Richard Haut

Determining Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Low-Impact Drilling Systems

An environmental scorecard is being developed to determine the tradeoffs associated with implementing low impact drilling technology in environmentally sensitive areas. The scorecard will assess drilling operations and technologies with respect to air, site, water and biodiversity issues. Low environmental impact operations will reduce the environmental footprint of operations by the adoption of new methods to use in (1) getting materials to and from the rig site (site access), (2) reducing the rig site area, (3) using alternative drilling rig power management systems, and (4) adopting waste management at the rig site. The scorecard enables a dialog to be established and maintained among all interested, concerned and affected stakeholders. In this manner, the oil and gas industry has a new way of seeing itself within the larger network. The scorecard presented in the paper provides the means to demonstrate the connectivity between energy production and the affected ecosystem. The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) and Texas A&M University have been leading an industry consortium effort to investigate the development of low impact drilling systems. The work originated in 2005 and funding was obtained by the U.S. Department of Energy for 2006 through 2008. The goal of the low impact drilling systems project is to reduce the environmental impact of rig operations through integration of low-impact site access and site operations. The paper will discuss the scorecard that is being developed. The scorecard methodology presents an ecological understanding of the tradeoffs associated with producing energy. The EFD scorecard will be developed in detail for a coastal margin ecosystem and the methodology will be documented to enable the scorecard to be replicated at other ecosystems wherever reservoirs are produced. This scorecard methodology is being developed through a series of workshops being held with ecologists, botanists, wildlife management experts and others in addition to oil and gas industry experts. 2 Haut, Burnett, Rogers, Williams SPE 114592 INTRODUCTION The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) and Texas A&M University through the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) have been collaborating with industry and environmental organizations to integrate and demonstrate current and new technology into land-based drilling systems for compatibility with environmentally sensitive or off-limits areas. The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) Program is taking a systems approach to the integration of currently known but unproven or novel technology in order to develop drilling systems that will have very limited environmental impact and enable moderate to deep drilling and production operations and activity with reduced overall environmental impact. The EFD Program is identifying and providing the technology to successfully produce shale gas and tight gas sands while appropriately addressing environmentally sensitive issues. The project focuses on developing drilling technologies that can be used throughout the U.S., in particular, unconventional natural gas resources as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The work described in this paper is focused on the development of a methodology to determine environmental tradeoffs that are related to such issues as air, water, site, and biodiversity. This methodology was developed through a series of workshops to identify what needs to be measured and how the measurements should be made to determine environmental tradeoffs. Workshops were attended by representatives from government, academia, industry and various environmental organizations. Why create something called “Environmentally Friendly Drilling”? Because new technology will help meet the U.S. energy needs for the next century at the same time we reduce the environmental “footprint” of oil and gas operations. Exploration and production companies are aware that minimizing their environmental footprint is crucial to reducing environmental liabilities, controlling operational costs, and encouraging public acceptance for the sustainable development of the U.S. natural resources. There are certain restrictions for habitat protection, and in some cases complete prohibitions, that prevent drilling in many sensitive areas in the continental United States. Stakeholders desire to improve energy independence and to understand the environmental tradeoffs necessary to secure energy. Sustainable development of petroleum resources requires careful monitoring and operations over the life cycle of a development, from the initial planning through decommissioning and site restoration. According to the recent National Petroleum Council’s recommendations, access to indigenous resources is essential for reaching North America’s full supply potential. New discoveries in mature North American basins represent the largest component of the future supply