Promised Land - The Movie

Well, Hollywood has stepped up to the plate finally on the issue of oil and gas production and hydraulic fracturing (or fracing, or fracking, or don't frack with our water, or...whatever...).

Starring Matt Damon, Frances McDormand, John Krasinki and Hal Holbrook, this new movie is all about the land and water and people of rural America - and of course the private corporate structure that wants the profits to be made from same.

Some suggest it will be that Hollywood envirofest that will give Erin Brockovich a run for her money - pardon the pun.  And the trailer seems to support this notion.  It certainly ups the ante when in one scene we see the whole farm go up in flames - not just something as mundane as a kitchen faucet.  What a visual.

I won't tell any more about the film so as not to spoil anything, but for us groundwater types that have had an inkling or more of "experience" with the oil and gas industry, it should prove very interesting, indeed.  Oh, and it's NOT a documentary like "Gasland", but a real moving picture show.  It plans to release on December 28, so watch for it in a theater near you.

Fracking Without Water

OK, so the oil companies have finally figured out a way to do their fracking operations without water - using essentially propane, or liquified natural gas instead.  This solves one of the main problems (what to do with the fracking fluid flowback) but as far as I can tell does nothing for the other main problems - leaking gas production - either through up hole leaks or via fracturing that may penetrate overlying formations in addition to the target formation.  Some contend these other problems, at least the up-hole leaks, are the larger problems by far.

I'm beginning to feel that hydraulic fracking commands a new and well-thought out set of regulations.  I'd like to see each state address this issue, or collaborate on one set for all states, but I'm afraid the industry is far too influential in all the major producing states to get very far down that road.  Looks like there is much work to be done in convincing the Kansas Legislature that special regulations should be developed in the interest of groundwater quality protection.  (Heck, maybe there is a local GMD role that can be explored here as we have groundwater quality responsibilities as well.)

I've said before that we need at least:  1) assurances that production well integrity is checked more often and carefully maintained; 2) ditto for injection wells; 3) engineering plans for the target zone fracturing are made a matter of record; 4) ditto for fracking chemicals used; and 5) there should be an adequate fund established for fixing problems that is readily accessible by state regulators. 

For debate, I'd also like to see the industry do a moderate level of groundwater sampling (if usable groundwater exists in the immediate area) before operations begin; and submit production samples as fingerprint items for future reference; and be required to use non-fresh water for all their operations whenever possible. Might as well ask - Christmas is just around the corner.

As far as I see it, without more industry accountability we're going to continue arguing over mistakes, accidents and natural occurrences forever, and as long as this situation continues as it is organized now, the oil and gas industry is going to win 99 times out of a hundred.

Two Kansas Sinkholes of Interest

Crawford Sink, Kansas

The two-lane Highway 24 used to be the East/West travel route through NW Kansas from Kansas City to Denver.  But in the mid 1960's a new 4-lane, Interstate I-70, was finally under construction. As with all highway construction in Kansas, it began with a geology survey.  As the records have it, the geology survey found a fairly large pond sitting just on the South side of the interstate right-of-way about six miles West of Russell, KS.  Asking around, the highway geologists were told that the pond had always been there - at least as long as the oldest oldtimers in the areas could remember.  So the construction continued by filling in the pond, final grading of the roadbed and constructing an overpass just to the West of the pond.

Immediately thereafter the subgrade kept sinking right where the old pond had been.  Engineers thought this was just fill material settling but soon discovered they were building the interstate right over an active sinkhole. While this discovery was being further considered and evaluated, paving continued.  Just afterwards, geologists checked older aerial photos from the early 1950's and found no such pond.  It was now confirmed that it was a very problematic sinkhole having been caused by an improperly plugged oil well - part of the very active Gorham Oil Field.  This is when it gets named the Crawford Sinkhole, for the oil lease name causing the problem.  Through significant study, it was determined that fresh and brackish groundwater contained in the Dakota, Cheyenne and Cedar Hills sandstones was moving down the abandoned oil well and dissolving the subsurface Hutchinson Salt Member as oil operations continuously remove oil and salt water from the deeper target zone - the Lansing-Kansas City oil member. As the 270 feet thick Hutchinson Salt dissolves, cavities are created and the overburden slumps in, eventually translating the slump all the way to the surface.

