The Fayettevill Shale

[Al Agnew]

I'm a lifetime member of the Ozark Society, the conservation organization that was originally formed to fight dams on the Buffalo River before it became a National River. I usually try to keep up with potential environmental problems in the Ozarks, but today I received my Ozark Society newsletter, and there was a big article about the Fayetteville Shale. I hadn't heard anything about this before. In the last five years, a boom has begun in the Fayetteville Shale "unconventional" Gas Field, or "Play". Formerly, it was known that the shale holds gas, but conventional wells drilled in it were always marginally productive at best. But with the jump in the price of natural gas and the Bush administration energy policies, "fracting", which is injecting liquids in the well to fracture the shale layers and release the gas, has become economical, and a bunch of major players, big oil and gas companies, are buying up mineral rights and doing exploration.

The Fayetteville shale gas potential is found in Washington County, AR, in the Fayetteville area, upper White River and upper Illinois River; around Huntsville in Madison County near the War Eagle; and all the way across the Arkansas Valley, including the adjacent parts of the Boston Mountains. This would include the Mulberry, the Big Piney Creek, Illinois Bayou, Cadron Creek, the South Fork of the Little Red above Greers Ferry, the west side of Greers Ferry itself, and the lower Little Red. At present, most of the activity is in the Greers Ferry area.

The shale is from 50 to 550 feet thick, and is found mostly at depths of 1500-6000 feet. To get to it requires new roads leading to new drill pads, the drill pads themselves, and wastewater lagoons called reserve pits to hold the waste water. You drill down to the right depth, then pump vast amounts of water, sand, and chemicals into the well. The mixture breaks up the tight, thin layers of shale, releasing the gas so it can travel to the well and be pumped out. The wells are required to be cased in concrete for at least the first 500 feet to protect shallow ground water from contamination. However, hydraulic fracting is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund laws, and the Toxic Release Inventory that requires disclosure of hazardous wastes. According to the AR Dept. of Environmental Quality, it is impossible to find out what chemicals are used, because they are considered proprietary formulas, and Halliburton, who pioneered the process, won't reveal them because it might compromise their competitive advantage. However, where fracting has been used before, benzene, toxic to humans, has shown up in nearby wells. The water and chemicals that are pumped back up out of the well are considered waste, and held in the reserve pits until they are full. Then it's supposed to be trucked to disposal wells--and it seems that most of these wells are found out in Oklahoma, where the rock layers are supposed to keep them from migrating into aquifers.

In fact, there is a confusing mess of regulations and regulatory agencies when it comes to gas drilling. The AR Natural Resources Commission is in charge of groundwater protection. The Corps of Engineers oversees roads and pipelines crossing rivers and wetlands. The Forest Service is supposed to inspect drilling sites on public land, okay the placement of pads and roads, and do an environmental impact analysis of drilling activity. As for private lands, there is really no agency charged with doing the same thing, however. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is supposed to govern pipeline construction. The Oil and Gas Commission regulates water disposal.

Fracting takes a lot of water. Any single well can use up to a million gallons of water for each episode of fracting--I was unable to find just how much water is used during the lifetime of a given well. However, wells can be sited as close as one every 40 acres or less. The industry acknowledges that water availability can be a problem. In areas in other parts of the country with lots of groundwater, groundwater is used, and the wells can account for up to 20% of the total groundwater use in some counties. However, this part of Arkansas does not have enough groundwater available. Some companies are planning on building a lot of small reservoirs on private lands for water suppies, but at least one company, Chesapeake Energy, is proposing a dam on the Little Red River to furnish water. I assume, though I was unable to find out for sure, that would entail a dam that would certainly affect the trout water on the lower Little Red.

At least 80% of all water used comes back up out of the well, to be stored on site and then disposed of, either in the wells I mentioned before, or else, if determined to be safe, by spreading on fields. There is always the potential for accidents, either from casing failure contaminating groundwater, or leaks and failures of the reserve pits. In addition, other threats to water resources include siltation from road and well-head building and from tree clearing for seismic surveys. Other problems are habitat fragmentation from thick siting of pads and roads leading to them, or from ponds and creeks drying up. In addition, a lot of drilling activity will put great strain on the roads and bridges of the counties affected.

There is a lot of room for doubt that the environment will be adequately protected. The AR Dept. of Environmental Quality, which comes the closest to being the chief inspection agency, doesn't have the budget or the number of inspectors required to monitor all wells. There is no requirement for Environmental Assessments except for wells on federal lands. Nobody is sure what will happen to any deep groundwater in the vicinity of these wells, or whether the waste water that stays down there will migrate to where it could pose a problem to usable groundwater supplies. Nobody really knows for sure where all the necessary water will come from.

