Wastewater Disposal from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development

May 9, 2016 - While CBM production is estimated to remain at current levels of national gas production (8%), development of shale gas is estimated to ...
0 downloads 8 Views 2MB Size
Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF PITTSBURGH

Article

Wastewater Disposal from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Degrades Stream Quality at a West Virginia Injection Facility Denise M. Akob, Adam C. Mumford, William H Orem, Mark A. Engle, J. Grace Klinges, Douglas B. Kent, and Isabelle M. Cozzarelli Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00428 • Publication Date (Web): 09 May 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on May 11, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

1 2

Wastewater Disposal from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Degrades

3

Stream Quality at a West Virginia Injection Facility

4 5

Denise M. Akob1,*, Adam C. Mumford1, William Orem2, Mark A. Engle2, J. Grace

6

Klinges1,#, Douglas B. Kent3, and Isabelle M. Cozzarelli1

7 1

8

U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, Reston, VA 20192 USA

2

9

U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center, Reston, VA

10

20192 USA 3

11

U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, Menlo Park, CA 94025 US

12 13

*Corresponding Author: Dr. Denise M. Akob, U.S. Geological Survey, National

14

Research Program, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS 430, Reston, VA 20192 USA, Phone:

15

703-648-5819, Fax: 703-648-5484, Email: [email protected]

16

#

17

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Science Policy Branch

Present address: ORISE Fellow, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

18 19

Keywords: unconventional oil and gas production, wastewaters, class II injection, shale

20

gas production, Marcellus Shale, produced water

21

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

22

Abstract

23

The development of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources has rapidly

24

increased in recent years; however, the environmental impacts and risks are poorly

25

understood. A single well can generate millions of liters of wastewater, representing a

26

mixture of formation brine and injected hydraulic fracturing fluids. One of the most

27

common methods for wastewater disposal is underground injection; we are assessing

28

potential risks of this method through an intensive, interdisciplinary study at an injection

29

disposal facility in West Virginia. In June 2014, waters collected downstream from the

30

site had elevated specific conductance (416 µS/cm) and Na, Cl, Ba, Br, Sr and Li

31

concentrations, compared to upstream, background waters (conductivity, 74 µS/cm).

32

Elevated TDS, a marker of UOG wastewater, provided an early indication of impacts in

33

the stream. Wastewater inputs are also evident by changes in 87Sr/86Sr in stream water

34

adjacent to the disposal facility. Sediments downstream from the facility were enriched

35

in Ra and had high bioavailable Fe(III) concentrations relative to upstream sediments.

36

Microbial communities in downstream sediments had lower diversity and shifts in

37

composition. Although the hydrologic pathways were not able to be assessed, these

38

data provide evidence demonstrating that activities at the disposal facility are impacting

39

a nearby stream and altering the biogeochemistry of nearby ecosystems.

40 41

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 37

Page 3 of 37

42 43

Environmental Science & Technology

Introduction Increasing demand for fossil fuels and depletion of traditional oil and gas

44

reservoirs has driven the development of shale gas, coal-bed methane (CBM), and

45

other unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources using technologies such as

46

directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing e.g., 1. These resources are an important part

47

of the United States’ energy resource portfolio. While CBM production is estimated to

48

remain at current levels of national gas production (8%), development of shale gas is

49

estimated to account for at least 50% of all natural gas produced in the U.S. by 2040.2

50

Production of UOG resources results in liquid (e.g., produced waters or wastewaters),

51

solid (e.g., drill cuttings), and gaseous wastes, which pose unknown risks and potential

52

consequences to the quality of atmospheric, groundwater, surface-water, soil, and

53

environmental resources.

54

Wastewaters from UOG production are mixtures of residual fluids used to

55

complete the well and formation brine.1, 3-7 Initially these wastewaters reflect the

56

composition of the injected fluid, then over time, the chemistry shifts to reflect the

57

chemical composition of the formation, e.g., 5. Wastewaters from the Marcellus Shale

58

typically have elevated total dissolved solids (TDS, up to 300,000 mg/L),5, 8-10 variable

59

concentrations of organic compounds,6, 11 and naturally occurring radioactive material

60

(NORM12). An average well producing from the Marcellus Shale yields approximately 5

61

million liters of wastewater over its lifetime; these large volumes of returned fluids, with

62

complex chemistries, present water management challenges. The chemistry can affect

63

the suitability of wastewaters for reuse or the strategy for disposal.3, 4, 13, 14

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

64

UOG wastewaters are managed in a variety of ways including treatment and re-

65

use for new well completions,15 disposal through publicly owned or commercial

66

wastewater treatment plants,14, 15 or disposal in Class II underground injection control

67

(UIC) wells.4, 14, 15 Class II disposal wells are estimated to be disposing of over 2 billion

68

gallons of wastewater from oil and gas operations every day.16 They are located across

69

the United States and there are approximately 36,000 Class II UIC wells handling

70

wastewaters from UOG operations.16 Impacts on environmental health from accidental

71

or intentional releases during handling, disposal, treatment, or re-use are poorly

72

documented, with few reports in the literature.17 Potential pathways for wastewater to

73

enter surface water or groundwater include: (1) releases from pipelines or tanker trucks

74

transporting fluids, (2) leakage from wastewater storage ponds through compromised

75

liners and overflows from the ponds, or (3) migration of the fluids through the

76

subsurface at the injection depth or through failed injection well casings. Research is

77

needed to examine the potential impacts of wastewater releases on environmental

78

health, which are likely to accelerate with the growing pace of UOG development.

