Photo image area measures 2” H x 6.93” W and can be masked by a

collage strip of one, two or three images.

The photo image area is located 3.19” from left and 3.81” from top of page.

Each image used in collage should be reduced or cropped to a maximum of

2” high, stroked with a 1.5 pt white frame and positioned edge-to-edge with

accompanying images.

Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources

Office of Research and Development

January 23, 2014

Jeanne Briskin, Research Coordinator

Presentation Outline

•Study Background

•Technical Goals: HF Water Cycle

•Progress

•Stakeholder Engagement

•Draft Report

1

Study Background

The study purpose is to:

• Assess whether hydraulic fracturing can impact

drinking water resources

• Identify driving factors that affect the severity and

frequency of any impacts

In 2010, Congress urged EPA to study the relationship

between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.

2

3

Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle

Large volume water withdrawals

from ground and surface waters? Water Acquisition

Surface spills on or near well pads

of hydraulic fracturing fluids? Chemical Mixing

Surface spills on or near well pads

of flowback and produced water?

Flowback and

Produced Water

Inadequate treatment of

hydraulic fracturing wastewaters?

Wastewater

Treatment and Waste

Disposal

The injection and fracturing process? Well Injection

What are the potential impacts on drinking water resources of:

Water Acquisition

4

What are the potential impacts of large volume water withdrawals

from ground and surface waters on drinking water resources?

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA Literature Review | Service Company Analysis

Well File Review | FracFocus Analysis

SCENARIO EVALUATIONS Water Availability Modeling

Research Projects Underway

Water Availability Modeling

Semi-Arid: Upper Colorado River Basin Humid: Susquehanna River Basin

• Modeling the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking

water availability in semi-arid and humid river basins under different

water usage scenarios

• Future water use scenarios include: business-as-usual, full

development and “recycling plus” 5

What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well

pads of hydraulic fracturing fluids on drinking water resources?

Chemical Mixing

6

Research Projects Underway

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA Literature Review | Spills Database Analysis

Service Company Analysis Well File Review | FracFocus Analysis

LABORATORY STUDIES Analytical Method Development

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

RETROSPECTIVE CASE STUDIES

FracFocus Analysis

• Data submitted to FracFocus with fracture dates

between January 1, 2011, and February 28, 2013 will

be summarized

• Main topics expected to be described in report

–Water use

–Proppants

–Chemical use

• Summary statistics are expected to be calculated for

nationwide data and selected counties

7

FracFocus Analysis

• Counties will be selected

that show diversity in water

use and chemical use as a

function of geography,

geology, and production

type

– Tabular data and GIS data

used to select “example”

counties

8

4,150 – 143,000,000

143,000,001 – 505,000,000

505,000,001 – 968,000,000

968,000,001 – 1,840,000,000

1,840,000,001 – 3,710,000,000

Preliminary data subject

to change following

QA review

What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing

process on drinking water resources?

Well Injection

9

Research Projects Underway

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA Literature Review

Service Company Analysis Well File Review RETROSPECTIVE CASE STUDIES

SCENARIO EVALUATIONS Subsurface Migration Modeling

Proposed Graph for Analysis

10

Generic Well Diagram

Cem

ent

Cem

ent

Cem

ent C

em

ent

Vertical

Separation

HF

Zone

Vertical Separation between HF Zone and

Top of Cement (Bar Graph)

Nu

mb

er

of

Wells

Distance (feet)

Inherent Protectiveness LESS MORE

If multiple zones are fractured,

distance between top of cement and

uppermost zone is graphed

Diagram not to scale

Top of Cement

Proposed Graph for Analysis

11

Generic Well Diagram

Cem

ent

Cem

ent

Cem

ent C

em

ent

Vertical

Separation

HF

Zone

Vertical Separation between HF Zone and

Ground Surface (Bar Graph)

Nu

mb

er

of

Wells

Distance (feet)