It seems to me, while researching this a bit on the net, that there is a lot of excitement in the area about what kind of money there is to be made, but almost no questioning of what the potential downsides are, especially with water resources. It's like a classic boom town mentality--everybody's gonna get rich and forget about anything else. I hope that's not true. I hope that this can be done with adequate protection. I guess we'll have to wait and see, and watch closely.

[Fishhand]

Hey Al, You may find this article interesting if you've not already read it.... there are some informative links on the right hand side of the page.... http://www.propublica.org/feature/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113 ...Jim

*you may have to copy and paste the link in your browser*

[Poke 'Em]

Right now, the vast, vast majority of the Fayetteville Shale play is in Central Arkansas, in the Conway to Searcy area.

As far as chemicals go... everybody knows what chemicals are being used for water-fracing. Friction Reducer, an FR-Breaker, and occasionally a biocide and/or a surfactant. I'm not going to go into the chemical make up of each of those, but they're not that hard to find. Also, Halliburton is basically a non-player in the Fayetteville Shale right now.

While there is a definite footprint associated with drilling (as you said, roads, pads, pipelines, etc.), most gas companies are moving toward "pad drilling/frac'ing", which is the drilling and completion of multiple (2-5) wells from a single pad. This significantly reduces the surface footprint.

Furthermore, a significant amount of the water that returns to surface after a well has been frac'ed can be reinjected as frac water in another well. While it's not currently possible to use 100% flowback water because of the high salt content, up to 20% flowback water has been used. Before Chesapeake really got heavy into drilling the Fayetteville Shale, they had a small lake built (I can't say exactly where) that will supply a large portion of their water needs.

I don't know where you got your 80% flowback number, but that's way off. I've never seen a shale well flow back more than 50-55% of the original load. 30-35% is more common. Also, I have never ever heard of flowback water being spread on fields. Maybe they do, but I've never seen it or heard of it, and I've frac'ed hundreds of wells.

While it's true that the gas industry can put a huge load on the county roads, etc., the gas industry also pours a lot of money into those counties, which can then be used to improve the roads. If you look at any county where the oil and gas industry has had a lasting presence, the roads are almost without exception, in better condition than neighboring areas without an oil/gas presence.

While it may be true that there's not enough manpower to completely regulate the oil and gas industry when it comes to environmental issues, the penalties for non-compliance have gotten so great that the vast, vast majority of companies are being exceptionally careful when it comes to groundwater protection, surface protection, etc.

While yes, there are some issues to be concerned about (primarily water use, and oilfield traffic), the oil and gas industry, by and large, has done a great job in recent years of protecting (their a$$es) the environment, while providing a huge boost to local economies.

[Guest]

deleted

[DD'sMC]

Does anyone know anything about the Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group, good? or bad? or when their next meeting might be held?

This issue kind of reminds me of an environmental battle I was involved with back in the 90's--the proposed Hobbs Mountain Landfill in Durham, AR. Back then, common sense and basic logical reasoning lead me to the thought that putting a landfill on top of a mountain was not at all a bright idea. Although this an energy resource issue and not just one of the potential for pollution of ground water and watersheds, the negative environmental impact sounds to be very similiar.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

[Al Agnew]

The maps of the potential gas fields that I got off the internet from the AR Geological Survey covered the southern side of the Boston Mountains all the way across. While it appears that the best and easiest to drill areas are being exploited right now, which probably includes mainly the flatter land of the Arkansas Valley, it appears there is potential in the watershed of the Mulberry and Big Piney, as well as the South Fork of the Little Red above Greers Ferry. This is almost all steep land, where roads and drill pad/reserve pit construction would be pretty problematical and damaging.

I got the initial information from the Ozark Society article, but spent a couple hours researching it on the net as well. There are a lot of questions that I did not find answers for. What IS the likelihood of drilling taking place in the Bostons? How much water will a given well require over its life, or even per year? There was considerable mention of working multiple wells from a single pad, as Poke 'em mentioned, but I was unable to find any estimates of total number of wells per square mile expected. He is also correct, as far as I could tell, about re-using up to 20% of the water again. That still leaves a lot of water to dispose of.

I'm not advocating no drilling. But I'm worried about the potential lack of enforcement of regulations, and in some cases weak or non-existent regs to begin with. Yep, the industry is better at environmental protection than it once was, but in a boom town culture where the gas extraction companies are bringing in a lot of money to an area, it has been fairly easy to cut corners in the past. Some things are inherently not good, like putting roads and drilling pads on steeper slopes, having a high density of drilling pads. Some are potentially bad, like the possibility of taking too much water from streams, and some are probably okay but REALLY bad if they are not, like contaminating groundwater. You gotta hope that the various regulatory agencies are willing and able to apply the resources necessary to protecting the land and water.

