pre-treated before mixing with fracturing fluid chemicals. Rapid field evaluation of the chemical

characteristics of waste water associated with hydraulic fracturing is critical to developing effective

treatment and cost-effective disposal options. Accurate and timely analysis of field fluids at any point in

the treatment train is a necessary step if oil and gas operators are to meet new environmental reporting

requirements for fracturing fluids and effectively manage and treat flowback and produced water.

Remaining Knowledge Gaps 1. Technologies effectiveness (performance and cost) for larger volumes of brine

2. Can this water treatment technology for recycling and re-use help other industries address

water issues?

Possible Next Steps GPRI has contracted with an Eaglebine salt water disposal well operator to set up pilot trial facilities at the

disposal well facility. Planning is underway to identify a list of technical support functions that would be

available for such trial by potential vendors of water treatment technology.

GPRI is in discussions with Texas A&M’s Municipal Water Research Group and with the Texas Water

Resources Institute to develop comprehensive water management services for the new 18000 acre A&M

research campus. This would be a real-life “test site” for 21st century “smart infrastructure” for

communities. It would be a research facility to identify best available technology for recycling and re-use

of:

Feed Sample 9/30/2014

Bacteria Tested For Incubation Dates

10/1/2014 10/2/2014 10/3/2014 10/6/2014

Sulfate Reducing No No Yes Yes

Slime Forming Yes Yes Yes Yes

Heterotrophic Aerobic Yes Yes Yes Yes

Acid Producing No Yes Yes Yes

Iron Reducing Yes Yes Yes Yes



a. Oil field produced water

b. Brackish ground water desalination and use for potable consumption

c. Geothermal brine processing

d. Municipal waste water re-use

The GPRI, in partnership with TEES, has launched a new project in produced water management modeling.

This project seeks to address uncertainties associated with produced water treatment, specifically mobile

versus centralized strategies, by combining engineering expertise with practical economic analysis. While

several produced water treatment models (i.e. spreadsheets and computer programs) were developed in

the past two decades, these tools are either outdated, discontinued or proprietary, and none provide any

comparison of mobile and centralized treatment that is documented in literature.

Initially, this project will focus on membrane filtration. However, model configuration will allow for future

treatment/phase-separation expansion. The model will be Microsoft Excel spreadsheet based and consist

of two modules. The first is the treatment cost calculator. This will calculate capital, operating and

maintenance costs for both mobile and centralized plants. A database of membrane information for

various manufacturers will minimize user input. The second module is the cost-benefit analyzer. This

module will take into consideration the number of wells and average distances, such as, between well-

and-treatment plant, well-and-SWD, and well-and-water source. From this information, SWD injection

will serve as a baseline to evaluate mobile and centralized costs while taking into account possible

benefits. An example benefit is removing truck traffic and road wear-and-tear for centralized treatment.

Upon completion, a sensitivity analysis will determine the extent of influence that certain variables have

on the economics of both treatment strategies. A site study will then provide an actual comparison

scenario given field data input. The final outcome of this project is to improve the understanding of and

document the conditions that make mobile and centralized produced water treatment economically

viable.

Drilling and Completion Operations (Task 5.3.4) The EFD-TIP program conducted studies on advances made in the drilling and completion phases of oil

and gas development. Some of the technologies investigated were power sources that are more efficient

and require less fuel, engines designed and/or purported to produce fewer emissions, as well as EFD Team

reviews/evaluations of best practices. Regulators, land owners and managers need to be informed on

these advantages and options. The TIP demonstrated what is possible, the cost effectiveness and

environmental benefits of several of these advances.

Data was documented from numerous field trials. The following highlights summarize the efforts managed by the EFD West Regional Center. The full reports are located in Appendix F of this document.



Research Activities Overview – Emissions from Hydraulic Fracturing Engines, Dual-Fuel Research (Task 5.3.4.1) This research looked at emissions and economic characteristics of dual-fuel, high-horsepower engines

used in hydraulic fracturing applications. The EFD Team tested four different pump engines.

Measurements of NOx, soot and other gaseous compounds including non-combusted methane were

collected over progressive engine loads.

Accomplishments

Determined emission differences between hydraulic fracturing engines powered by diesel and engines

powered with natural gas/diesel dual fuel.

Key finding: Non-combusted Methane is up to 30% of total natural gas fuel supply under high substitution

rate, reduces fuel economy.

Article on research featured in IADC May/June 2016 magazine (Appendix F.1.1).

Remaining Knowledge Gaps

Evaluation of other drilling and/or completions equipment may provide insight into emission factors in

various conditions (horse power, loads, meteorological conditions, etc.).

Possible Next Steps

Natural gas dual fuel engine does not have clear advantages in emissions compared with diesel, further

studies are needed. Possible improvements in exhaust aftertreatment, combustion chamber design, and

engine control logic may reduce non-combusted methane, thereby improving fuel economy and reducing

greenhouse gas emissions.

An intrinsically safe enclosure (EFD I-Box) was developed to house the emissions analyzers and related

electronics to ensure data can be collected safely and accurately at active drilling or hydraulic fracturing

locations.

Two EFD operator sponsors have requested field trials on active sites, using the EFD I-Box.

Research Activities Overview – Powered by Natural Gas (PbNG) (Task 5.3.4.2) The EFD team initiated a project in 2014 to investigate the use of natural gas as a primary fuel for

equipment used in drilling and fracturing operations. The objective was to determine how natural gas may

be used in operations to reduce emissions and fuel costs, holistically evaluating technologies for power

and fueling with respect to overall environmental benefit.

As the reality of America’s natural gas age comes into view, it seems fitting that more of the equipment

used to free that gas will also be powered by it. As a cleaner fuel, natural gas offers the promise of

reducing emissions, site footprint and cost.



Operators and service companies are seeking answers even as the questions change. The solutions for

the near term may not be the best fit with the ultimate vision of all-gas power for drilling and hydraulic

fracturing. Understanding the state of development for these technologies can inform decisions about

investment in the near and longer term.

Together with our partners in industry and academia, EFD began exploring the important issues around

natural gas fuel. Technologies that will advance dual-fuel diesels and deliver turbine-electric power are

being configured and deployed in new ways to make natural gas the fuel of choice for shale

development. Purveyors of equipment are innovating to improve and adapt their technologies.

Accomplishments

A series of papers were developed and published: Basics of Natural Gas Power and Fuel (Appendix F.2.1),

Diesel Displacement/Dual Fuel & Bi-Fuel (Appendix F.2.2), and The Path to Dual Fuel Conversion (Appendix

F.2.3).

Calculators were developed and are available on the EFD Systems website, one for using LNG and one for

using CNG for drilling.

Several workshops were held, including demonstrations of equipment.


Use of field gas on site in other applications possibilities (man camps, security equipment, etc.). More

comprehensive characterization of life cycle costs, risks and benefits associated with the use of field gas

and related power systems.

Possible Next Steps

Optimizing dual fuel and dedicated gas reciprocating engines with respect to combustion efficiency, fuel

economy and emissions reductions still holds great potential. There is also industry interest in moving

toward greater electrification of operations to further reduce emissions and integrate automation in new

ways. Electric power from on-site or localized turbine generation and microgrid distribution can be fueled

with field gas, thereby eliminating the inputs, costs and impacts of gathering, processing and transporting

fuel to operating locations. Further investigation and development of turbine generation, fuel

conditioning, power distribution, and evolving automation concepts will drive optimization of these

systems. Barriers to interconnection arising from policy and utility structure must also be addressed in

order to more fully realize the potential for improved environmental and economic performance through

gas-powered electrification.

Research Activities Overview – EFD Scorecard (Task 5.3.4.3)

An environmental scorecard has been developed to determine the tradeoffs associated with

implementing low impact drilling technologies in environmentally sensitive areas. The EFD Scorecard

assesses drilling operations and technologies with respect to air, site, water, waste management,

biodiversity/habitat and societal issues. The overall objective of the scorecard is to have a means of



measuring the environmental and societal tradeoffs associated with an energy development project.

Industry has done an effective job of making safety a core value within each and every employee. The goal

of the scorecard is to assist in the development of a mindset within industry that environmental

stewardship is a core value. In addition, the scorecard enables all stakeholders to understand the balance

between energy development and the impact on the environment.

The EFD Scorecard Guidebook is found in Appendix F.3.1 of this document.

Accomplishments

A field test of the Scorecard at an operator’s site in Canada was conducted in 2012. Updates were made

to the Scorecard in recognition of ecosystem, geographic, and regulatory differences.

An implementation plan was created after a workshop was held in 2013. A website was also created to

serve as a hub for those considering a Scorecard assessment of their operations.