Inherent Protectiveness LESS MORE

If multiple zones are fractured,

distance between ground surface and

uppermost zone is graphed

Diagram not to scale

Proposed Graph for Analysis

12

Generic Well Diagram

Cem

ent

Cem

ent

Cem

ent C

em

ent

HF

Zone

Distribution of Cement Bond Indices

(Box and Whiskers Plot)

Cem

en

t B

on

d I

nd

ex

Distance Interval Above

Uppermost Perforation (feet)

Diagram not to scale

Cement Bond Index

Measure of bond quality

(0-100%) obtained from

cement bond logs

0%

100%

Zonal isolation indicated

LESS

MORE

Proposed Graph for Analysis

13

Generic Well Diagram

Cem

ent

Cem

ent

Cem

ent C

em

ent

HF

Zone

Zones and Degree of Cement

(Bar Graph)

Perc

en

t o

f A

ll C

asin

g S

trin

gs

Inherent Protectiveness MORE LESS

Diagram not to scale

Partially- or Un-Cemented

Interval • Are water zones present?

• Are hydrocarbon (HC)

zones present?

Fully

Cemented

No HC

or water

HC Only Water

Only

HC and

Water

Zones in Partially- or

Un-Cemented Intervals

Flowback and Produced Water

14

Research Projects Underway

What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of

flowback and produced water on drinking water resources?

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA Literature Review

Spills Database Analysis Service Company Analysis

Well File Review

LABORATORY STUDIES Analytical Method Development

TOXICITY ASSESSMENT

RETROSPECTIVE CASE STUDIES

Spills Database Analysis

15

Federal Source National Response Center National Response Center (NRC) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Data

States* Source Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Compliance

Reporting Database

Colorado Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission COGIS - Spill/Release

Database

New Mexico New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Spills and

Pit Data

Wyoming Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Spill Database

Texas Texas Railroad Commission H8 Spill Records

Lousiana Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Arkansas Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Complaints and Inspections

Database

Oklahoma Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Utah Utah DERR Division of Drinking Water

North Dakota No publically available spills database

Additional Data obtained from 9 HF service companies and 9 oil and gas operators by EPA

*States were selected based on those with the largest number of hydraulically fractured wells.

Wastewater Treatment and Waste Disposal

16

What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic

fracturing wastewater on drinking water resources?

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA Literature Review | Well File Review

FracFocus Analysis

LABORATORY STUDIES Source Apportionment Studies Wastewater Treatability Studies

Br-DBP Precursor Studies SCENARIO EVALUATIONS

Surface Water Modeling

Research Projects Underway

Sample Drinking Water Intake

Discharge Point Discharge includes hydraulic

fracturing wastewater, coal-

fired power plant effluents,

mining effluent, and road salt

Sample Upstream

ISCO Sampler

Sample Downstream

Sample Discharge

Source Apportionment

17

Progress Report

18

• Includes project-specific

updates

– Research approach

– Status as of Sept. 2012

– Next steps

• Does not include research

results

• Available at

www.epa.gov/hfstudy

Research Projects and Products

19

17 research projects are expected to produce >30

peer-reviewed journal papers or EPA reports

• Most will undergo an internal (EPA) and an external (journal or

letter) peer review

• To date, 5 papers have been published in scientific journals

– Subsurface migration modeling (3)

– Analytical method development (2)

These products will be considered together with

scientific literature in the draft assessment report

• Draft assessment report is a HISA

Peer Reviewed Publications

Analytical method development: • DeArmond, P. D. and DiGoregorio, A. L. 2013. Characterization of liquid

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of

acrylamide in complex environmental samples. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

405 (12): 4159-66.

• DeArmond, P. D. and DiGoregorio, A. L. 2013. Rapid liquid chromatography-tandem

mass spectrometry-based method for the analysis of alcohol ethoxylates and

alkylphenol ethoxylates in environmental samples. Journal of Chromatography A

1305:154-63.

