From the Sooytpaws blog
Oops!
The next several drilling waste management posts will be devoted generally to the state's program and specifically to the well drilled by Berry Energy (B-800) in the Fernow Experimental Forest last April and May (47-093-00107).
That well (according to the well report filed with the state) was drilled to 7,882 feet with two producing formations, Oriskany sand and Hunterville chert. Because the well was drilled beyond the Onondaga limestone formation it is a deep well according to state law (Marcellus is above the Onondaga).
They drilled through three caves, open caves at 92 and 149 feet and a mud-filled cave at 164 feet. (The Forest's caves are used by the endangered Indiana bat.) Fresh water was found 395 feet below the surface but there is no indication in the report of encountering brine.
The well report includes information about fracturing and I'll treat that subject in a future post.
Berry also filed the required Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) with the state's Office of Oil and Gas and this post will focus on that. The DMR deals with the company's discharge (landspraying pit fluids) during June and July of 2008. Other options available to operators, not used by Berry, include disposal by underground injection or at a centralized facility, off site disposal (landspraying at another well site), or reuse (e.g., closed loop drilling).
There are four categories of pits and the Berry well had an expedited category 4 pit (which requires permission from an inspector or the chief of the Office of Oil and Gas). No indication is given why the pit was a category 4 pit.
Pit categories are: 1) chlorides below 5,000 mg/l; 2) chlorides below 12,500 mg/l; 3) chlorides below 12,500 mg/l and dissolved oxygen below 2.5 mg/l; and 4) chlorides below 12,500 mg/l and special permission. Pit categories 2, 3 and 4 can contain fracturing fluid or flowback and, with inspector's approval, can have chloride levels up to 25,000 mg/l.
Berry's sampling results for the Fernow drill waste pit were as follows. I've highlighted items that I consider most important.
Parameter |
Predischarge |
Discharge |
||
Limit |
Reported |
Limit |
Reported |
|
pH |
6-10 |
7.8 |
6-10 |
7.5 |
Settling time |
1 day |
2 days |
|
|
Iron |
monitor |
<1 mg/l |
monitor |
<0.36 mg/l |
Dissolved oxygen |
monitor |
4 mg/l |
monitor |
4 mg/l |
Settleable solids |
monitor |
<0.1 mg/l |
monitor |
<0.1 mg/l |
Chlorides |
12,500 mg/l |
7,500 mg/l |
12,500 mg/l |
6,210 mg/l |
Oil |
Trace |
none |
Trace |
none |
Total organic carbon |
|
|
monitor |
110 mg/l |
Total suspended solids |
|
|
monitor |
31 mg/l |
Oil & grease |
|
|
monitor |
5.5 mg/l |
Manganese |
monitor |
<1 mg/l |
monitor |
0.36 mg/l |
Volume |
|
|
monitor |
100,000 gallons |
Flow |
|
|
monitor |
100 gallons |
Activated carbon |
0.175 lb/barrel |
150 pounds |
|
|
Disposal area |
|
|
monitor |
2 acres |
Category 4 pits, in addition to typical pit treatment by aeration, liming and settling, also receive an additional treatment of 0.175 pounds of powdered activated carbon per barrel of waste as a method to remove contaminants.
The Oops! for my title of this post comes from the fact that the pit volume was 100,000 gallons or 2,381 barrels. Multiplying 2,381 by 0.175 pounds of activated carbon per barrel is 417 pounds of carbon required for treatment, not 150 pounds as the company reported using.
Something to keep in mind is that the state doesn't independently monitor pits and a company's figures in the DMR are usually all one has to go by. And despite the fact that there were problems in the landspraying at this site I've received no indication that the state will investigate what happened.
Future posts will be about the state's liming rationale, pH, SAR and a return to chloride load. A previous post, Math Problem, discussed chloride load and I've created a downloadable Excel workbook with formulas for SAR (which we'll get to) and chloride load. Just plug in your figures on the chloride load worksheet -- gallons or barrels and chloride level mg/l -- and the answer is given.
Posted on Mar. 27th, 2009 at 05:04 pm
Gas Well Site Visits
Examining Well Sites
How We Examined Well Sites
Environmental Assessment
Table with Links to Wells Visited
47-039-05714 Environmental Assessment
47-079-01492 Environmental Assessment
47-039-02026 Environmental Assessment
Gas Well Study is the examination of natural gas wells in West Virginia.
Underground Injection Control Class 2 Wells
These wells are used either for the disposal of oil and gas liquid waste or for the enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas.
Gas Well Study Site Visits
Annual reports, environmental assessments, and individual well information.
YouTube Videos
Select videos from the Gas Well Study YouTube channel.
What Happened at Fernow
An investigation into what caused the vegetation death in the land application area after landspraying hydraulic fracture flowback waste.
The Spill at Buckeye Creek
An investigation into a spill from a Marcellus well site into Buckeye Creek in Doddridge county.
The Details
Plunger Lift Technology on Gas Wells
Fluids Brought to the Surface during Production
Plugging a Well
How To Read a Lab Report
Information the Completion Report Provides
Casing and Cementing