A field test was conducted in Ohio in 2014. Additional updates were made with the addition of newly

recognized best practices. A field test was planned for North Dakota in 2015, however, the operations

budget of the operator seeking the Scorecard trial was cut significantly, putting this trial on hold.


The initial Scorecard was developed for drilling operations. Scorecards for Completions and Productions

would offer tremendous benefits towards the goal of environmental stewardship as a core value in O&G

operations.

Possible Next Steps

Development of Scorecards for other phases of operations, such as completions and production.

Development of Scorecards for small producers, allowing such organizations to thrive while implementing

environmentally sound practices.

The EFD Team is well equipped to provide these tools as well as conduct the reviews as an unbiased third

party.

Research Activities Overview – Environmental Issues in Osage County, Oklahoma (Task 5.3.4.4)

The EFD Team was invited by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to offer advice to a number of large

landowners, all members of the Osage County Cattlemen’s Association (OCCA). We have assisted the

OCCA in reviewing the effectiveness of the regulatory authority in Osage County, current regulations as

compared to other States and Federal government and needed changes in the regulations through the

Rulemaking Progress which is the result of the 2011 Federal Court settlement between the U.S.

government and the Osage Nation. The overall objective was to provide an unbiased assessment of the

regulatory process in Osage County.



Accomplishments

Findings from site visits, interviews, and conferences were documented and published in a report titled,

“The Effectiveness of Oil and Gas Regulatory Oversight on Oil and Gas Operations, Osage County,

Oklahoma.” Recommendations and potential solutions were summarized in this document. (Appendix

F.4.1). EFD has provided constructive comments to BIA on an ongoing rulemaking process.

Because of the organized response by landowners a first ever meeting between BIA, Osage Mineral

Council, BLM, EPA, USF&WL, the State of OK DNR and the attorney general’s office, and landowners took

place in Tulsa in 1Q 2014. That meeting started a process for regulatory improvement, remedies for

landowners to report violations and seek remediation.

EFD also assisted in identifying dangerous levels of H2S on several sites in the county. The state, BIA and

EPA were also notified of these violations. Independent testing facilitated by EFD caused the BIA to

address a serious health threat and enforce air quality regulations.


The BIA has also been forced by the Federal Court to undertake their first county wide Environmental

Impact Assessment since 1979. An early draft had many flaws and through comments from OCCA with

assistance from EFD has gone back to the “drawing board” with an expected draft release in the 4Q of

2016. EFD has provided comments to BIA on ways to improve the EIS, regulatory improvements and

enforcement. Many of the technologies demonstrated in TIP have been made available to BIA and

operators.

Possible Next Steps

The ongoing rulemaking and EIS process will require diligent monitoring and comments to assure oil and

gas will be produced with the same safeguards as the remainder of the country.

Regulators are also in desperate need of training.

Research Activities Overview – Disappearing Roads (Task 5.3.4.5)

The disappearing road (DR) project was a multi-year project (RPSEA 07123.01) to design, test and evaluate

multiple temporary and permanent road materials for use in harsh environmentally sensitive areas. This

included a nationwide University competition sponsored by Halliburton to come up with potential designs

as well as actual field trials of commercially available products.

The specific objectives of the DOE Environmental Drilling Systems Project were:

Identify new technology that can reduce or eliminate the impact of drilling operations on

environmentally sensitive areas.

Design an EFD system using most promising technology

Include environmental stakeholders in the designs



After drilling operations are completed or suspended, roads are often remediated. This removal is

intended to allow the recovery of the lands to a pre-use condition so as to minimize additional access.

Experience has shown that such efforts pose difficulty, highlighting the complexity of potential long-term

consequences of oil and gas operations. New systems have been tested to avoid this expense.

Accomplishments

Tests were performed in a desert environment in West Texas as well as a second test located in a

moderate climate with significantly more rain to determine the optimum operational conditions for the

materials.

The project evolved to include roads made from recycled well cutting, plastic composite mats and mats

made from waste materials. As in all projects the viability of any method is measured by the cost and

benefit relationship. If the road material reduces cost either for construction or in the case of remediation

and disposal of cuttings it could be considered a success.

A life-cycle assessment for composite modular road and drill pad systems was published (Appendix F.5.1).

The final report for the multi-year project is also included in Appendix F (Appendix F.5.2).

Knowledge Gaps

Strengthen the data and model so it can be regionalized to fit specific markets and/or geographic areas

that are being considered for energy exploration.

Possible Next Steps

Research into alternative road and drill pad material to include waste material.

An additional technology made with recycled High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) was identified, however

a field site was not included due to schedule conflicts (Appendix F.5.3).

Community Issues / Public Perception (Task 5.3.5) This effort addressed community issues, principally in South Texas, but with applicability to other areas

experiencing rapid development of gas shale pays. Researchers at Sam Houston State University, Utah

State University and Penn State developed and tested a modified version of a Social Impact Assessment

(SIA) for affected populations in the Eagle Ford Shale using data gathered from sociological studies in the

Barnett Shale. Together with ongoing studies in the Uintah Basin, and the Marcellus Shale, the team

focused on identifying, documenting, and through stakeholder involvement procedures, addressing the

broad range of social, cultural, demographic, economic, and social-psychological impacts of proposed gas

development in the Eagle Ford Shale.



Research Activities Overview Data for the Community Issues/Public Perception task (Task 5.3.5) were collected via (1) in-depth

interviews with oil and gas company representatives working in the Eagle Ford Shale, (2) in-depth

interviews with key informants in four counties in the Eagle Ford Shale region; (3) focus group meetings

with representatives of selected populations in two counties in the Eagle Ford Shale region; and (4) mail

survey techniques.

The purpose of the O&G representative interviews was to understand these drilling companies’

community engagement approaches and methods. Interviews with key informants took place in Gonzales,

Karnes, McMullen, and LaSalle counties. While not representative of the whole region, we chose these

counties for their geographic dispersion east to west along the shale play. Focus groups were conducted

in La Salle and Karnes counties. Karnes County is considered “ground zero” for the hydraulic fracturing

activity in the Eagle Ford, thus, a primary county for gathering data on residents’ perceptions of this

activity. Following a modified tailored design method, data from the general population and absentee

landowners were gathered using mail survey techniques. The final report detailing the methodology,

supporting material, suggested practices/approaches, and additional specifics is found in Appendix G.1.

Accomplishments

Numerous papers were published and presented at a variety of conferences, workshops, and other

outreach methods. See Appendix G.2 – G.9.

Findings/Recommendations

From Oil and Gas Company Representatives Data

Eagle Ford communities are varied both internally and geographically. A one-size-fits-all approach by industry to community engagement or philanthropy will not be successful. With this in mind, the findings provide guidance for developing more successful long-term efforts to improve communication among industry, community leadership, and citizens. These could include:

Employing locally-based community engagement specialists who attend local meetings, build relationships with diverse local leadership, and serve as a familiar point of contact for community members seeking information about industry activities.

Identify and engage leaders of community groups who work with vulnerable populations (e.g.,

elderly, low-income, and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups) who often experience a

disproportionate share of the social and economic dislocations associated with rapid energy

development.

Invest in proactive community outreach activities specifically geared to get input from the

general public (particularly citizens who are not lease holding landowners).

From Key Informants and Focus Groups Data

The key informants and focus group participants interviewed reported a number of social, economic, and

environmental concerns related to the impacts of oil and gas development on local residents. The issues

raised by the respondents are similar to topics identified in studies from other regions undergoing the

same development processes.



The findings of the study have immediate value for local industry actors who want to know more about

the specific topics of friction and concern that are on the minds of leaders in these four Eagle Ford

counties. The findings also provide guidance to longer-term efforts to develop innovative programs or

technical solutions that minimize undesired impacts associated with energy development. These could

include:

Technical, engineering, and management best practices that could reduce the incidence of traffic conflicts, trash, and impacts on public health and environmental quality. These practices serve as the core focus of the EFD-TIP project.

Community development investments designed to mitigate the social and economic side-effects of rapid growth and development associated with the energy boom.

From General Population and Absentee Landowner Mail Survey Data

The descriptive findings and bivariate analyses from the mail survey data illustrate a rather broad range

of perceived negative and positive issues associated with oil and natural gas development in the Eagle

Ford Shale region. Key findings from this research include:

It appears that residents and absentee landowners in the Eagle Ford Shale viewed more negatively the social and/or environmental issues perceived to accompany large-scale energy development than the economic and/or service-related benefits that often result from such development.

Certain issues perceived to be slight-to-moderate problems in the Eagle Ford Shale region prior to the oil and gas boom are now viewed as getting worse due to the large-scale development.

Residents and absentee landowners in the Eagle Ford Shale were least trusting of the county and city governments as being sources of information about the positive and negative impacts of oil and/or natural gas development.