outlook. However, the trend towards increasing leasing and regulatory restrictions in the Rocky Mountain region the U.S. Coastal /Margins and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is occurring in precisely the areas that hold significant potential for natural gas production. The NPC evaluated the effect of removing the OCS moratoria and of reducing the impact of conditions of approval on the Rocky Mountain areas – a potential addition of 3 BCF/D by 2020. This represents more than 25% of the projected growth in natural gas needs of the U.S. by 2020. Land-use policies of federal, state, and local governments have not kept pace with technological advances that allow for exploration and production while protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Technical advances have reduced the number and size of onshore drilling sites and production facilities. The federal government has continued to set federal lands off-limits to development through legislation, executive orders, and regulatory and administrative decisions without acknowledging these advances. According to the Texas Independent Oil and Gas Association, “New technology developed by industry, universities and the Department of Energy is needed to help industry meet our members’ goal of producing oil and gas in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner; especially when operating in environmentally sensitive areas.” The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) has consistently stated to Congress that access to more Federal Lands is the primary way to increase domestic oil and gas production. Many of these areas are on Federal Lands currently off-limits to drilling primarily because regulators, Congress and the environmental community are not convinced that technology is sufficient to develop these resources without adversely impacting the environment. While there may be technologies available to accomplish environmentally acceptable drilling, they have to be SPE 114592 Determining Environmental Tradeoffs Associated with Low Impact Drilling Systems 3 proven to be accepted. In response to this need, this project team will work with government, industry, academia and public organizations to identify, develop, and provide industry with the tools to develop needed energy supplies. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service (FS), is responsible for ensuring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During the review of development proposals that encompasses multiple wells in a specific area, the BLM, the surface management agency, or the agency’s or operator’s environmental contractor conduct an environmental analysis and prepare an environmental document in conformance with the requirements of NEPA and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Regardless of which agency, entity, or individual prepares the environmental analysis document, the BLM (and FS, for actions on National Forest System lands) must concur with the content prior to issuing a decision document. In the case of National Forest System lands, where the environmental analysis is conducted jointly with the BLM, each agency issues its own decision. The extent of the environmental analysis process and the time frame for issuance of a decision depend upon the complexity of the proposed action and resulting analysis, the significance of the environmental effects disclosed, and the completion of appropriate consultation processes. Policies concerning biofuels, fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are being discussed and debated across America. A recent edition of Science summed up their view about the issues as follows: ‘If the prime object of policy on biofuels is mitigation of carbon dioxide–driven global warming, policy-makers may be better advised in the short term (30 years or so) to focus on increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel use, to conserve the existing forests and savannahs, and to restore natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is not needed for food. In addition to reducing net carbon dioxide flux to the atmosphere, conversion of large areas of land back to secondary forest provides other environmental services (such as prevention of desertification, provision of forest products, maintenance of biological diversity, and regional climate regulation), whereas conversion of large areas of land to biofuel crops may place additional strains on the environment. For the longer term, carbon-free transport fuel technologies are needed to replace fossil hydrocarbons.’ Scharlemann and Laurance have concluded that production of various biofuels, including U.S. corn ethanol and soy diesel, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel, have sacrificed natural forest and grassland habitats on cropland that is being converted to energy biomass fuels. The authors recommend against such conversion. Preventing loss of habitat provides other environmental services (such as prevention of desertification, provision of forest products, maintenance of biological div