Through much work, the entities involved determined there was no risk of a catastrophic collapse, so to date Interstate 70 gets built up 5-6 feet whenever it needs it.  In the 1970's there was thought to re-routing I-70, but the Gorham Oil Field goes several miles in each direction with no assurances that other sinkholes wouldn't be discovered later.  And then the Witt Sinkhole showed up just 1/2 mile to the West.  It too  begun to sink - actually a bit faster than the Crawford Sink - and by now the overpass bridge between these two holes was being affected as well - being torqued a couple of feet with the East curb being 2 feet lower than the West curb.

By 1984 attention was being applied to the Witt Sink and an attempt to stop the subsidence was launched.  A hole was drilled next to the old suspected abandoned well and drillers pumped 30 cubic yards of cement down the new hole, until pressure built up, hoping to plug the mess and stop the flow of water.  It worked for about 6 months, but then water got around the plug and the highway quickly resumed its pre-plugging subsidence rate of 5 to 6 inches a year.  In 1988 they tried again, this time pumping 200 sacks of bentonite mud and 100 cubic yards of cement into the problem.  This attempt also stopped the sinking for another short period of time before it resumed.  Is it prophetic that rearranging the letters in "Crawford Sinkhole" yields the phrase:  "A cork hinders flow"?

For now the plan is to continue re-grading the Witt Sink as needed to make it safe for traffic, but the Crawford sinkhole may be getting too deep to continue this plan much longer.  The good news is that the overpass was removed about 5 years ago, so it no longer is interfering with the possibilities.  Meanwhile, the oil production from the Gorham Field continues with everyone aware that until it ceases, the sink will continue to work it's magic.  I've been driving over these two sinkholes about 20 times a year for the past 35 years, and I still try not to drive through them when a semi or two are down there with me!   Fair warning, if I suddenly stop blogging it's possible one of these two sinks finally got me!  And is it also coincidence that another anagram for "Crawford Sinkhole" happens to be:  "Drain. Flow. Shocker!"

Kansas Oil & Gas Information

The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) regulates the oil and gas industry in the state, along with the other more traditional responsibilities like motor carriers, telecom issues and utility rates.  Many don't realize how much information is available on the web concerning oil and gas wells in the state.

For one, all the Intents to Drill oil and/or gas wells are posted and searchable here - Kansas Intents to Drill.  At least for the past year.  The Intent to Drill form has much information about the proposed well - including who are involved, what kind of a well it is, the intended pay zone information, whether it is a vertical or horizontal well, location, and much, much more.  These are pdf files.  The site also has monthly plugging reports on all plugged oil and gas wells and a lot of other information.

What does not seem to be available are the well completion reports showing how the well was completed - pipe used, cementing regimes, mudding data, etc., etc.  While the intents are useful in tracking new wells likely to be drilled, and the plugging reports are useful for finding out what wells were plugged, it is the completion reports that are so valuable for assessing if the wells are being completed correctly.  This is likely just an oversight by the KCC (cough, cough) that I'm sure will be remedied soon.

And the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) also has oil and gas industry information, including maps of all the oil and gas producing zones in the state, annual production reports, and much much more.  Use this link for the KGS oil and gas pages.  If you can't find something after visiting these two pages, call the agency.

Yet More on Water For Oil & Gas Drilling

I just had a question from a landowner about water rights on their land - anticipating the time when a landman would knock on their door to secure an oil & gas lease.  In this case, there is only a domestic well supplying the house and yard, and they had no idea what legal rights or obligations they had in this regard.

In Kansas every non-domestic use of water requires a water right - regardless of the quantity of water needed.  There is no argument that oil well drilling is NOT a domestic use, so there is no question that such a use needs a water right.  There is also no question that the only water right these folks have is a domestic right for their household and landscape needs, so there is no argument that additional water rights need to be obtained. 

Well, there are several options in this case.