There was a discrepancy between the perceived amount of influence residents and officials should have and the perceived amount of influence residents and officials actually have on management decisions pertaining to local O&G development.

Residents and absentee landowners were more or less satisfied with the performance of the oil and natural gas industry in the Eagle Ford Shale.

Survey respondents were more likely to have attended (or plan to attend) meetings to get information and learn more about oil and natural gas development. They were less likely to have engaged in (or plan to engage in) behaviors overtly opposing energy production.

The investigation of residents’ and absentee landowners’ beliefs that treated frac flowback could safely be used for eight potential purposes indicated the overall pattern of results paralleled those uncovered from the general public in the Marcellus Shale region. The findings here, as well as those from the Marcellus Shale region, demonstrate that acceptance of/opposition to the use of treated frac flowback wastewater varies directly with intimacy or degree of human contact.

Remaining Knowledge Gaps Who should the messenger be (industry, academia, or government)? Additional empirical and theoretical research is warranted to provide more comprehensive understanding of:



Perceptions of the oil and gas industry (both negative and positive)

Trust/distrust in the oil and gas industry

Perceived safe uses of produced water

Additional research is needed to more fully understand the effects of the energy boom and bust cycles on

local communities. How do these shifts in local economies affect local communities? How do migration

issues associated with boom and bust affect local communities? How does the boom and bust affect local

infrastructure? How does the boom and bust affect community/social service issues?

Possible Next Steps Outreach efforts to bridge gaps between industry and communities in which they operate. Replicate and extend this work in additional communities located over or near shale plays.

Air Quality (Task 5.3.6) One issue that the energy industry faces is how to minimize adverse environmental impacts of operations.

To address this issue, EFD-TIP envisioned a public-private collaboration to develop a new type of

environmental oversight program to provide key stakeholders the information they need to ensure

environmental standards are met.

Field tests were developed and included a broad range of new and existing in situ and mobile sensors to

measure the environmental conditions within a certain area. Data sources included monitoring stations,

vehicular emission sensors, leak detectors, open source sensors (e.g. from NOAA, USGS, EPA), enterprise

sensors, and human field observations. In particular, the goal was to identify methods and means to

improve source determination of air quality measurements.

Research Activities Overview – Estimating Emissions at Oil and Gas Sites (Task 5.3.6.1)

There are three main methods for collecting air emissions data. It can be directly measured at the engine

tailpipe, it can be measured through ambient, downwind monitoring or it can be estimated through a

collection of engine data, fuel data and emission factors for the family of engine being studied. Emission

estimation is the most cost effective way to calculate emissions at a regional level and is why many air

emission inventories use this method to determine the air quality impact from a particular industry.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has determined that the Eagle Ford Shale Play and its

supporting industry will be included in future air emission inventories. However, the current methods for

calculating emissions impose significant error in the inventory thus leading to a compounding variance in

the regional air shed models. It is believed that the high levels of variance result from the quality of data

being entered into the equations as well as the equation itself.

This research was performed by the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) who

traveled to drilling rigs and hydraulic fracturing sites in the Eagle Ford Shale Play and collected real time

activity data from equipment in use. Actual run times and load factors of the engines were measured. The



activity data was then compared to data collected in the traditional manner of conservative off-site

emission assumptions. A white paper documenting drilling rig estimations, ‘A Comparison of Air Emission

Estimation Methods for Drilling Rig Emissions’ can be found in Appendix H.1.

Additional studies were performed to research air quality data collection and measurement including the

area-source technique, (Appendix H.2) which quantifies gaseous contaminant emissions from non-

buoyant small area type sources such as oil and gas production well pad components, using open-path

Fourier-transform infrared (OP-FTIR) spectroscopy, and a technical feasibility assessment of data

collection from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Appendix H.3).

Accomplishments

Since drilling engines have high variability in engine load, conducting an air emission inventory of drilling

rigs required a novel way to calculate emissions. That is, a way to estimate emissions without relying on

engine load as a primary variable. However, for other upstream operations such as completions,

traditional methods that utilize horse power and engine load as variables may be better suited if fuel

consumption data is unavailable.

Most importantly, the emission results of an air emission inventory can dramatically vary depending on

the type of calculations and methods chosen. In order to achieve most accurate results, use as much field

data as possible as well as emission factors that are best suited to the engines being inventoried.

The hydraulic fracturing field data was analyzed and compared to default data and the results display the

amount of variance – typically overestimation. Utilizing field data rather than default data significantly

minimizes error and therefore gives a more accurate picture of fracturing engine activity.

Historically, air emission estimation has been conducted using an inventory method that gathers data on

a number of engines potentially operating at a site. A series of multipliers are applied to complete the

estimate. Factors include: engine emission controls, total horse power, total engine run time and engine

load. The resulting number is an emission estimate in pounds per hour. However, without good field data,

these multiplied values are set to assume a worst case scenario. Therefore, in a worst case estimate, it is

assumed that the engines have no emission controls on them (or Tier zero) and that all available engines

are running at 100% engine load or full horsepower for the entire duration of the job. This is discussed

further in Appendix H.4: A Better Way to Estimate Emissions from Oil and Gas Sites.

This study demonstrated that the difference between an emissions inventory using worst case estimates

and an emissions estimate using field data resulted in significant differences, for example, 539 pounds per

hour overestimation of NOx emissions, 13 pounds per hour of VOCs, and 129 pounds per hour CO at oil

and gas sites. Figure 13 graphically represents the results.

Several presentations were made at numerous events, conferences, and workshops across the United

States.



Research Activities Overview – Flaring Mitigation Field Test – New Flare Boiler Technologies

(Task 5.3.6.2)

The EFD Program teamed up with the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) and initiated a

research effort to address the issue of gas flaring and stranded gas by utilizing existing novel technologies

aimed at monetizing gas at the wellhead. Recognizing the aforementioned emerging regulations as well

as the economic benefits of capturing flare gas, the overall objective of the Flaring Issues, Solutions and

Technologies (FIST) project is to develop and demonstrate technologies specifically designed to utilize

stranded gas and even reduce or eliminate the need to flare emissions associated with oil production.

Appendix H.5 discusses the FIST program. One of the key technologies tested was the outcome of the

review of previous RPSEA funded projects. This technology, using the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC)

equipment, along with various other technologies reviewed by the team are listed in Appendix H.6.

The objective of this project was to identify and test simple/robust technologies to reduce flaring. A field

trial in the Bakken using Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) equipment was performed to address flaring. This

technology was identified through Task 5.1: Assessment of RPSEA Technologies. RPSEA Contract 08123-

10 – Electrical Power Generation from Produced Water: Field Demonstrations of Ways to Reduce

Operating Costs of Small Producers (April, 2012), was selected for this field trial. The EFD Field Trial Project,

used the technology in a new application wherein flare gas is used to fire a low emission hot water boiler.

The purpose of this field trial was to validate a technology’s ability to economically convert flared gas into

electricity. Produced gas, which would normally be flared on site, can be captured and routed to this trial’s

equipment to produce electricity for onsite consumption or to be sold to power grid.

Figure 13. EPA AP-42 vs Actual Field Data.



The four main goals of this trial were:

Demonstrate the ability of the equipment to produce electricity from the flare gas

Demonstrate that electricity production does not interfere with well operations

Determine environmental impacts of flare gas reduction

Reduce operating costs

Hess was the operator of the well site and provided access for the tie in for the flare gas to Power+

Generator. Gulf Coast Green Energy provided the equipment, manufactured by ElectraTherm, for the trial.

The EFD team observed the trial installation and monitored the operation of the equipment to determine

the effectiveness in reducing emissions and amount of electricity produced.

Accomplishments

The ORC field trial successfully demonstrated the ability of the equipment utilized to produce onsite

power from otherwise wasted flare gas.

The emissions study has shown that this equipment would meet the goals of the EPA and the North Dakota

Department of Health – Air Quality standards by reducing emissions and providing energy through the

reuse of the produced natural gas. Results are given in Figure 14.

The reports documenting this trial were developed and shared with the parties directly involved

(Appendices H.7 and H.8).

Workshops were held in Texas and Colorado to further discussions about flare mitigation.

Figure 14. Results from Bakken Flare Mitigation Field Trial.



Knowledge Gaps

Demonstration of technologies need to be performed to enable economics of various options to be

determined. Multiple options need to be investigated to handle the regional variations that exist.

Possible Next Steps

To assist operating companies in risk management and the decision making process, further work by the

EFD team should be undertaken to develop a decision management system to screen technologies related

to mitigating flaring. This should include:

Evaluation of technologies that mitigate flaring including:

o Transformation off stranded gases into salable products

o Reduction of emissions in a cost effective manner

o Determination of how technologies and processes could further reduce the need to

import hydrocarbon commodities

Analysis of field results of selected technologies that producers may use to mitigate flaring,

including emissions measurement

Providing useful compilation information and data for operators, regulators and landowners.

