Skip to content

Stony Brook Modeling Paper Fails to Make a Splash

2012 August 14

A new paper released from a graduate student and associate professor at Stony Brook University in New York suggests that Marcellus development “poses substantial potential risks of river and other water pollution.”

What evidence did the researchers find to corroborate that thesis? Well, by their own admission: none. Instead, they inserted a bunch of hypothetical assumptions into an academic model, turned the crank a few times, pushed a couple buttons, and then, there it was: a theoretical conclusion based on the interplay of theoretical inputs.

Of course, as with all modeling studies, the quality of what you get out depends entirely on the quality of what you put in.  In this case, it appears the assumptions weren’t very good at all.  To wit:

Bad Input #1: Study significantly inflates expected development scenarios

Before discussing the individual inputs the study gets wrong in developing its risk assessment, its worth noting it significantly inflates natural gas development expected in New York state.  Specifically, it assumes that 40,000 wells will be developed in the Empire State.  From the study:

Given typical well spacing in the Marcellus Shale (10), if only 10% of the region is developed, this would equate to 40,000 wells. (page 10)

However, that isn’t at all what’s likely to happen according to experience in Pennsylvania and data from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approximately 5,000 wells have been developed in Pennsylvania since 2008. The SGEIS (executive summary, page 4) in New York has similar data noting, “The Department has determined, based on industry projections, that it may receive applications to drill approximately 1,700 – 2,500 horizontal and vertical wells for development of the Marcellus Shale by high-volume hydraulic fracturing during a peak development year. An average year may see 1,600 or more applications. ”  The SGEIS data is a liberal assessment and merely represents applications; the number of wells actually developed during a given year would likely be lower.

Bad Input #2: Study misses the mark on how water is being treated in the Marcellus Shale

The study declares that significant risks exist due to water treatment practices in use in the Marcellus Shale.  The problem? The study reaches this conclusion using an operating environment that simply doesn’t exist.  From the study:

Although some well operators recycle and reuse hydraulic fracturing fluids for multiple wells, most operators do not due to the cost of separation and filtration. Instead, the used hydraulic fracturing fluid is transported to wastewater treatment facility and discharged to streams. (page 6)

View of the Finger Lakes in New York

That kind of assertion would be news to Michael Krancer, PA DEP Secretary, who specifically outlawed that practice in May 2011, which, as reported by the Harrisburg Patriot News, resulted in a “sea change” of operations in Pennsylvania.  In fact, according to reports, most of the major operators in the Marcellus Shale are now recycling upwards of 90 percent of the water used in their operations.  This is a significant increase from the industry-wide 70 percent recycling rate achieved in 2011.  Of course, both of these rates far exceed the 16 percent assumed by Stony Brook researchers used in reaching their conclusion.

That’s an interesting omission, especially considering the study’s researchers themselves said this about reuse and recycling:

if the fluid is reused it was assumed there are no disposal losses for the well and any further losses are accrued by the next well. (page 4)

Of course, if the actual facts about water recycling in the Marcellus were used for this study, its conclusions would’ve been far different; but perhaps the study’s authors knew that.

Bad Input #3: Bad assumptions and data on natural gas well failures

In addition to ignoring Class II underground injection wells as a disposal option, the authors curiously rely on studies of those wells to determine casing failures of producing natural gas wells. The authors also rely on a limited study of 43 Class I underground injection wells, and cases of methane migration to determine their assumed well casing failure rate.  From the study:

 Regarding the likelihood of a well casing failure, a commonly cited statistic(10) originated with an American Petroleum Institute (API) report(37) that estimates the absolute risk of contaminating an underground source of drinking water from a Class II (oil & gas) injection well as between 2 × 10−5(1 in 50,000) and 2 × 10−8(1 in 50 million) well-years. The report uses historical well failure rate data and is based on the simultaneous failure of multiple well casings and fluids moving between the deep injection reservoir and surface aquifer.(38) It has been argued(10) that the API study serves as an upper bounds for well failure risk because wastewater injection wells continuously operate at higher than the geologic formation pressure whereas hydraulically fractured wells only operate above the formation pressure for a few days during construction… Although the sample size was only 43 wells, a subsequent report by the Underground Injection Practices Council (UIPC)(40) finds a 2% leak rate into underground sources of drinking water for Class I wastewater injection wells. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA-DEP) found 52 separate cases of methane migration in a five-year period ending in 2009.(41) (Page 5)

Of course, anyone with even a passing knowledge of oil and gas operations knows that the mechanics and operations of  Class I and Class II underground injection wells are entirely different from working oil and natural gas wells. This is true both in the viscosity of what is being injected, as well as the pressure of injection and the duration of that pressure, among countless other variables.  An even more glaring error occurs when the authors reference 52 methane migration cases in Pennsylvania, then use this number  to “approximate” a well failure rate in the Commonwealth.  The only problem? Pennsylvania operates under presumed liability, meaning that if a baseline water sample wasn’t conducted prior to natural gas development, liability for methane migration falls on the operator.  With at least one study showing that pre-development tests found methane present in 78 percent of the water wells sampled. This makes it pretty clear that every one of the Stony Brooks study’s assumption in regards to well casing failure is inaccurate.

Had the authors been interested in using a well failure rate from experience they didn’t have to look too far; including an Aug. 2011 report issued by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), a study that draws on field data and case descriptions from regulators in two of the most heavily drilled states in the country: Texas and Ohio. According to that study, more than 220,000 oil and natural gas wells were drilled and completed (fractured) in these two states over the past 25 years, 16,000 of them horizontal wells targeting deep shale formations. According to the report, more than 34,000 wells were drilled and completed in Ohio over a 25-year period from 1983 to 2007. In total, 184 incidents were recorded over that span in which oilfield activities – all categories – were found to have contributed to an adverse impact to groundwater. That’s one incident for every 184 wells drilled. Break the numbers down further, though, and you find that of those 184 incidents, only 12 were related to failures of, or gradual erosions to, casing or cement. That’s one recorded incident for every 2,833 wells drilled, representing a failure rate of 0.03 percent.