1)  Either the oil & gas company, drilling company or the landowner could obtain a temporary water right for drilling an oil & gas well.  Once the temporary permit is obtained the water could be withdrawn from any specified water source, be it an existing well, a new well, a surface water supply as specified in the permit.  NOTES:  1) The temporary water right is NOT a permanent right and is active for only 6 months, so this process would have to be done each time a new supply of water is needed;  2) If a new well is drilled, the disposition of that well when the permit runs out needs to be pre-determined. If the landowner is going to take it over, they then assume all ownership and responsibility for the well and its plugging when no longer useful.  It's a good idea to cover this issue in the lease up front if not already covered.

2)  The landowner could file for a new water right for industrial use (oil & gas recovery) on their land provided water is available for appropriation.  They can do this from any source of water, again, on an existing well or a new well or a stream channel or surface pond.  This results in a permanent water right for that use.  Notes:  1)  New water may not be available to appropriate.

3)  If the landowner has a non-domestic water right on the land (most typically in our area this would be an irrigation water right) they can convert a portion of the non-domestic water use to "industrial" use.  This would be a permanent change and would allow water to be provided for oil & gas purposes up to the extent of the change approved.  NOTES:  1) This is a permanent change that will reduce the former right by the quantity changed to industrial use; 2) It provides for a dependable water supply to the oil & gas industry for any wells within about a 10 mile radius.

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, but one of these three options must be taken to stay within the law.  When sales of water are made informally and without a water right it really upsets those who have formally converted part of their existing water rights to service this demand, or have bothered to otherwise arrange to provide this water to the industry legally.

Haven't Been Fracked Yet But Are Concerned?

The question was posed to the SW Kansas GMD 3 as follows:  "If I were a concerned domestic well owner in an area where hydraulic fracking operations were to begin, what should my initial, pre-fracking, water quality sampling protocol include?" 

This is actually a very astute question and one that many folks may want to think about as the oil and gas industry ramps up and dives deeper and deeper for extra hydrocarbons.  A baseline, pre-oil activity, water sample (or set of samples) seems like a very smart idea that is more likely to give you a starting point should groundwater quality problems crop up after these areas become active.  Turns out GMD 3 contacted the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) and asked their opinion, which is recounted here in this blog.  Thanks, Mark!  Click this link to the KGS if you want to review their website.

The KGS approached the question in an interesting way, beginning with "If someone wishes to at least have some basic, affordable, analysis made of his/her ground water, I would suggest...".  How thoughtful and actually dead on this approach was.  Anyway, they go on to suggest some basic inorganic tests including:  pH, specific conductance, calcium, magnesium, sodium, alkalinity or bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations.  They like this suite of tests in that it will provide a background quality that will be helpful in distinguishing the pre-activity water quality from any post-activity quality should there be the more common problems of:  oil or gas brine leaking from waste at the surface; or through a faulty production or injection well; or through a poorly plugged (old) oil or gas well nearby that may have been affected by the fracking process.

They continue on to say that the other fracking chemicals are organic and will be much more expensive to include in a testing protocol - but none-the-less are as important.  While many of the organic constituents of fracking activities are none that landowners or farmers would be normally using, there are some that are - like ethylene glycol (antifreeze), methanol (antifreeze, windshield fluid and denatured ethanol) and isopropanol (glass cleaners and fuel additives).  Unfortunately, these are the same 3 organics they recommend being tested for because they are also the most commonly used in the fracking process.  If they show up in the post-activity testing, be prepared to prove that they're not yours!  If they show up before oil operations and you've been using these products, perhaps you have a leak in your septic system or have had poor storage and disposal practices on the farm already.

In any case, KGS recommends you contact a company certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for whatever testing you decide on.  This link or This link can be used to find a KDHE qualified lab.

They also indicate that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) are working with the industry to obtain samples of actual fracking fluid being used in Kansas horizontal wells, but I have not confirmed this.  Presumably this would yield a fairly accurate fingerprint of these water qualities for future reference and comparisons.  There is also an understanding that other fracking operations in different formations in Kansas will require a different fracking brew, so this may be a long and involved process.