Determining how GIS technologies may be used to provide a tool for infrastructure decision tool

and development plan.

Expansion/re-organization of the EFD Best Management Practices site to include best available technologies on a regional basis.

Research Activities Overview –Wireless Sensor Evaluations (Task 5.3.6.3) One of the requirements in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) is for operators to develop a

detection and repair program for fugitive emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). This research

demonstrated the use and effectiveness of Photo-Ionization Detectors (PIDs) integrated into a wireless

sensor network to monitor fugitive emissions of non-methane VOCs in a wireless sensor network. To meet

this goal, this project entailed the following research objectives:

1. Deploy and evaluate a wireless sensor network for monitoring ambient air reactive VOC

concentrations (essentially all hydrocarbons except methane and ethane) and wind

speed/direction at hydraulic fracturing sites in the Eagle Ford Shale.

2. Conduct ambient air pollutant sampling and perform gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

(GC-MS) analyses to determine the concentration of speciated VOCs.

3. Correlate PID-measured reactive VOC measurements with speciated VOC concentration

measurements using statistical methods.

In this study, both field and laboratory trials were conducted to assess the potential of wireless sensor

networks employing photo-ionization detectors (PIDs) for monitoring composite reactive VOC

concentrations in ambient air near oil and gas production sites. A report summarizing these trials is found

in Appendix H.9.



Accomplishments

Summary of Wireless PID Sensor Performance in Field Trials

Nine separate trials were performed at four different field sites: (1) at a well pad in the active oil and gas

production phase located in La Salle County, Texas; (2) downwind of a well pad and frac pond located in

Live Oak County, Texas, also in the active oil and gas production phase; (3) at a ranch in DeWitt County,

Texas, surrounded by six well pads in all directions, and (4) a ranch in Dimmit County, Texas, with

numerous oil and gas production sites.

The field trial results obtained with the wireless PID sensor system demonstrated that it was technically

feasible to continuously monitor composite reactive VOC concentrations (i.e., all hydrocarbons except

methane and ethane) in ambient air near remote oil and gas production sites in real time. However, the

inability of various system components to withstand harsh environmental conditions (i.e., precipitation,

high humidity, high temperatures and dust) over extended time periods limited the ability of the system

to maintain accurate continuous reactive VOC monitoring over more than a few weeks.

Summary of Wireless Sensor Reactive VOC Monitoring Results

In general, the wireless PID sensor monitoring results obtained from nine different field trials, performed

at four different field sites, demonstrated that reactive VOC concentrations in ambient air rapidly

decreased with distance from oil and gas production facilities. The highest reactive VOC concentration

observed in any of the field trials was approximately 110 ppmv (isobutylene equivalent) detected about

30 feet directly downwind of an unlit flare at the LaSalle County field trial, possibly indicating an auto-

ignitor malfunction. Concentrations as high as 31 ppmv were also observed about 20 feet directly

downwind of a tank battery at the LaSalle County field site. At both these sampling locations the detected

composite reactive VOC concentrations were very erratic, and the mean detected concentrations were

an order of magnitude lower than the highest detected concentrations. Finally, GC-MS analyses of a four-

hour time-averaged ambient air sample collected in a Summa canister set 20 feet directly downwind of

the tank battery indicated average benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene concentrations all ranged

between 11 and 13 ppbv.

Summary of Results Correlating PID Composite Reactive VOC Readings with Speciated VOC

Concentrations

Parallel lab-scale studies were performed to evaluate the correlation between PID composite reactive

VOC readings and speciated VOC concentrations determined by traditional GC-MS analyses of collected

ambient air samples.

The lab-scale studies established that strong correlations existed between the PID composite reactive VOC

readings and GC-MS determined speciated VOC concentrations. For example, a very strong correlation

coefficient of 91.5% was observed between the PID readings and the GC-MS determined toluene

concentrations, and strong correlation coefficients of 78% and 79% were observed for heptane and

methyl cyclohexane, respectively. Weaker correlations (ranging from 21% to 63%) were observed

between the PID readings and the GC-MS determined concentrations for hexane, benzene, ethylbenzene

and p-xylene. The lower correlations for hexane and benzene were likely due to these compounds having



significantly higher vapor pressures, resulting in the preferential removal from the condensate used in the

experimental system. The lower correlations for ethylbenzene and p-xylene were likely due to their

concentrations being significantly lower than for the other target VOCs. Finally, a strong correlation of

77.9% was also observed between PID composite reactive VOC readings and the sum of the GC-MS

determined speciated VOC concentrations.

Knowledge Gaps

Although this study demonstrated that it was technically feasible to employ wireless PID sensor networks

to continuously monitor composite reactive VOC concentrations (i.e., all hydrocarbons except methane

and ethane) in ambient air near oil and gas production sites in real time from remote locations, it also

demonstrated that the following knowledge gaps remain:

1. Problems associated with the long-term operation of the wireless PID sensor monitoring system

must be resolved before long-term continuous monitoring from remote locations will be

practical. The need to combine photovoltaic power supply and wireless communications

together with the PID sensors results in a fairly complex system with many integrated

components, any one of which can fail and interrupt system operation. Additional research is

needed to improve the robustness of the integrated system under the harsh environmental

conditions near remote oil and gas production sites. In particular, the problem with power

supply to the PID sensors being interrupted due to corrosion of the copper contacts needs to be

resolved. Practical concerns about the need for good site security to avoid having the wireless

sensor network components vandalized or stolen also need to be addressed.

2. The PID sensors do not respond to hydrocarbons that have ionization energies greater than 10.6

eV and as a consequence do not measure methane, which is the main component of natural gas.

In some regards this is fortunate in that the PID sensors measure the composite “reactive” VOCs

(i.e., those which are the dominant precursors to tropospheric ozone formation). However, to

obtain a more complete characterization of hydrocarbon emissions, it would be ideal if the PID

sensors could be combined with low-cost methane sensors.

3. The fact that the PID sensors are stationary limits their ability to fully characterize reactive VOC

concentrations over an entire well pad. For example, during one of the Dimmit County field

trials, one of the other EFD-TIP teams arranged to have an infrared camera on site to visually

characterize hydrocarbon plumes from the tank battery and compressor station. The resulting

video clearly demonstrated that the hydrocarbon plumes coming from the tank batteries and

compressor station rapidly changed direction and generally passed over the fence line at high

elevations at which it would be impractical to place a PID sensor. Thus, although the PID sensors

are useful for detecting and locating specific VOC emission sources, they alone provide very

limited information regarding emission rates, which is ultimately the more useful data.

Possible Next Steps

To address the data gaps discussed above, possible follow-up research includes the following:



1. To resolve problems associated with the robustness of the wireless PID sensor monitoring

system under real-world environmental conditions, long-term field research should be

performed to resolve remaining issues. In this study, time limitations and travel budgets limited

the ability to continuously maintain the wireless PID sensor system when deployed at remote

field sites that required 5 to 7 hours of round-trip travel time.

2. To provide a more comprehensive characterization of hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient

air near oil and gas production facilities, research should be performed to integrate the PID

sensors (which measure essentially all hydrocarbons other than methane and ethane) with new

low-cost methane sensors with low detection limits. Unfortunately, existing commercial sensors

capable of measuring methane down to natural background levels (i.e., ~1.9 ppmv), such as

Picarro Gas Analyzers, are bulky and expensive (~$60K-$100K). As such, they are ill-suited for

continuous real-time monitoring systems that can be incorporated affordably in wireless sensor

networks. Recently, researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) have been adapting a

light-weight tunable laser spectrometer (TLS sensor) – which was developed to measure

methane concentrations on Mars – to monitor for methane leaks from natural gas pipelines

(Ungerleider, 2015). The TLS sensor technology is 100-1000 times more sensitive than short-

wave infrared technologies that are currently utilized in industry for methane leak detection. By

combining TLS methane sensors with VOC sensors, a nearly comprehensive continuous, real-

time monitoring of hydrocarbon concentrations in ambient air could be realized at relatively low

cost.

3. A single PID sensor has limited utility if it remains at a fixed location on a well pad. Although this

approach can be useful for detecting fugitive VOC emissions from a single source (e.g., a

compressor station), it provides very limited information about VOC emissions from an entire

well pad. To fully take advantage of the PID and new TLS methane sensors, research should be

performed to integrate the PID and TLS sensor technologies with a small unmanned aerial

system (sUAS) that would for complete characterization of hydrocarbon concentrations in three

dimensions, thus allowing for full characterization of plumes that disperse downwind.

