Groundwater and Oil and Gas Development: Improved Management Practices for Groundwater Protection and Water Supply: Alphabetical Content Listing
Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling
Measuring Methane in Water Wells - A Tale of Two Methods from Field Screening to Passive Sampling
Kathleen A. Mihm, PG
For groundwater monitoring wells, a passive sampling method has been developed for wells with methane concentrations that exceed the solubility limit using a discrete interval sampler and dissolved gas sample container. The passive method enables collection of in situ groundwater samples without loss of methane during sample collection and retrieval to the surface. Results from passive sampling, in combination with down hole dissolved gas measurements, suggest that maintaining a sealed borehole is critical for accurate measurements.
Proactive Water Communication by Oil and Gas Operators in the Lochend, Alberta Strike Area
Brent Bowerman, P.Geol.
Twenty Five Years of CBM Production and Monitoring of the Pine River Subcrop and Gas Seeps. No Depletion.
Paul Oldaker
Using Big Data and Small Data (Noble Gases) to Assess the Impact of Shale Gas Drilling on Water Quality
Tao Wen
We have been compiling water quality data from varying shale gas plays across the country by either working with the oil and gas regulator or scraping data from existing databases and publications. We developed new data mining and machine learning techniques to analyze these big datasets of water quality in order to understand the effects of shale gas development. For example, we developed a new ensemble learning model to predict the likelihood of groundwater being impacted by new methane caused by recent shale gas drilling activities.
In the era of big data, case studies based on smaller dataset are indispensable that allow us to investigate closely the problematic areas pointed out by big data studies. Many geochemical tracers have been proposed to indicate the source of contaminant. Among them, noble gases - that are inert and stable - have been undervalued. The heavy noble gases, Krypton and Xenon are of particular value. Noble gas signatures in groundwater and natural gas (both produced gas and stray gas) are controlled by only physical processes. We have applied noble gases, combined with other lines of evidence (e.g., gas and water chemistry), to identify contrasting sources of groundwater contamination in two shale gas plays. One, in Texas, in the Barnett Shale area where the source of contamination is likely natural, the other in the Marcellus Shale area which might have been contaminated by gas migrating from nearby leaking shale gas well(s).
Monitoring Discussion Group
Kathy Butcher
Production Well Monitoring Issues and Methods
A Stable Isotope Ranking Method Useful for Addressing Bradenhead Gas Sources in Legacy Wells, SW Weld County Colorado
Anthony Gorody, Ph. D., P.G.
Results of dual inlet mass spectrometer stable isotope analyses show that, for any given stable isotope parameter, both the mean absolute value (MAV) of the difference between sample pairs and the standard deviation (SD) of those differences are similar regardless of gas sample source (lab standard or consecutive production gas samples). This allows statistical ranking of the difference between bradenhead (BHD) and produced (PRD) gas sample pairs from any single well. Each of 8 possible stable isotope parameters in any sample is scored with a value of 1 when |δBHD-δPRD| is less than MAV+3*SD. Totaling the score (maximum of 8 parameters in the methane through pentane range) helps engineers address the source of bradenhead gas.
Data Mining Public Records to Understand the Occurrence of Fugitive Gas Migration in British Columbia, Canada
Elyse Sandl
Examining Lateral Gas Migration at Energy Wells - Insights for Risk Management, Monitoring, and Research Directions
Laurie Welch, Ph.D.
Modeling and Analyzing SCP Data in the Wattenberg Field: Lessons Learned and Best Practices
Greg Lackey
Sustained Casing Annular Pressure: Assessment Methods for Gas Migration Investigations
Jeff Kennedy
Resource Management Discussion Group
Kathy Butcher
Water Resource Management and Protection
Challenges Facing Class II Disposal Well Operations in the Appalachian Basin
Tom Tomastik, CPG
As a result continued development of oil and natural gas resources from the Marcellus and Utica shales in the Appalachian Basin, the demand for Class II disposal of oilfield fluid wastes has increased significantly. With a small number of Class II disposal wells in West Virginia and lack of primacy in Pennsylvania, only Ohio remains well situated to handle the increase in Class II saltwater disposal well activity in the Appalachian Basin area.
Challenges facing Class II disposal well operations in the Appalachian Basin can be overwhelming. These include: Properly siting disposal wells; ensuring groundwater protection; addressing public and local political opposition; finding geologic formations capable for high capacity disposal operations; developing proper well construction, cementing, and completion methods; selecting the right option for surface facility development and pre-treatment programs; dealing with NORM/TENORM testing and solid waste disposal issues; and developing seismic monitoring and mitigation plans and addressing differing regulatory requirements.
Properly considering of all these challenges will lead to successfully permitting, drilling, constructing, completing, and operating Class II disposal wells in the Appalachian Basin.