Subsurface migration modeling: • Rutqvist, J., Rinaldo, A. P., Cappa, F., Moridis, G.J. 2013. Modeling of fault

reactivation and induced seismicity during hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs.

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 107: 31-44.

• Kim, J. and Moridis, G. J. 2013. Development of the T+M coupled flow–

geomechanical simulator to describe fracture propagation and coupled flow–thermal–

geomechanical processes in tight/shale gas systems. Computers and Geosciences

60: 184-198.

• Moridis, G. J. and Freeman, C. M. 2013. The RealGas and RealGasH2O Options of

the TOUGH+ Code for the Simulation Of Coupled Fluid And Heat Flow in Tight/Shale

Gas Systems. Computers and Geosciences. (Accepted/ currently in press.

Manuscript available online)

20

Study Timeline

21

US Congress urges the EPA to conduct a study

Meetings with stakeholders to identify

concerns and study scope

(July – August 2010)

Peer review of draft study plan*

(February – August 2011)

Release final study plan

(November 2011)

Technical workshops

(February – March 2011)

Peer review of

draft report

Technical roundtables* / information request

(November 2012)

Technical workshops*

(Spring/Summer 2013)

Technical roundtable*

(December 2013)

Final report

Planning Conduct Research Report of Results

Release progress report*

(December 2012)

*Webinars conducted to

provide updates

Individual reports

and papers

Continued stakeholder

engagement

Stakeholder Engagement

• Public meetings

• One-on-one meetings

• Technical meetings (workshops and roundtables)

• Public dockets

• Responses to information requests

22

EPA has received input through a variety of mechanisms

at different stages of the study:

Technical Meetings

23

• Interact with experts outside of EPA

• Keep up-to-date on changes in technology and practice

• Obtain feedback on current research

• Engage with subject-matter

experts on

– Analytical chemistry methods

– Well construction/operation and

subsurface modeling

– Wastewater treatment and related

modeling

– Water acquisition modeling

– Case studies

• February — March 2011

• February — June 2013

Technical Workshops

• Consult with a broad and

balanced panel of experts

– Oil and gas industry, water

industry, non-governmental

organizations, state/local

governments, tribes, academia

• November 2012

• December 2013

Technical Roundtables

Technical Meetings

24

• Described variability in industry and operational

practices, many of which can be dependent on shale

basin geology

• Discussed trends toward treatment and reuse of

wastewater for subsequent fracturing operations

• Supplied information for EPA to consider as it conducts

subsurface modeling and analytical method

development

Examples of technical input include:

Draft Report

25

Sources of information:

• Peer-reviewed literature and reports

• Government reports and technical papers

• Results from the agency’s ongoing research

activities

• Information submitted by stakeholders – Technical meetings

– EPA docket

– Comments submitted to the Science Advisory Board

Draft Report

26

Impacts evaluated:

• Impacts related to normal operations

reflecting modern typical practices

• Potential and actual accidents or unintended

events

• Potential immediate, short-term, and long-

term impacts

Draft Report

27

Spatial Scope:

• National: Evaluating available information for

multiple regions

• Evaluating potential impacts at multiple

scales:

– Single well

– Cluster of wells

– Watershed

– Shale plays

Draft Report

28

Intended Use:

• Contribute to understanding of potential

impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water

resources

• Identify pathways of greatest concern

• Inform and promote dialogue among federal,

tribal, state, and local government entities,

industry, NGOs and other stakeholders

• Identify knowledge gaps and information needs

Next Steps

EPA will continue to conduct research, analyze

information and literature, and engage stakeholders

• Completed research will undergo peer review

• Exchange information with industry, academia,

states, NGOs, tribes, and public

• Update SAB panel on publications and research

(anticipated Summer 2014)

• Release draft report in late 2014

–The SAB Panel will peer review the draft report

–The public will have an opportunity to provide written and

oral comments

29

Questions?

For more information:

www.epa.gov/hfstudy

30