Research Activities Overview – Public Health Enhancement Opportunities (Task 5.3.6.4) Development of new Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) technologies and processes in natural gas

exploration and production (E&P) through the Technology Integration Program (TIP) provides

opportunities to maximize the public health benefits of natural gas development by reducing the potential

for negative public health effects during E&P activities.

The Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) provided the expertise in public health needed to assess

public health impacts of TIP technologies. Their work included the identification of public health tradeoffs

for a generic natural gas development site by incorporating public health measurements, including air and

surface and ground water, emissions, and social measures into the EFD-TIP assessment, as well as to

identify public health features and disseminate these features through reports and educational and

outreach materials, an assessment of data collected from field tests to qualitatively evaluate public health

features, and an assessment of Sensorpedia technology as a public health tool.



Additional tasks that were not originally scoped were completed, such as a noise assessment and an

evaluation of the suitability of Colorado air data sets for assessing public health impacts of O&G

development.

A summary of this activity is found in Appendix H.10 along with the appendices found in Appendix H.11.

Accomplishments

A comprehensive literature which summarizes public health implications of natural gas development

Identified potential public health effects associated with natural gas extraction.

Performed a comprehensive literature review, prepared a scientific manuscript summarizing the results

of the literature review, and submitted this manuscript to Environmental Science and Technology for peer

review.

Developed the public health web page, located on the Oil and Gas BMP website, found at:

(www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/public_health.php).

Noise levels surrounding a modern oil production site in a residential area in northwestern Colorado’s

Niobrara shale region were measured.

Numerous publications and presentations were made at various outreach events.

All of the above referenced material is found in Appendix H.9.

Knowledge Gaps

The data provided by our EFD partners did not have the specificity that would have been necessary to update the conceptual site models.

Possible Next Steps

The preliminary study on noise levels provides a basis for further investigation into noise around O&G operations in residential areas.

EFD East Regional Center Field Tests (Task 5.4) West Virginia University Research Corporation (WVURC) managed the East Regional EFD Center. WVURC

and HARC defined the following objectives for the East Regional Center (ERC):

establish and manage the East Regional Center, a center that will test and integrate developing technologies into systems that lower cost and improve performance of unconventional gas shale development

plan and implement field testing of new technologies in the East Region

http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/public_health.php



document technology implemented to reduce the environmental footprint of oil and gas operations

disseminate information through a series of workshops

The role of the ERC was to identify and establish field tests and perform case studies and supporting

research. In addition to programs established under TIP funding, the East Center was charged with

reaching out to other funded programs in an attempt to create teams that would integrate their

respective efforts.

Initial TIP funding was used to support one field test and one supporting research project. The field test

was designed to assess the environmental impacts of horizontal gas well development in the Marcellus

Shale play. This project had been preceded by a similar field-oriented project funded by the West Virginia

Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), and the results of both projects were to be compared.

The EFD East Regional Center field team was granted a modification to their award to conduct air and

water quality sampling to evaluate the impact of horizontal drilling in an area not included in the original

scope of work. This enabled the field team to collect field data from an area with no Marcellus

development and compare the results with those from an active Marcellus area.

Thus, for the water study, two types of study locations were identified: an “active site” in northeastern

Pennsylvania, and a “control site” located on the border of West Virginia and Maryland, in Preston County,

WV and Garrett County, MD.

The final report for the East Regional Center is found in Appendix I.1.

Accomplishments Initiated a field study, Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well

Development Operations, in an active Marcellus Shale drilling area near Montrose, Susquehanna County, PA; collected and analyzed air and ground and surface water samples over an extended period of time, before, during and after wells were drilled and fractured

Initiated a second field study near Montrose, PA, “Cardiovascular Toxicity of Ultrafine Particles from Shale Gas Development,” to monitor air quality near another active Marcellus drill site

Initiated a third field study at a control site where no Marcellus Shale drilling has taken place near Cranesville, Preston County, WV and Garrett County, MD

Cooperated with Newpark to perform an assessment of the environmental, performance and economic impact of a high performance water-based drilling fluids system in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Plays

Cooperated with the MSEEL (Marcellus Shale Energy & Environmental Laboratory) program; set up additional air and water sampling and monitoring stations

Involved in early discussions concerning Battelle’s Dissolved Methane Sensor

Monitored a WVU study, Quantifying fugitive methane emissions associated with implementing dual fuel and natural gas technologies in the Marcellus Shale play



Attempted to develop a field test at a Northcentral West Virginia field site; the goal was to demonstrate the advantage of drilling and fracturing Marcellus wells with LNG rather than using water, but low gas prices terminated the project prematurely

Completed phase 1 and phase 2 of a supporting research project, Integrated microseismic and 3D seismic interpretations of an area of active Marcellus drilling in southwestern PA

Cooperated with the West Virginia Geological Survey to update their Utica Shale Resource Study; released the results at one of our workshops

Wrote a successful proposal to undertake a subsurface study along the Ohio River from southwest PA to eastern KY and southwest WV to locate an Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub that will be necessary for industrial development

Organized and hosted 12 technology transfer workshops and one field trip in 8 different locations

Organized 2 additional workshops that will be held after the contract period ends

Performed additional outreach by presenting papers and posters at technical meetings, speaking to local civic groups and university departments

Attended numerous shale-related meetings to promote our effort

Possible Next Steps Demonstrate the advantage of drilling and fracturing Marcellus wells with LNG rather than using water

when gas prices stabilize.

Research Activities Overview – Assessing Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well

Development Operations (Task 5.4.1) The objectives of this project designed to examine the effects of large-scale horizontal drilling on

surrounding air and water resources were to: 1) compare air quality results to the impact of other

industrialized activities and to current environmental standards and health benchmarks; 2) document the

physical and chemical characteristics of flowback and produced water and solid waste streams associated

with the development of a horizontal shale gas well; 3) compare water quality results to current

environmental standards; and 4) evaluate impacts of horizontal gas well activities on nearby groundwater.

Two general types of study locations were identified for this study: an “active site” in an area of intense shale gas development, and a “control site” in an area of no shale gas development

Surface- and ground-water sampling stations (surface springs and drinking water wells) were set up at an active well pad near Montrose in Susquehanna County, PA; samples were collected before, during and after drilling and completion

Air monitoring stations were set up at this same location; data were recorded over the same period of time and same levels of well pad activities

A second Montrose location was chosen to document air quality near another Marcellus Shale pad

As a control site, an area was chosen on the state border between Preston County, WV and Garret County, MD, where no drilling had taken place; water quality was monitored in drinking water wells



The full report for this field trial effort is in the Appendix I.2.

Accomplishments

Water quality comparisons of water resources showed no impact from gas well development activities at

the active study sites.

TDS (total dissolved solids) showed a slight increase in some readings post drilling; however, increases

were not observed at all sampling points, were not consistently higher over time, and spike values were

less than a 20% increase (e.g., 120 to 135 mg/L).

At the control site, measurements of radiological parameters (gross alpha and gross beta) near surface

water or groundwater were overall lower than those observed for the active site near surface water or

groundwater.

However, this does not necessarily indicate active site water wells were impacted by nearby

unconventional gas well development.

One would have to have records of water quality prior to any nearby gas well development activity

showing measurements lower than this project’s baseline data.

Requests were made to local well owners to provide these data, but none were made available.

Also, differences in local geology plays a big role when attempting to compare different sampling sites.

Research Activities Overview – Cardiovascular Toxicity of Ultrafine Particles from Shale Gas

Development (Task 5.4.2) Many rural communities and regions are experiencing increased industrial activities and possibly air

pollutant exposures from shale gas extraction activities. The burgeoning development of gas well sites has

the potential to contribute to poor rural air quality. This project consisted of field monitoring stations to

determine if:

Concentrations of particulate matter (PM) in the fine (<2.5 um, PM2.5) and ultrafine

(<0.1 um, PM0.1) size ranges are increased in areas surrounding drilling operations

Using epidemiological studies, fine and ultrafine PM can be associated with increased

cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as in previous studies

Animal toxicological studies can demonstrate pulmonary exposure to PM disrupts normal

vascular and microvascular function, as in previous studies

Accomplishments

PM2.5, which includes PM0.1 in its entirety, was collected in Susquehanna county <1000 feet from a gas

well site under development and in the vicinity of several sites undergoing various stages of development.



PM samples from the filters were then used to expose male 7-10 week old Wistar and Spontaneously

hypertensive rats (SHRs) via intratracheal instillation (IT) to 1 mg/kg or vehicle.

Twenty-four hours later plasma, serum, and tissues were taken, and using a multiplex format,

inflammatory markers were determined in the rat plasma.

Initial work to determine the alterations of plasma parameters following instillation of shale PM into the

lungs of healthy and hypertensive animals was performed.