Another careless mistake the authors made was citing that “high salinity and dissolved solids in Appalachian rivers have been associated with the disposal of Marcellus Shale fracturing wastewater…”  This assertion was made based on an article that never made such a correlation.  In fact, written during preliminary investigations the article listed four possible sources of contamination.  Further review in the watershed revealed the true culprit was not Marcellus Shale development, but rather a combination of low stream flows and acid mine drainage impacting the watershed.

Of course, studies seeking to generate negative headlines often use flawed assumptions to reach skewed findings that paint a different picture than what is actually occurring.  This seems to be a key tenet of studies seeking to disparage the responsible development of natural gas from shale.  However, in this case, it appears the study was so recognizably flawed that it was incapable of achieving the task for which it was likely developed: generating negative headlines.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter! 

Victor Furman Chenango County Landowner    I journeyed to Binghamton's Recreation Park on June 3rd out of curiosity to see how natural gas opponents "2nd Big Splash" was going to play out as far as attendance went.  I arrived at 11:30 a.m. wondering if many people would be in attendance, or if it would be ...
READ MORE
Don Siegel, PhD Professor of Hydrogeology, Syracuse University Adjunct Professor, SUNY Departments of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Forest Engineering. Last month, the journal of the National Ground Water Association published a paper by an environmental consultant in Nevada in which the proposition is put forth that the vertical transport of contaminants from ...
READ MORE
**Cross posted on all EID platforms** It is by now an impossible-to-deny fact that the responsible development of American energy resources from shale is an extraordinary generator of U.S. jobs, a reality confirmed once again last week in a report that pegged the current number of jobs tied to shale exploration ...
READ MORE
Tanya Beeks Natural Gas Industry Wife/Mother President of the Rig Wives Foundation The Rig Wives Foundation is a domestic non-profit working to get our 501c-3 status. We started October of 2011 as a group of woman that needed someone to understand what it takes to love the men of the Oil/Gas Industry. The ...
READ MORE
As we have covered recently Dimock, PA finds itself in the headlines again as recently the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) declared that Cabot Oil and Gas has met all the terms of their consent decree and as a result no longer needs to supply a temporary potable ...
READ MORE
The Big Splash: Rained Out or Fizzled Out?
Errors in Myers’ Marcellus Shale Groundwater Paper from
The Things We Make, Make Us
Rig Wives: The Families Who Make Up the
Litigants and Leaflets Make an Unlikely Pairing

3 Responses
  1. August 14, 2012

    Wow, the author of this post must live in his own world of disbelief. Especially with jargon like this:

    “Although some well operators recycle and reuse hydraulic fracturing fluids for multiple wells, most operators do not due to the cost of separation and filtration. Instead, the used hydraulic fracturing fluid is transported to wastewater treatment facility and discharged to streams. (page 6)”

    Many operators here in Pennsylvania voluntarily recycle and reuse 100% of fluids. Cabot Oil & Gas is extremely proud of this accomplishment. We have partnered with Comtech industries to provide this water treatment close to our operations; significantly cutting down on truck traffic for our operations here in Susquehanna County. Last year alone, 8500 truck trips were eliminated because of the recycle and reuse policies of Cabot. Cabot reuses its recycled water too, cutting down 30% of it fresh water needs. Finally, the assumption that expensive filtration is the only method to process this water is asinine. Through the use of chemical precipitation, Comtech is able to remove all natural occurring compounds and heavy metals from fracturing fluid to meet Cabot’s specifications for reuse. Simple chemistry and physics is all you need to make a very economical and cost effective recycling program.

    Question JD, did this associate professor mention anything about the last several decades of fracturing fluid disposal through wastewater treatment facilities in New York and Pennsylvania? I did not read the whole report nor do I care too. I just want to make a point that fracturing fluids have successfully been treated and discharged into streams before Marcellus Shale development became so popular. Obviously, the streams are fine. Also, does this professor take into account fertilizers, pesticides, soil erosion which happens every day across the state at farms, golf courses, factories, etc? I didn’t think so!

    Keep up the good work JD.

  2. justintempler permalink
    August 15, 2012

    I ran across a powerful argument yesterday which I think makes a persuasive case to alleviate the fears of the public. It’s from an hour long interview with Trevor Rees-Jones (Chairman of Chief Oil and Gas) by Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HkCR9sEeEg

    @30m39s

    “I know that the concern in New York is about their aquifer, and uh… I can’t really advise anyone what to do with that level of concern so I’ll qualify my answer that way, but I can tell you the largest aquifer in the United States is the Ogallala Aquifer that runs from South Dakota down to west Texas, and there have been thousands, probably tens of thousands of wells drilled through the Ogallala Aquifer and frac’d, and there’s not an instance of pollution of the aquifer known or documented….”

    Taking the historical track record we can reduce the risk even further considering;

    1. The wells drilled through the Ogallala Aquifer date back as many as 50 years and well construction, if done today, would be done to a much higher standard.

    2. Using today’s horizontal drilling, there would have been a substantial fewer number of wells drilled through the Ogallala Aquifer.

    I would suggest our Stony Brook graduate students and professor start analyzing the track record of decades of available real life scientific data instead of using their garbage in garbage out hypothetical models. I would also suggest the researchers are either woefully ignorant of existing data, or they are practicing post-normal science to arrive at a biased predetermined conclusion.

    • Tom Shepstone permalink
      August 15, 2012

      Thank you so much for this comment!

Comments are closed.