The document discusses the development of the Marcellus Shale for natural gas production in Pennsylvania and the associated environmental issues for landowners. It notes that advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have made shale gas production economically viable. While development provides benefits, it also carries environmental impacts that can be mitigated through best practices. The document advises land trusts to educate themselves on the issues so they can make informed decisions about leasing land and negotiate protections to influence responsible development.

1. THE MARCELLUS SHALE:
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR
LANDOWNERS
J. Daniel Arthur, ALL Consulting
Pennsylvania Land Conservation Conference
April 9, 2010

2. MARCELLUS DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING
• Shale gas development presents opportunities to mineral rights
owners.
• Educated participation by land trusts will ensure a voice at the table
and an ability to influence how development takes place.
• It is important to understand what development means
– Process
– Technologies
– Impacts
– Mitigation
2

3. SHALE GAS HISTORY
• First Commercial Gas well – Fredonia, NY (1821)
– Production from “Dunkirk Shale” at a depth of less than 30 feet
• Ohio Shale – Big Sandy Field (1880)
• Hydraulic fracturing used in the oil & gas industry (1950-60s)
• Barnett Shale – Ft. Worth Basin development (1982)
• Horizontal wells in Ohio shales (1980s)
• First use of HVHF in Barnett Shale (1986)
• First horizontal drilling in Barnett Shale (1992)
• Horizontal drilling technology applied in Appalachian Basin, Devonian
and Marcellus Shales (2006)
3

4. THE NATURAL GAS TRIFECTA
Three factors made shale gas
production economically
viable:
• Advances in horizontal
drilling
• Advances in hydraulic
fracturing
• Increases in natural gas
prices

5. EIA - SHALE GAS OUTLOOK
United States Unconventional Gas Outlook (bcf/day)
• 2008: shale gas = 8.5%
of onshore production
• 2011: most reserves
growth will come from
shale gas
• 2035: more than 35% of
domestic gas production
will come from shale gas
Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010
5

6. U.S. SHALE GAS PLAYS
6

7. SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS
• The United States: national energy security, the
economy, environment
• Individual States: the economy, tax revenues, local
resources, jobs
• Mineral Rights Owners and Land Trusts: royalties,
property values
7

8. MARCELLUS SHALE
• 95,000 sq. mi.
• ~1500 Trillion Cubic
Feet (Tcf) of Gas
• ~489 Tcf of
recoverable gas (>20
years of U.S. gas
consumption)
Engelder, 2009; EIA, 2010
8

9. THE SHALE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
• Leasing
• Seismic
• Road and pad construction
• Drilling
• Hydraulic Fracturing
• Production
• Plugging/Abandonment/Reclamation
9

10. THE PLAYERS IN THE PROCESS
• Interested Parties: • Industry consists of:
– Industry – Producers
– Regulators – Service companies
– Mineral/land owners • Geophysical companies
(seismic surveys)
– Land trusts
• Drilling companies
– County and municipal • HVHF companies
governments (roads, • Roustabout services
zoning, planning)
– Pipeline companies
– NGOs
– The public
10

11. HORIZONTAL DRILLING
• Greater pay exposure
than a vertical well
• Provides access to areas
otherwise inaccessible:
– Pad location is flexible
– Limitation: Horizontal
reach is finite
Source: John Perez, Copyright ©, 2008
11

12. HORIZONTAL DRILLING = LESS SURFACE DISTURBANCE
• 16 vertical wells develop 640
acres with approximately 77 ac
total disturbance (including
proportionate share of roads
and utilities)
• 6 to 8 horizontal wells develop
640 acres with approximately
7.4 ac total disturbance – 10
times less acreage disturbed
12

13. HIGH VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (HVHF)
• Necessary due to low
matrix permeability
• Fractures created must
remain in the target zone
• Fracturing out of the target
zone is not cost effective:
– Adds extra cost to
stimulation job
– Could adversely affect
productivity of the well
13

14. HVHF OPERATIONS
• Fracturing a horizontal well uses 3 to 5 million
gallons of water
– Brought in by truck or temporary pipeline
– Stored in tanks, or local or central impoundments
• Fracturing job takes a few days
• In the Marcellus, 15% to 30% of the fracture fluid is
recovered in the first few weeks
14

15. HVHF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
• Groundwater
protection
• Water sourcing
• HVHF and fracturing
fluids
• Water disposal and
reuse
15

16. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Pipeline to
• Hydraulic fracturing events in
Christmas Flow the Marcellus occur inside of
nested casing strings over a
Tree Process and
Storage
short duration, and with
Depth to Marcellus: 3,500’ to ~8,000’
Surface
Casing
Cement considerable vertical separation
Intermediate
Casing (thousands of feet of confining
Cement strata) between the shale and
Production
Casing shallow USDWs.
Tubing
• Further protection is provided
Cement by multiple casing strings and
Well Oil or Gas Zone cement
Fluids Perforations
16