It was found that the majority of the parameters were present in the plasma, although all but one were

statistically negative between sham and exposed; all other analytes were either equivalent values

between control and exposed or below detectable limits

For more detail, see Appendix I.3: Cardiovascular Toxicity

Research Activities Overview – Water Based Drilling Fluid Systems in the Utica and

Marcellus Shales (Task 5.4.3) The objective of this study was to determine the factors that influence how drilling fluid systems are

selected based on environmental impact, cost, regulations and performance. Using this information, more

environmentally acceptable fluids may be considered by operators and provide service providers with

information on product development. In addition, more environmentally friendly fluids would provide

better options for drilling waste handling, eliminating hauling waste to landfills. This study began with

research into the regulations of each state (Phase 1), and in Phase 2 well and completions reports available

from the public records of the targeted states. This information was then applied in the production of a

survey that addressed questions concerning fluid types, regulations, implicit and performance factors, and

waste disposal.

Accomplishments

The study sample attempted to represent a larger scope of operations and drilling fluid selection

processes in the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale. Multiple companies partook in this study with varying

budgets and activity levels in the region.

The respondents largely cited the reduction of cost as the most important factor in their decision-making

process.

The three states in the study have different regulations on fluid requirements. This makes it difficult for

companies who have operations in these states. This report will be used by regulators as they determine

future requirements and options for operators.

Several respondents noted that regulations directly affected their drilling fluid selection.



A poster was presented at the American Association of Drilling Engineers annual conference in 2016.

A summary of this project is found in Appendix I.4: Water Based Drilling Fluid Systems in the Utica and

Marcellus Shales.


1. Performance of high performance water based drilling fluids has not been generally accepted by

the industry as an alternative to oil base fluids.

2. If there is an alternative to the landfilling of cuttings, examining potential harmful effects of land

farming these cuttings would be useful research.

Possible Next Steps

1. Case studies on fluids performance in the productive zone could change how industry and

regulators view drilling fluid options.

2. Assuming that solid waste generated from drill cuttings is of no use, the opportunity to land

farm the cuttings and build lease roads and pads from these cuttings could reduce costs. If the

process is then found to be free of environmental risk, allowing the use of land farming would

simultaneously reduce costs for the companies and reduce the volume of landfill space used for

cutting disposal.

Research Activities Overview – Comparison of Air Quality Results for Unconventional

Natural Gas Development to the Impact of Other Industrialized Activities and to Current

Environmental Standards and Health Benchmarks (Task 5.4.4) Direct-reading aerosol sampling at one minute intervals was done at five locations around an

Unconventional Natural Gas Development (UNGD) site located in a river valley in Morgantown, WV.

Sampling was done throughout all stages of well development other than pad preparation. Sampling

locations included on the drill pad itself, as well as 1 and 3 km distant. Background samples were also

taken as reference. The first was 5 km upwind of the site and out of the valley. The second was located

within the valley 8 km downwind but beyond the bend of a natural bowl in the valley, diminishing the

effect of air emissions from the UNGD site.

For full report, see Appendix I.5: Comparison of Air Quality Results.

Accomplishments

Methods included:

Particulate Monitoring – both direct-reading and for bulk samples for toxicity testing

Traffic Monitoring – monitoring of a three lane roadway was done for one of two possible four-

hour periods for each sampling day before well pad activities commenced. Data were acquired

for either a morning or afternoon period on any given day.



Traffic Counting – traffic volume (number of cars passing per minute) was monitored

continuously by a video recorder

Well-Site Sampling – one on-pad and four off-pad sampling sites served as fixed locations of the

drilling operation.

Findings:

The major finding from the analysis of the dust levels is that the concentrations more than a kilometer

away from the pad were not significantly different than background levels taken at control sites.


There are multiple possible sources of air exposure within close proximity of UNGD wells including flaring,

fugitive emissions, particulate matter, and other background sources that could extend 1 km or farther

from the UNGD well pad. Road traffic, particularly diesel truck emissions, are a significant source of air

pollution.

Possible Next Steps

Future efforts are needed to delineate the effects of truck traffic from well pad activities to determine if

either source, alone or in concert, may be responsible for the observed laboratory effects and to address

a growing body of epidemiological evidence associating exposure from unconventional natural gas

development (UNGD) activities with disease symptoms, especially adverse birth outcomes, in populations

residing in proximity to UNGD.

Research Activities Overview – Microseismic and 3D Seismic Interpretation (Task 5.4.5)

The supporting research study was an integrated microseismic and 3D seismic interpretation of data

collected during a DOE-funded field test that collected these data in southwest Pennsylvania in an area of

active Marcellus Shale drilling. Microseismic activity was displayed in the context of subsurface geology

using well log and 3D seismic data, with a goal of determining the relationship of microseismic activity to

subtle faults and fracture systems extracted from the 3D seismic data.

Other objectives included: 1) developing a 3D seismic interpretation of an actively producing Marcellus

Shale reservoir; 2) integration of frac-induced microseismic data observed along laterals in the field into

the subsurface 3D seismic interpretation; 3) determining the stratigraphic distribution of microseismic

events within the 3D seismic framework; 4) evaluation of the influence of seismic-scale fault networks on

microseismic distribution; and 5) incorporation of available geophysical logs and subsurface data into the

geophysical characterization and subsurface interpretation.

The full report can be found in Appendix I.6: Microseismic and 3D Seismic Interpretation.



Accomplishments

A key result from the seismic study was the characterization of prominent out-of-zone microseismicity

through rupture of critically-stressed fractures which were continually re-ruptured during hydraulic

fracture treatment of wells in the area.

Another key result was the demonstration that energy density provides a better estimate of stimulated

reservoir volume, because it is directly related to fracture surface area ruptured in response to hydraulic

fracture stimulation.

Several presentations resulted from this research. A paper titled Variations of Microseismic b-values and

their Relationship to 3D Seismic Structure in the Marcellus Shale: Southwestern Pennsylvania is located in

Appendix I.7.

Research Activities Overview – Utica Shale Resource Assessment (Task 5.4.6) A Utica Play resource assessment was conducted to estimate: (1) remaining recoverable hydrocarbon

resources and (2) original hydrocarbon resources in-place. Remaining technically recoverable resources

were determined using a probabilistic approach following an outline developed by the USGS. Original

hydrocarbon in-place resources were determined using a volumetric approach.

See Appendix I.8 Utica Shale Resource Study for more information.

Accomplishments

This Study followed the probabilistic approach developed by the USGS and used in their 2012 assessment

of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the Utica Shale.

Based on these studies, it is estimated that the current oil recovery factor is approximately 3% and the

gas recovery factor is approximately 28% in the sweet spot areas.

Technology Transfer and Access to Data (Tasks 3.0 and 7.0) Technology Transfer was an essential part of the EFD-TIP program. The program had a comprehensive

effort to transfer technology and get it implemented in industry:

1. Regional workshops where the technology was highlighted to EFD sponsors, comprised of large and mid-sized operators and leading service providers and EFD alliance members.

2. The EFD approach to IP and commercialization fostered a rapid path to commercialization. 3. The EFD-TIP effort to expand the BMP website (see Appendix J.4) 4. Added exposure at conferences, publications, webinars and regional workshops to reach a

broad audience. Commercialization of the technologies was a key objective of the EFD-TIP. Field testing accelerates the

process and affords more opportunities for capital investment by venture capital, private equity, or

traditional financing. Traditional business development teaches that there are a number of steps to



commercialization – steps that practically all companies follow. The EFD-TIP addressed the first steps,

getting a process to field trials and evaluating results in the real world. Only then can research programs

find licensors and venture capitalists ready to provide capital.

Technology Transfer tasks included:

Presentations – Presentations and exhibits made at conferences, exhibitions and forums. Various papers and articles were written, presented and published. Presentations and articles were coordinated with project team members in order to inform and educate industry, academia, the public, and other interested parties.

Outreach to Regulatory Agencies – Established and maintained a dialogue and held seminars/forums with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), various Oil & Gas Commissioners in the Intermountain states, in the Appalachian states, and elsewhere.

Collaborate with Others – Collaborated with American Petroleum Institute (API), Petroleum Technology Council (PTTC), Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), International Association for Society and Natural Resources (IASNR) and other organizations.

Annual EFD Forum – The EFD industry advisors reviewed the EFD-TIP program 2 – 3 times per year. In addition, after the Phase II effort was underway, an open EFD-TIP forum was held on an annual basis where various program components were presented.

Table 4 summarizes the EFD-TIP Technology Transfer activities. The EFD-TIP grew the network of

publications, articles, workshops, conferences that had been established in the EFD program (2007-2011).

Table 4. Summary of EFD-TIP Technology Transfer Activities.

Appendix J.1 lists technology transfer activities performed during the EFD-TIP effort.