I have to reference the industry FracFocus website at this time as well.  This is a voluntary site where drilling companies can choose to list the chemical constituents of their fracking formulas along with a lot of other information on the listed well.  A breeze through this site for fracking wells close to your area could give you far more specific information about what is most likely being used.  You could then choose to test accordingly.  Some companies use this site more than others, and some states have required its use, like Texas.  Kansas has not.  Might be something to talk to your legislators about...

Anyway, I hope this gives some direction on how landowners can approach a water quality sampling effort that gives them some peace of mind yet doesn't require their entire life savings.

[Update: October 26, 2011]

KGS has offered an interesting alternative to those who have not yet leased land for oil and gas operations that makes sense to me.  Thanks, guys.  In their own words:

"Dave Newell at the KGS had an excellent suggestion concerning negotiating an analysis for a new lease and I have added some procedure to it that you might consider adding to your blog:

If a land owner is being approached to lease their land, a baseline laboratory analysis paid by the oil/gas company could be negotiated as part of the leasing agreement. This is not costly compared to the total leasing agreement and drilling, and in some ways, it could protect both the property owner and the company. In this case, a third party could collect and submit a water sample to an independent certified laboratory and both the oil/gas company and landowner should receive the results."

Use of Freshwater for Oil & Gas in Kansas

Wow, I find of late that I actually misspoke in an earlier post on this issue.  Recall that on February 2, 2011 I said in my coverage of hydraulic fracking in Kansas:  "...the state is not allowed to approve any water right for fresh water when other, lesser quality waters are available to be used. Presumably this would find very small (if any) amounts of fresh water being used for fracking, or any other oil & gas purpose, in Kansas."

Turns out this is not exactly the case.  KSA 82a-711 actually says:  "...except that the chief engineer shall not approve any application submitted [for a water right] for the proposed use of freshwater in any case where other waters are available for such use and the use thereof is technologically and economically feasible."  And this same language shows up in KSA 82a-727 dealing with approvals by the chief engineer of temporary permits - most often used by the oil & gas industry for well drilling purposes.  So, seems the operable words are "technologically and economically feasible".

I then did a quick search of my temporary and term permits for their water sources.  (Yeah, I know, I should have done this back in February!)  From January 1, 2011 to September 21, 2011, within GMD 4, I found 32 oil & gas permits issued.  Thirty-one were for groundwater and one was for surface water.  All were for freshwater.  I didn't expect to see this.  I called the division of water resources to ask:  Had they issued a blanket ruling that Dakota Aquifer waters (and all other waters below the Ogallala Aquifer) were too difficult to use?; or, Were they not aware of the lesser quality water requirement?; or, What?  Moreover, the small number of permits issued thus far in 2011 in our area has me wondering what percentage of drilling activity is even bothering to secure the water rights required by law.  I'll look into this later (and likely blog about it as well).

Anyway, I don't think the industry can argue that Dakota, Cheyenne, Cedar Hills or other brackish waters below the Ogallala are technologically out of reach - as they drill through them routinely on every well completion.  This only leaves the possibility of these waters being economically challenging.  Comforting, isn't it?  The good news is all 32 permits were for drilling wells - a relatively small amount of water.  There were no water flood projects or the kind of operations that use huge quantities of water over many years.
 
Turns out the state was aware of the rule, and indicated that it was an aspect of their regulatory duties that needed, and was slated for, more attention and broader discussions in the near future.  And they promised my question and comments would be included in these discussions.  While use of freshwater in some oil and gas operations is probably justified, we just need to have the smarts to determine which operations are justified and which are not, and then the guts to enforce this law more closely.  My prediction is that the oil and gas industry in Kansas may want to start preparing to better justify their water use needs and start planning on the use of more brackish waters.

Abandoned Oil & Gas Wells in Kansas

Abandoned oil and gas wells without responsible parties in KS are dealt with depending on their abandonment date - before or after 1996.  Why 1996?  The industry and the legislature locked horns over the problem and it was by mutual agreement that the state would handle the older abandoned wells (before 1996) which most often were old enough that the primary responsible parties (PRPs) were either out of business or gone.  The industry agreed to handle all well abandonments after 1996.