17. WATER SOURCING
• Fresh water volumes
• Location of withdrawal
• Timing of withdrawal
• Storage
• State and Basin Commission permits
17

18. Hydraulic Fracturing Safeguards
• Well construction
• Extensive modeling to
design the stimulation
job in advance
• Monitoring of fracture
progress
18

19. Fracture Fluids
• 98-99.5% of
slickwater fracturing
fluid is water
• Each additive has an
engineered purpose
• And proppant (sand)
19

20. REUSE/RECYCLING
• In the Marcellus, there is a
movement by producers
toward recycling of
produced water.
– Avoids WWTP discharge
concerns.
– Reduces transport costs.
• Driven by current and
future regulatory limits.
20

21. PRODUCED WATER DISPOSAL OPTIONS
• Currently, most PA produced
water is disposed of through
commercial wastewater
treatment plants.
• The nearest commercial
brine disposal wells are in
eastern OH.
• Marcellus shale operators are
exploring reuse/recycling of
produced water as an
alternative.
21

22. RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• Water: water withdrawal, • Noise: drilling, trucking,
storm water runoff, compressor stations
management of produced • Visual: clearing of land,
water equipment, overall viewshed
• Air: exhaust emissions, • Community: road use
fugitive emissions, flaring, increases maintenance needs,
dust influx of workers; economic
• Land: well pads, roads, stimulus
utility corridors
22

23. SHORT VS. LONG-TERM IMPACTS
• Construction and Drilling Phase (short-term) vs.
Production Phase (long term)
– Initial period of heavier activity
– Long period of little activity
• Eventual abandonment and reclamation
• Gas production is ultimately a temporary use of the land
23

24. LAWS AND REGULATIONS
• Shale gas development is subject to a number of federal
laws, such as: Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, CERCLA, etc.
• The state is the principal regulator of gas activities and
imposes environmental protection requirements on every
phase of development.
• The industry also uses best management practices, both to
comply with regulations and to go beyond requirements in
mitigating environmental impacts.
24

25. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
BMPs are used to mitigate
impacts and address the
environmental hierarchy:
• Avoid environmental impacts
• Minimize environmental impacts
• Mitigate those environmental
impacts that are unavoidable
25

26. BMPS: DEFINITION
• Technologies, methods, and procedures that avoid,
reduce, or mitigate environmental and community
impacts associated with natural gas development
• BMPs are proactive and can also be reactive:
– Often best incorporated early in a project
– Site specific
– Economically feasible
• BMPs are not required, but often allow an operator to
meet a regulatory requirement
26

27. WHAT BMPS ARE NOT
• Not – An assurance of 100% impact avoidance
– Some degree of impact is unavoidable if the gas
resource is to be produced
• Not – Universally applicable
– What works in Alaska may not be appropriate for
Pennsylvania
• Not – One-size-fits-all
– Multiple BMP options may address the same basic
concern from different approaches or under
different circumstances
27

28. CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING BMPS
The “Best” solution is site-specific.
Physical Characteristics: Regulatory/Public Concerns:
• Topography including: • Air emissions
– Potential for erosion and • Sensitive environments
sedimentation • Threatened and endangered
– Pre-existing surface species
conditions • Viewsheds
• Climate • Noise
• Geology • Demographics
• Hydrology – protection of • Worker and public safety
surface and ground waters
28

29. CONCERNS OF LAND TRUSTS
• To lease or not to lease?
• Should land with existing leases be included in a
conservation trust?
• “No Development” leases?
– Limits areas subject to surface disturbance but allows
resource development
– Limitation: the horizontal bit can only reach so far
– May affect the amount of economically recoverable gas
29

30. WHAT LAND TRUSTS CAN DO
• Become and stay informed
• Learn from others
• Have a plan for your land
• Negotiate BMPs
• Collect baseline data
• Monitor impacts
• Modify plan as appropriate Susquehanna River
• Communicate with the producer and all the players
30

31. SUMMARY
• Development of the Marcellus Shale in PA is happening
• Technologies and practices exist to manage environmental
impact
• Land trusts have flexibility in negotiating whether or not,
their land is developed for gas production, and if so, how.
• Land trusts may use lease income for future conservation
• Leasing earns a seat at the table to influence future
development
31

32. INVITATION TO READ
http://www.all-llc.com/page.php?92
32

33. QUESTIONS?
J. Daniel Arthur, P.E.
darthur@all-llc.com
ALL Consulting, Tulsa, OK
www.ALL-LLC.com
Phone: 918.382.7581
Arthur, J.D. (ALL Consulting). “The Marcellus Shale: Environmental
Issues for Landowners.” Presented at the Pennsylvania Land
Conservation Conference, Malvern, PA, April 9, 2010.
33