Research Activities Overview – EFD Website (Task 7.1) The EFD TIP program has a web site that serves as a hub for all of the work the Environmentally Friendly

Drilling Systems program performs. It also serves to collate information relating to the field tests and other

activities performed by the EFD Regional Centers. In addition, the web site integrates other RPSEA funded

projects.



EFDSystems.org is a database driven, content managed web site that features state-of-the-art computer

graphics, videos, multiple resource links, and contact information. This includes case studies, photos and

videos from field trials performed by the EFD Regional Centers, interviews with Subject Matter Experts,

and an interactive Shale Plays Map.

Accomplishments

The EFD Website includes a ‘Video Magazine’ section with original video interviews from multiple Subject

Matter Experts from various fields. On site videos were created to highlight some of the field trials. Videos

of members of the EFD University and National Lab Alliance were also created and shared to highlight

numerous mitigation research efforts.

An interactive Shale Play map was created to provide information on shales and basins across North

America.

Possible Next Steps

Updating the site with new projects as appropriate will help continue to transfer technologies reducing

the impacts of oil and gas activities.

Providing a reliable resource for individuals and organizations seeking information on how industry

addresses environmental and societal concerns will remain a valuable tool.

Research Activities Overview – Land Use Site Selection Information Tool (LUSSIT)

(Task 7.2) The development of the Land Use Site Selection Information Tool (LUSSIT) was a collaborative effort

between HARC, the University of Arkansas’ Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies (CAST), and Latitude

Geographics (Latitude).

HARC and CAST collaborated earlier on a web-based application, the Infrastructure Placement Analysis

System (IPAS), which was designed to allow oil & gas companies operating in the Fayetteville Shale to

make environmentally-sound infrastructure location decisions. IPAS can be seen as the progenitor of the

LUSSIT project.

Geocortex Decision Support for Oil & Gas is a map-based decision support system that operators can use

to optimize oil and gas infrastructure placement. Shipped with powerful analytical tools and an intuitive

collaborative design that leverages the Esri ArcGIS Platform based tool will help to address environmental

aspects, facilitate more effective communication, and reach the permit stage of oil and gas development

more quickly. The system improved upon IPAS in the following areas:

Applicability to the entire United States (and possibly beyond) rather than just the Fayetteville Shale



Achieve broader use in the oil & gas community by commercialization of the tool

Appendix J.2 contains the final report from the LUSSIT team.

The project was approached with a unique method of collaborative development and included

consultation with regulatory agencies, and an advisory committee comprised of representatives of the Oil

& Gas industry that provided valuable feedback and guidance on the project team's work plan and results.

The project had two separate phases. At its completion Phase 1 defined the project work, application

requirements, support and commercialization plans for phase 2. A number of deliverables were

completed for the initial phase of the project and included:

A summary report

Business/Commercialization plan for the LUSSIT tool

Business Requirement Specifications

Functional Requirement Specifications

Phase 2 work plans

Phase 2 work schedule

Phase 2 was application development and user acceptance testing. Deliverables included:

Beta test report

Version 1.0 product ready for market.

Accomplishments Version 1.0 of the Geocortex Decision Support for Oil & Gas was release in November 2015. This

application centered around a collaborative, familiar interface that allows team members to interact with

GIS data without needing to be GIS experts. Share maps with other users in the organization, provide input

on siting decisions via comments and view/respond to tasks assigned by others. Features included:

Targeted, easy to use workflows help oil and gas operators, regulators and other stakeholders

make informed decisions.

Perform spill and view-shed analyses, assess the immediate environment for risks and be aware

of the distance and bearing from a proposed well to the nearest map features.

The application can be set up in a cloud environment, or on-premises, with an operator or a

third party consultant.

Can import standard business processes.

The successful beta test resulted in the operator continuing on as an early adopter of the product and

have continued to use the application in their test environment with the goal of moving it to production.

The tool is now being licensed and used by industry, saving time and improving the way siting of wells and

infrastructure is performed.



Research Activities Overview – Sensorpedia (Task 7.3) The goal of this project was for Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to use the Sensorpedia network for

the integration and analysis of data streams from multiple, diverse sources. The network was to be

developed with input from Texas A&M University Kingsville Environmental Engineering Department and

Institute for Sustainable Energy and Environment.

Data from field trials taken by the West Regional EFD Center included output from a variety of stationary

and mobile sensors. These sensors provided environmental and monitoring information that could be

integrated into the Sensorpedia sensor data sharing platform. Sensorpedia is a program developed at

ORNL that allows data to be accessed, shared, and analyzed online. Sensorpedia applies several design

principles common to many popular Web 2.0 sites. Although the interface is designed to be simple and

easy to use, the back-end services comprise the real power of Sensorpedia. The API using RESTful Web

services takes advantage of established open data portability standards such as OData, the Atom

Syndication Format, oEmbed, Open ID, and OAuth, to ensure current and future operability.

Accomplishments

As part of the TIP, testing was carried out concerning the compatibility of Sensorpedia with Octoblu/Plotly.

Hence, these platforms appear to have no restrictions on the type of data they can receive and display

(e.g., ASCII, image files, GPIB instrument output).

In this project, field trial data came from monitoring stations, vehicular emission sensors, and leak

detectors for emissions measurement. Requirements and standards for data provenance and metrology

for each of the sensor types was established, including human observations. A branded Sensorpedia

server was set up at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to allow trusted users within the EFD community to

subscribe to, publish and share sensor information. While the goal of active on-line monitoring was not

achieved, a Sensorpedia information dashboard and data “mashups” have been designed for the spatial

display of potential multi-sensor data in real time.

While the frame work for field trial data was developed in this project, future work would center on tests

with actual data. Key to successful deployment of Sensorpedia, or any data sharing application, would

involve developing protocols to ensure that data transmitted from field, to laboratory, to central server,

are not corrupted and are secure during transmission. ORNL’s final report is given in Appendix J.3.


Ensure sensor data fidelity and security, through collection, transmission to a local database, before

ultimate storage on a web-based server.

Development of novel sensors amenable to advanced manufacturing (inexpensive, sensitive, no power

requirements).



Broaden sensor options to include the effects of weather (e.g., lightning) and drill pad performance (e.g.,

fluid flow monitoring).

Possible Next Steps

The next step in data processing could follow recent methodologies developed at ORNL in additive

manufacturing.

ORNL has developed new approaches to measure gases of interest using RF-SAW technology, and has

additively manufactured printed sensor devices. This approach applied to drilling platforms would simplify

implementation of sensors and the gathering of data.

Research Activities Overview – Best Management Practices and Comparative Law Sites The University of Colorado Law School (UCL) team expanded the Oil and Gas Best Management Practices

(BMPs) web site, (www.oilandgasbmps.org). This site provides BMPs and other resource information to a

wide audience, including industry, community, government and environmental advocates. The database

and website resource were expanded from 8,500 BMPs, from nearly 500 documents in searchable

databases in 2013 to over 11,000 BMPs from over 800 documents by June 2016. The database documents

provide scientific research results as well as policy analysis and BMPs on topics ranging from wildlife,

water, air, health, soils and vegetation. Resource and Law & Policy pages provide additional explanatory

information, on issues such as Hydraulic Fracturing, Economics of BMPs, Reclamation and laws and

policies governing oil and gas development in the Intermountain West.

The project updated webpages, as necessary, and added a new Public Health Resource page, in

conjunction with University of Colorado School of Public Health as well as resource pages on Water

Quantity Compliance/Enforcement. The project also updated the Law & Policy pages with regulations of

several Indian Tribes.

Statistics on the BMP Project website indicate that website usage remained essentially constant over the

period of the grant with approximately 59,500 visitors with 98,000 page views in the period June 26, 2012

– June 26, 2013 and 55,500 users and 99,000 page-views in 2015. Most website visitor/session originated

in the United States (82 percent) with Colorado, Texas, California, Wyoming, New York, Oklahoma, and

Montana users topping the list.

The University of Colorado Law School (UCL) compiled regulatory information from 13 states on water

quantity, water quality and air quality issues from major shale play regions across the country. Over the

grant period, the UCL team compiled a database (http://lawatlas.org/oilandgas) of major regulatory

provisions from 17 states (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New

Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and

Wyoming), chosen to include major unconventional oil and gas development areas from both the eastern

and western regions of TIPs research (Bakken, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Greater Green River, Haynesville,

Mancos, Marcellus, Monterey, New Albany, Niobrara, Permian, Piceance, Powder River, San Juan, Uinta,

http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/

http://lawatlas.org/oilandgas



Woodford and others.) Regulations of four federal agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Forest Service), and four local

jurisdictions were also included in the database. The local jurisdiction, chosen as examples of diverse

regulatory regimes, include two towns (Flower Mound, Texas and Longmont, Colorado), a county, Rio

Arriba County, New Mexico, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, California. Work on

the additional jurisdictions (federal, local and four additional states) was funded by a grant from the

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) through the Public Health Law Research program at Temple

University Law School (the host of the LawAtlas database).