To do all this, the legislature created two funds:  The Abandoned Well / Site Remediation Fund that is to cover the costs of the pre-1996 wells (state responsibility); and a Well Plugging Assurance Fund which the industry would use for post-1996 wells.  The state's fund is pre-set to sunset on June 30, 2016.  The industry fund is supposed to be permanent.  Both funds are administered by KCC.

The state's fund consists of 4 sources and receives about $1.6 million annually, although the actual funding has been somewhat erratic of late, with the state general fund and state water plan fund having contributed zero dollars of late due to the state's economic conditions.  The industry fund is from 4 industry sources and currently has a cash balance of $3.966 million and a non-cash balance of $3.296 million.

The KCC reported on September 9, 2011 the following total program gains from the state funded program (July 1, 1996 - June 30, 2010):  8,200 wells have been plugged (pre-1996 wells) and 5,475 remain on the inventory list to do.  Moreover, 209 additional wells were added to this list during FY 2011.  All the available state funds have been spent each year.  The KCC asked that the state general fund and state water plan funding be reinstated.  They also noted that the average plugging cost per well has been increasing over time, so with the same funds, fewer wells will get plugged as this cost rises.  They said this was due primarily to the contractor costs increasing - as they contract with industry personnel and equipment to do this work.  WOW, Sweet deal - the industry gets out of their responsibility for these wells and then cuts a deal to get paid to do the very same work with the taxpayers footing the bill.  Gotta shake your head, sometimes.

The KCC also reported that no funds have yet been spent from the industry fund (post-1996 wells).  Yikes, does this raise any red flags?  And when this was noted, no committee member asked "Why?"

While it is comforting to know that abandoned oil and gas wells with PRPs are taken care of by the responsible parties, and that such wells without PRPs can also get taken care of, it is not so comforting to know that it's going to take an estimated 40 years to address the currently known list, and that the fund created to do this is slated for sunset in 2016.  Of course, it's already been extended once - so maybe a couple more times won't be asking for too much.  I gotta tell, you, it sure appears to me that the industry has been coddled in Kansas.  I hope I'm wrong.  But I guess, when you carry a purse as big as theirs, you have to be careful how you deal with 'em.

CO2 Sequestration in Kansas? Good Idea or Bad?

Just over 3,000 feet below the South Central Kansas landscape and capped by up to hundreds and hundreds of feet of Permian evaporites there is a study on-going by the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) and others to assess the potential for CO2 sequestration in the depleting oil and gas formations of the Arbuckle Group.  Not only will the extensive and relatively thick formations be looked at as the possible storage vessel for manmade sources of CO2 for the mitigation of climate change, but the injections could also squeeze the last vestiges of oil and gas from within - a win-win situation - if all goes well.

KGS is working primarily from $9.9 million in grants from the Department of Energy on this $12.6 million project - slated to be done in December, 2012.  No injections will be made as this study is simply to assess the potential to use these formations if US policy embraces underground CO2 sequestration.  KGS seems to think there is a 600 year storage capacity here, and a good industry could be generated by this situation.  Several issues are under the gun, though:  Who owns the pore spaces in these deep formations?  How much CO2 can be stored within?  Will it stay contained over time?  Will it be an effective enhanced oil recovery process?  What chemical and physical reactions can we expect?  How will injected material attenuate over space and time?  And the list goes on.

The study materials are all neatly located on the KGS website for this project at this link.  Warning:  A close look at this site is NOT for the timid. There is a lot of material - technical and otherwise. Quite frankly, I was surprised to learn about the on-going and planned CO2 sequestration projects worldwide - and much more about the issues - international and domestic.  This site is worth some time if you have any interest at all. 

Hydraulic Fracturing in Kansas

The process of hydraulic fracturing an oil or gas zone to enhance production has become a hot topic of late in many areas of the US that produce oil and gas. The Marcellus Shale regions of Pennsylvania and the gas producing areas of Wyoming and Colorado have been at the forefront of this controversial issue – over claims that 1) the process is affecting or can affect potable groundwater supplies, and 2) the use of freshwater in this process is a waste. It was a surprise to learn that an estimated 75% to 90% of the Kansas oil and gas production wells have undergone this process. In fact it was mentioned that the process here in Kansas has been used since the mid 1940’s and the very first well fracked in the US was done in state.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process of pumping sand and water (and a tad bit of other proprietary chemicals – mostly ethylene glycol based) into a tight production zone under pressure. The fracking materials fracture the producing horizon allowing the sand to enter and then prop open the fractured veins – thus increasing production. The proportion of chemicals used to the sand and water is small – usually on the order of 1% or less.