[Poke 'Em]

I got the initial information from the Ozark Society article, but spent a couple hours researching it on the net as well. There are a lot of questions that I did not find answers for. What IS the likelihood of drilling taking place in the Bostons? How much water will a given well require over its life, or even per year? There was considerable mention of working multiple wells from a single pad, as Poke 'em mentioned, but I was unable to find any estimates of total number of wells per square mile expected. He is also correct, as far as I could tell, about re-using up to 20% of the water again. That still leaves a lot of water to dispose of.

Because of the length of the laterals necessary to produce adequately on these wells, you aren't going to see a real high well/sq. mi. density. In some places, you may see as many as 4-5 wells per section, depending on production in a particular area. In terms of water, the biggest chunk of water use will come right after the well has been drilled during the frac. On a typical waterfrac, between 1 and 8 million gallons of water may be pumped into the well. After this though, there is relatively little water required for the well. There has been some talk of going back in and re-frac'ing wells several years later, but that trend hasn't really started yet.

[taxidermist]

I always get amazed at how people can read things and don't see the whole picture.

Al, like the Buffalo river, I am sure must have known Herb VanDeven.

Most of the people here would have rather lost their land to the dams, than to the Park service. eithe way the counties lost a lot of tax base.

Take a drive thru the countryside in the Clinton to Greenbrair to Mulberry area, drive some back roads. You dont see a lot of wells, most are very well hidden. The authorities area all over them daily. Its the Feds and not state people.

But one thing you have to know or should know, the drilling begain back in the 1980's. So far no accidents. Lots of infrastructor to support the projects. Sites are let very clean, just the pad and well heads. You see a lot ansd I do mean a lot of tank trucks hauling water.

Lots and lots of jobs!!!! Right now thats a good thing.

[Terry Beeson]

OK... I'm going to chime in here as I do have a stake in some of this. The area you're talking about, Taxidermist, is my "back yard" in that I grew up there. I have lots of friends and some family who are having an economic BOOM because of what is going on in the area. I have some land and mineral rights, as do my sister and mother, in the area and they are putting a couple of pads in the next section over from mine in the next few weeks. This has already helped my sister retain her business which has been in my family for over 100 years and would probably be closed right now if not for the people coming through there now. Also, there is a AGFC WMA a mile or so from her store and she has seen a little, but not much, business from folks hunting and fishing and bird watching there. However, they drilled a well there last spring and it helped her business and my mom will benefit from having some mineral rights in the section as soon as they get back in and set up to start pumping. Problem is, since it's on the WMA, they had to shut down for hunting season.

This influx of drilling has provided jobs for a LOT of folks in that area where all of the factories but one have pulled out and the last one is in deep doo-doo and laying off folks. It's also given some landowners cash to help through a hard time. I lease the hunting rights and the pasture on my land, but it only covers the taxes and upkeep. If there is a well on it, that will pay a lot more.

Another point... There was a test well drilled on my dad's farm back in the late 80s and I DARE you to tell me where the pad was. Even less than a year after they pulled out, you could not tell there was anything there other than they cleaned up an old ditch that was there and put up a new fence and a gate in the area along with a nice driveway. Actually increased the value of the 40 acres that he sold a few years after that. There are abandoned pads and a lot of producing wells in the area that I would have to drive you right up to them before you will see them. And I have seen deer, turkey, squirrels, etc. all around them.

Now, I'm not saying let's just let every Tom, Dick, and Harry come in and do whatever they feel like doing and leave things in a mess. But, I can tell you that the energy companies that I've dealt with have a firm hold on what they must do in order to put things back like they were before. And you are correct, Taxi, that the feds are all over them on a daily basis.

There is a very sensitive balance that must be held and I am all for that. I'm all for protecting these areas and these items need to be addressed. But I'm not for just putting up a "no gas wells" sign either. I kind of like my gas fireplace, fish cooker, and heating system along with the hot water in my shower.

[Al Agnew]

I am glad that things seem to be going "well" (pun intended) with the well drilling. While I knew that there had been some wells drilled since the 1980s, it's just been in the last few years that the fracting process has been used extensively, with consequent great increase in drilling activity. As I said, I'm not against drilling if done properly, and, I might add, neither is the Ozark Society and other environmental organizations. Their concern is the potential for harm if the regulators get lax.

At any rate, I'm resting easier after hearing from Terry and Poke 'Em.

As for the Buffalo, it would surprise me if the majority of landowners "would have rather lost their land for dams than to the Park Service". And, I would submit that has little or no bearing on the final outcome. Can ANYBODY who has spent time on the Buffalo say that they'd rather it was underwater? If you can say that, you have no appreciation for beauty or uniqueness. The Buffalo is far and away the most gorgeous of all Ozark streams, and it would have been a real crime to have dammed it to make a couple of reservoirs similar (though smaller) to a bunch of other Ozark lakes. In a perfect world, the landowners wouldn't have had to sell their land to anybody, but given the beauty and popularity of the Buffalo, the choice was probably lakes, the National River, or a river gradually taken over by real estate developments. The National River concept was probably the best thing for the river.