79

Near Lochgelly, West Virginia, wastewaters from UOG development are

80

disposed of in a Class II UIC well. A small stream runs through the facility and provides

81

an opportunity to sample surface water and sediments near a wastewater disposal

82

operation (Fig. 1). This study is a part of a larger effort by the US Geological Survey

83

(USGS) and university researchers to quantify biogeochemical and human health

84

changes resulting from UOG wastewater disposal.18 Here, we used key field and

85

inorganic chemical signatures, as well as microbial community compositions, to identify

86

UOG wastewater impacts to stream biogeochemistry by characterizing differences

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 37

Page 5 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

87

between sites within the disposal facility and background sites located upstream or in a

88

separate drainage with no known inputs from oil and gas development. Although the

89

pathway of contaminants from the disposal facility to the stream could not be assessed,

90

these results clearly demonstrate that wastewater handling practices at the site affect

91

stream and sediment quality.

92 93 94

Materials and Methods Site Description. The study area is located near a UOG wastewater UIC facility

95

(disposal facility) in central West Virginia (Fig. 1 and S10). The disposal well was

96

originally drilled in 1981 as a natural gas production well to a depth of 990.6 m. The well

97

was reworked as a Class II injection well in 2002, with fluids injected into a sandstone

98

reservoir at a depth of 792.5 m. In addition to the disposal well, the facility has brine

99

storage tanks, an access road, and two small, lined impoundment ponds. Until the

100

spring 2014, a portion of the wastewaters were temporarily stored in the holding ponds

101

prior to injection to allow for settling of particulates that could potentially clog the pore

102

space in the receiving reservoir. The ponds operated from 2002 to spring 2014 when

103

they were removed and the area re-contoured and planted with grass.

104

A certified record inventory for the site was obtained from the West Virginia

105

Environmental Quality Board (WVEQB), which provided API numbers for 25 wells

106

shipping wastewaters to the facility. Between 2002 and 2014 the UIC well injected

107

approximately 1.5 million barrels (equal to ~178 million liters) of wastewater from the 25

108

production wells located in West Virginia. Information about these production wells was

109

obtained from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP),

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

110

Office of Oil and Gas permit database ((http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/oog/) as detailed in

111

Table S1. All of the wells are producing natural gas, with 15 wells producing coal bed

112

methane, while four wells are producing from the Marcellus Shale. An additional 4 wells

113

are characterized as horizontal gas wells producing from the Lower Huron shale

114

formation (Lower Huron is WVDEP nomenclature, USGS usage is Huron Member of the

115

Ohio Shale). We were unable to find records for the remaining two wells listed in the

116

WVEQB document.

117

The Wolf Creek watershed encompasses 4430 hectares with Wolf Creek flowing

118

to the northeast and joining the New River ~10 km downstream from the facility (Fig.

119

S10). The New River is used for recreation and is a local drinking-water source. The

120

headwaters of Wolf Creek flow through areas of past surface coal mining that have

121

since been covered or reclaimed and are primarily residential or agricultural land.19

122

Despite reclamation, Wolf Creek was classified as biologically impaired by the WVDEP

123

in 2008, due to high levels of iron and dissolved aluminum,20 which may be due to acid

124

mine drainage from the Summerlee coal mine.21

125

An initial reconnaissance-sampling trip conducted in September 2013 indicated

126

potential impacts to the headwaters requiring additional investigation (Table 1, Fig. 1).

127

To further study impacts from the disposal facility, samples were collected from two

128

control locations within the Wolf Creek watershed: 1) a small tributary that runs through

129

the disposal facility and 2) a separate drainage (referred to as “background drainage”),

130

Site 2, with no potential impact from the disposal facility (Fig. 1A, Table 1). The tributary

131

begins upstream from the disposal facility and runs adjacent to the disposal well, and

132

downhill from the two former impoundments (Fig. 1B). The background drainage-stream

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 6 of 37

Page 7 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

133

meets the disposal-facility-stream prior to joining the main stem of Wolf Creek, ~ 1,000

134

m downstream from the facility (Fig. 1A). No samples were obtained for the current

135

study below Site 3 due to other industrial activities in the area (e.g., an automotive

136

junkyard).