The regulations compared in the LawAtlas database are not comprehensive, but create a catalogue of high

priority elements that are useful for states and local jurisdictions to include in their regulatory regimes.

The database includes water quality regulations specific to permitting, drilling, completion,

production/operations, and reclamation. Examples of water quality regulations include baseline water

sampling, well-bore integrity, disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals, and recycling and reuse of

water. Water quantity regulations include water administration systems, reporting, usage, and disposal.

Air quality regulations compiled in the database address green completions, setbacks, flares, leak

detection, storage, and engines. With the supplemental funding from RWJF, UCL began preparing fact

sheets that use the database to compare state law on specific issues.

UCL researchers also began to study non-regulatory, voluntary agreements, known as memoranda of

understanding (MOUs) between local governments and operators. The team compiled over 40 local

government / operator MOUs in our searchable bibliography, and incorporated BMPs from those

documents into our BMP database. With partner funding (University of Colorado, Rocky Mountain

Mineral Law Foundation, and the Colorado Energy Office), UCL and partner researchers also interviewed

10 stakeholders, representing state and local governments, operators and community groups and

circulated a white paper discussing lessons learned on the MOU development process. The UCL final

report is given in Appendix J.4.

Accomplishments Background information on water, air, public health, and other environmental/community

issues, including various field trials and research conducted by EFD TIP team members provided on the Resources and Law and Policy pages of the Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project (BMP Project) website

Comparative law database for water quality, water quantity, and air quality for 17 states, four federal agencies and four local jurisdictions.

Comparative database of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between operators and local communities in Colorado.

Webpages on Public Health, Water Quantity and Compliance/Enforcement

National Conference and poster session on “Water & Air Quality Issues in Oil & Gas Development: The Evolving Framework of Regulation & Management,” Boulder, CO, June 5‐ 6, 2014.



Communication of Research Results:

Laws/regulations research results provided in a user-friendly, searchable database hosted by Temple University Law School

Information on laws/regulations and MOUs databases presented at national conference, workshops and in webinars.


Federal and state regulations on air and water are constantly evolving. Industry, government, and

communities would benefit from incorporation of these changes into the LawAtlas database.

Industry, government, and communities would also benefit from a compilation and comparison of

regulations on many other topic areas (e.g., induced seismicity, setbacks, financial guarantees, royalties

and severance taxes.)

Possible Next Steps

Continue to work with the EFD Alliance partners and develop new partnerships to maintain and expand

the BMP Project databases (document and BMPs) and website to bring the ever-changing best practices

of industry into public awareness.

Continue to work with the EFD Alliance partners and develop new partnerships to maintain and expand

the LawAtlas database, including adding new factsheets that compare existing state, federal and local

regulations.

Research Activities Overview – EFD Monthly Newsletter Each month, the EFD team compiled a monthly newsletter to keep stakeholders up to date on our progress

as well as conferences, workshops and training that serve the mission of Environmentally Friendly Drilling.

We highlighted members of our alliance, affiliation and sponsors and provided information on topics vital

to continued success.

Accomplishments

The newsletter has become a tremendous outreach means with readership all over the world. We strive

to keep this informational tool relevant and valuable. The newsletter subscriber list began with less than

30 recipients. As of June, 2016, the subscriber list is over 3,700.

The diversity of readers has expanded well beyond the oil and gas industry.

Special Announcements have promoted synergistic organizations’ missions as well.

The EFD University and National Lab Alliance have utilized the newsletter for technology transfer for other

DOE projects.



Appendices There are 77 appendices that are referred to in this final report. Each of these will be uploaded separately.

The complete list of appendices are as follows.

Appendix A: EFD-TIP Phase I A.1 Phase I Report

Appendix B: Assessment of RPSEA Projects B.1 GTI Recommendation

B.2 GTI Report

B.3 GTI Presentation of Assessment

B.4 GTI Table of Technologies

B.5 RPSEA Research Portfolio

B.6 Review of Tulsa Abstracts

B.7 NETL Projects

Appendix C: West Regional Center (Task 5.3) C.1 Story Ranch – La Salle County March 2013

C.2 Chalk Hill Ranch – Dewitt County April 2013

C.3 Chalk Hill Ranch – Dewitt County June 2013

C.4 Story Ranch – La Salle County June 2013

C.5 Chalk Hill Ranch – Dewitt County November 2013

C.6 SHAPE Ranch March – July

Appendix D: Eagle Ford Characterization (Task 5.3.1) D.1 Eagle Ford Report – Executive Summary

D.2 Eagle Ford Report

D.3 Eagle Ford Data

Appendix E: Water Management Strategy Support (Task 5.3.3) E.1 SPE 158396

E.2 SPE 173717

E.3 Ohio Trip Report

E.4 EMLab Results 1

E.5 EMLab Results 2



E.6 EMLab Results 3

E.7 EMLab Results 4

E.8 TestAmerica Report

E.9 Water Analysis Labs and Parameters

E.10 Water Results Chalk Hill Ranch

E.11 Pioneer Field Trial

E.12 BG Final Report

E.13 Water Testing Kit White Paper

E.14 Water Management Tool White Paper

E.15 Clean Membranes Report

E.16 Field Trial Report Johnston County

E.17 Frac Kit White Paper

E.18 Oil and Gas Riverside Summary

E.19 Water Seed Project 2015

Appendix F: Drilling and Completion Operations F.1 Emissions from Hydraulic Fracturing Engines, Dual-Fuel Research

F.1.1 Emissions, Economic Characteristics of Dual-Fuel

F.2 Powered by Natural Gas (PbNG)

F.2.1 Basics of Natural Gas Power & Fuel

F.2.2 Diesel Displacement

F.2.3 Path to Dual Fuel

F.3 EFD Scorecard

F.3.1 Scorecard Guidebook

F.4. Osage County

F.4.1 Environmental Issues in Osage County, OK

F.5 Disappearing Roads

F.5.1 Life-Cycle Assessment

F.5.2 RPSEA Final Report

F.5.3 Lone Star Grid System

Appendix G: Community Issues/Public Perception (Task 5.3.5)

G.1 EFD-TIP Societal Team Final Report

G.2 Hydraulic Fracturing Views in the Marcellus

G.3 Perceptions in the Eagle Ford Executive Summary

G.4 Perceptions in the Eagle Ford Summary

G.5 Perceptions in the Eagle Ford March 2014

G.6 Karnes County Report

G.7 La Salle County Report



G.8 Socially Responsible Drilling Perspectives

G.9 Community Resident Perceptions of O&G Activity in the Eagle Ford December 2015

Appendix H: Air Quality (Task 5.3.6) H.1 Comparison of Air Emission Estimation Methods

H.2 Validation Testing of the Area Source Technique

H.3 Flare Emission Measurement and Mitigation Technologies Testing

H.4 A Better Way to Estimate Emissions From Oil and Gas Sites

H.5 Recommendations to Address Flaring Issues, Solutions and Technologies

H.6 Flaring Technologies

H.7 Flaring Mitigation Field Test – ORC Generator

H.8 Emissions Study – ORC Compared to Open Flaring

H.9 Wireless Sensor Evaluation TAMUK EFD-TIP Final Report

H.10 Public Health Enhancement Opportunities

H.11 Public Health Enhancement Opportunities (Appendices)

Appendix I: EFD East Regional Center I.1 East Regional Center Final Report

I.2 Assessing Environmental Impacts (Task 5.4.1)

I.3 Cardiovascular Toxicity (Task 5.4.2)

I.4 Water Based Drilling Fluid Systems in the Utica and Marcellus Shales (Task 5.4.3)

I.5 Comparison of Air Quality Results (Task 5.4.4)

I.6 Microseismic and 3D Seismic Interpretation (Task 5.4.5)

I.7 Variations of Microseismic b-Values (Task 5.4.5)

I.8 Utica Shale Resource Study (Task 5.4.6)

Appendix J: Technology Transfer and Access to Data (Tasks 3.0 and 7.0) J.1 EFD Technology Transfer Activities

J.2 Land Use Site Selection Information Tool (LUSSIT) (Task 7.2)

J.3 Sensorpedia (Task 7.3)

J.4 Best Management Practices and Comparative Law Sites

Documents

RPSEA EFD Project 10122-06efdsystems.org/pdf/2016-06-30_Draft_Final_Report_website.pdf · 2016. 6. 30. · RPSEA EFD TIP Project 10122-06: Final Report Message from the Houston Advanced