Like everything else, this process done correctly and in the right situations and places, is not likely to be an environmental problem. However, done incorrectly or in the wrong places or situations, it can be. Add to it the fact that the specific chemicals used, albeit small amounts, are proprietary (unknown to anyone but the company doing the work) and you can see why state regulatory agencies are snookered – there’s no way to associate or directly connect contaminated water to the fracking process. Another legal issue is that the oil and gas wells have been excluded from federal environmental laws like EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  On the bright side, all this activity in Kansas requires a water right - either permanent or term, and the state is not allowed to approve any water right for fresh water when other, lesser quality waters are available to be used.  Presumably this would find very small (if any) amounts of fresh water being used for fracking, or any other oil & gas purpose, in Kansas. (see update below)

It’s clear there is a significant economic benefit of using this process – and to eliminating it. Kansas claims oil and gas is a $4.5 billion dollar industry that would be not near as lucrative if the additional production from fracking processes were eliminated.  From my readings, it's clear that the economic prowess of these operations weigh heavily on every state when it starts considering additional regulation.  Of course, many are opposed to it on environmental arguments as well.

The sides are lining up in many states, but not here in Kansas it seems. To date there has been no significant or organized opposition to this process that I'm aware of. This is likely because either it is working well here, or, everyone in the state has been asleep at the switch. Not being aware of any insults in Kansas at this time, and knowing that not everyone is clueless, I have to conclude that our geologic conditions and fracking activities have been compatible. We have 1 oil and gas water right in this GMD that was approved from the brackish Dakota Aquifer many years ago for a secondary recovery water flood project. From my limited experience, it seems that the water quality aspects of the issue are working here as well.

Update - October 12, 2011:  As it turns out, no freshwater can be approved for use in Kansas when lesser quality waters are technologically and economically feasible.  As a result, freshwater is in fact being used in Kansas at this time for oil and gas industry uses.

Changing Use of Water - Irrigation to Oil & Gas

A recent issue on-going in the West is that of irrigators selling their water to oil companies instead of irrigating with it - at least for a year or two. The articles are coming out of Wyoming of late and cite pretty salubrious dollar returns by doing so.  In one case a Wyoming groundwater user figured he could get paid $41,000.00 for the 11.5 acrefeet of water it would take to drill one Niobrara gas well - if he could get $.42 per barrel for the water.  The article cites 500,000 gallons of water needed for the regular drilling, and 4.5 million gallons needed for the radial drilling and fracking.  This is nothing new in Kansas as we've had oil and gas activity in the state for a very long time.  Of course, our activity has been the more conventional drilling (no radial wells yet in our neck of Kansas) which uses less than 500,000 gallons per well. 

The point I'd like to make is that Kansas water rights are for a specific purpose - for example irrigation - so there almost always needs to be some work done on the water rights before anyone can legally start selling it for any non-irrigation use.  This is done by an application to the state to change the use made of water - from whatever it is currently - to industrial use (supplying water for oil and gas drilling operations).  This process insures that the consumptive differences in these uses are accounted for in the converted quantity of water under the right, and, makes sure that the existing water right doesn't get fully used for both purposes.  These points weren't covered in the Wyoming articles, so I don't know if they exist there or not.  I should think they do.

Moreover, in Kansas the drilling companies can easily enough get their own water right (a temporary permit) for the relatively small amounts of water they need, so having to rely on existing wells and water rights is not required, but remains an option. In NW Kansas, several irrigation water right owners have converted a portion of their irrigation rights to industrial use and are prepared to market and sell oil and gas drilling water legally. If they decide later this is not what they want to do, the now industrial portion of their former water right can be changed back to irrigation use or any other use for that matter - with another change application.