137

Site Sampling and Analysis. The disposal facility and background drainage

138

streams (Site 2) were sampled in June 2014 at five points within the disposal facility,

139

including locations upstream (Site 4), within (Site 5 and 6), and downstream (Sites 7

140

and 3) from the disposal facility (Fig. 1B, Table 1). Conductivity, pH, and aqueous Fe2+

141

were determined in the field as described in the SI Methods. Water samples were

142

collected from the approximate center of the stream for analysis of alkalinity, cations,

143

anions, strontium (Sr), oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) isotopes, nonvolatile dissolved

144

organic carbon (NVDOC), trace inorganic elements, and disinfection byproducts (DBP)

145

as described in the SI Methods. Additional field measurements and water samples for

146

NVDOC and major and minor cations were collected in September 2013 and 2014 at

147

Sites 2, 7, and 3. Streambed sediment samples were collected for carbon, nitrogen and

148

sulfur elemental analysis (CNS), Fe speciation, total inorganic elements, and microbial

149

community analysis as described in the SI Methods. Detailed sampling, quality

150

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures, and analytical methods are described in

151

the SI Methods. No hydrologic measurements were conducted or groundwater sampled

152

during the September and June sampling efforts. Further investigations into the

153

hydrology of the site were not possible due to site access limitations. The microbial

154

community sequence dataset was deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

155

Information (NCBI) Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under accession number

156

SRP073303.

157 158 159

Results and Discussion Impacts to Stream Water Quality. Tributaries of Wolf Creek that were sampled

160

in September 2013, June 2014, and September 2014 showed impacts on the tributary

161

downstream from the injection disposal facility (Fig. 1, Table 1). In September 2013

162

exploratory sampling indicated that there was elevated specific conductance at Sites 7

163

and 3 compared to the background drainage Site 2 (Table 1). Intensive sampling in

164

June 2014 revealed that background sites located in the separate drainage (Site 2) or

165

upstream (Site 4), with no known UOG wastewater inputs, exhibited no visual signs of

166

impacts or disturbance due to anthropogenic activity. Waters at these sites had neutral

167

pH and specific conductance (~80 µS/cm, Table 1) in line with that of minimally

168

impacted streams in the area. Sites 5, 6, 7 and 3, which were located on, adjacent to

169

the disposal injection well, adjacent to the former holding ponds, or downstream,

170

respectively, all exhibited visual signs of impacts. All 4 of these sites had red-orange

171

sediments and waters characterized by neutral pH (Table 1). At Sites 6, 7, and 3 there

172

were hydrocarbon odors once the sediment was disturbed, although Site 6 waters had a

173

specific conductance in line with background sites and Site 5. Waters from sites

174

downstream from the former impoundments (Sites 7 and 3) had elevated specific

175

conductance (~400 µS/cm) indicating that visual impacts at these sites were associated

176

with alterations to the stream chemistry. The elevated specific conductance provided

177

the field evidence that impacts to the stream are due to UOG wastewaters, because

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 8 of 37

Page 9 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

178

produced waters from both conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells in the

179

Appalachian Basin are characterized by high salinity.5, 6, 10, 22-26 Specific conductance at

180

all of the sites was lowest at the June 2014 sampling time point, likely due to the fact

181

that 3.0 cm of precipitation fell in 24 hours on June 12, 2014 in nearby Beckley, WV,27

182

less than one week prior to our sampling on June 17, 2014.

183

Water samples collected in June 2014 showed clear differences in chemistry

184

upgradient and downgradient from the waste-disposal facility (Fig. 3 and Table S2).

185

Streams in this region are naturally low in NVDOC; below 1.5 mg/L at both background

186

sites at the time of sampling (Fig. 3a, Table S2). Concentrations increased to 2.2-3.3

187

mg/L at sites on and downgradient from the facility. In contrast, nitrate (NO3-) and

188

sulfate (SO42-) concentrations in the stream decreased on and below the disposal

189

facility. Total Fe concentrations adjacent to the former impoundments were 8.1 mg/L, far

190

in excess of the 0.13 mg/L found upstream from the facility (Table S2).

191

Chloride (Cl-, 115 mg/L) and bromide (Br-, 0.80 mg/L) concentrations were

192

elevated adjacent to the former impoundments (Site 7), compared to 0.88 mg/L Cl- and

193

0.713), than the samples on or below the

226

disposal facility suggesting contribution from additional sources of water into the stream.

227

Because Sr isotopes do not fractionate appreciably in the environment, sources of Sr-

228

rich water with a lower 87Sr/86Sr ratio appear to contribute to the stream near Site 6 and

229

again below the disposal facility (Sites 3 and 7). For context, these data are compared

230

against late stage produced waters from the Marcellus Shale from Greene County,

231

Pennsylvania and mine drainage water from the various Pennsylvanian age coals in the

232

area (external Sr data from 44). There is some spatial variability in strontium isotope

233

geochemistry across the Marcellus Shale, so data from the closest county (Greene)

234

were used. On this type of plot (87Sr/86Sr vs. 1/Sr), mixtures between any two end-

235

members plot as straight lines (Fig. 4a). The data point for the Site 6 sample falls along

236

a mixing line between upstream water (Site 4) and Marcellus Shale produced waters.

237

End-member mixing calculations suggest the sample from Site 6 is the result of a small

238

contribution of Marcellus Shale produced waters (0.004%). Such small contributions can

239

be identified because of the high concentration of Sr in Marcellus Shale produced water

240

(>1500 mg/L) relative to the stream water (