Better Way to Estimate Emissions from Oil and Gas Sites

This research was performed by the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) who traveled to a hydraulic fracturing site on the Eagle Ford Shale Play and collected real time activity data from equipment that has the potential to release large amounts of air pollutants. Actual run times and load factors of the engines were measured. The activity data was then compared to data collected in the traditional manner of conservative off-site emission assumptions. This study demonstrated that the difference between an emissions inventory using worst case estimates and an emissions estimate using field data resulted in 539 pounds per hour overestimation of NOx emissions at oil and gas sites.

Balancing Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Low-Impact Drilling Systems to Produce Unconventional Natural Gas Resources

An environmental scorecard has been developed to determine the tradeoffs associated with implementing low impact drilling technology in environmentally sensitive areas. The scorecard assesses drilling operations and technologies with respect to air, site, water, waste management, biodiversity and societal issues. Low impact operations reduce the environmental footprint of operations by the adoption of new methods to use in (1) getting materials to and from the rig site (site access), (2) reducing the rig site area, (3) using alternative drilling rig power management systems, and (4) adopting waste management at the rig site. The scorecard enables a dialog to be established and maintained among all interested, concerned and affected stakeholders. In this manner, the industry has a new way of seeing itself within the larger network. The scorecard that will be presented in the paper provides the means to demonstrate the connectivity between energy production and the affected ecosystem. The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) is leading a consortium effort to investigate the development of low impact drilling systems. The work originated in 2005 and funding was obtained by the U.S. Department of Energy for 2006 – 2009. Additional funding for the effort was obtained through the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), industry and environmental organizations. The goal of this project is to reduce the environmental impact of rig operations through integration of low-impact site access and site operations. The paper discusses the scorecard that is being developed. The scorecard methodology presents an ecological understanding of the tradeoffs associated with producing energy. The scorecard methodology was developed through a series of workshops being held with ecologists, botanists, wildlife management experts and others in addition to oil and gas industry experts. 2 CSUG/SPE-137430-PP Introduction An environmental scorecard has been developed to determine the tradeoffs associated with implementing low impact drilling technology in environmentally sensitive areas. The scorecard assesses drilling operations and technologies with respect to air, site, water, waste management, biodiversity and societal issues. This paper is based on the Scorecard Reference Guide. The overall objective of the scorecard is to have a means of measuring the environmental and societal tradeoffs associated with an energy development project. Industry has done an effective job of making safety a core value within each and every employee. The goal of the scorecard is to assist in the development of a mindset within industry that environmental stewardship is a core value. In addition, the scorecard enables all stakeholders to understand the balance between energy development and the impact on the environment. What Does ‘Environmentally Friendly’ Mean? ‘Environmentally Friendly’ has become the shorthand term for the concept of developing energy resources in such a manner as to minimize the impact on the environment. The concept goes beyond environmental impact and takes into consideration societal issues as well as ensuring that technologies are cost effective. Why Use the Scorecard? Development of energy resources is important to the economic development and security of our nation. The scorecard enables a methodology to be employed that documents the environmental and societal tradeoffs associated with energy development. The scorecard enables operating companies to make use of the principle of what gets measured, gets done. Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) practices can substantially reduce negative environmental impacts and promote balance between nature and energy development. In addition, EFD practices may be cost effective, enhance public relations, increase worker productivity and reduce potential liabilities. Having an operation certified through the use of the Scorecard can demonstrate how an operating company successfully manages operations. In addition, using EFD practices may reduce overall costs, enhance public image, increase productivity and reduce potential liability issues. EFD practices have environmental, economic, and social elements that benefit all stakeholders, including operating companies, service companies, suppliers, contractors, regulators, landowners and the general public. Who Should Use the Scorecard? The EFD scorecard process is designed to document how environmental and societal issues are addressed. The scorecard is an adaptive ecosystem services management tool that can assist operating companies in planning and implementing practices to manage operational risks. Land owners, regulators and the general public can use the scorecard to objectively access operators’ environmental performance. The Environmentally Friendly Drilling System Scorecard The environmental scorecard was developed to determine the tradeoffs associated with implementing low impact drilling technology in environmentally sensitive areas. The scorecard assesses drilling operations and technologies with respect to air, site, water, waste management, biodiversity and societal issues. Low environmental impact drilling and completion operations may reduce the environmental footprint of operations by the adoption of new methods to use in (1) getting materials to and from the rig site (site access), (2) reducing the rig site area, (3) using alternative drilling rig power management systems, and (4) adopting waste management at the rig site. The scorecard enables a dialog to be established and maintained among all interested, concerned and affected stakeholders. In this manner, the oil and gas industry has a new way of seeing itself within the larger network. Environmental sensitivities and other factors vary between various ecosystems. The EFD scorecard process takes this into consideration and enables operating companies to document how environmental factors are addressed for the different ecosystems. CSUG/SPE-137430-PP 3 History of the Scorecard The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) and Texas A&M University through the Global Petroleum Research Institute (GPRI) have been collaborating with industry and environmental organizations to integrate and demonstrate current and new technology into land-based drilling systems for compatibility with environmentally sensitive or off-limits areas. The Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems (EFD) Program (www.efdsystems.com) is taking a systems approach to the integration of currently known but unproven or novel technology in order to develop drilling systems that will have very limited environmental impact and enable moderate to deep drilling and production operations and activity with reduced overall environmental impact. The EFD Program is identifying and providing the technology to successfully produce shale gas and tight gas sands while appropriately addressing environmentally sensitive issues. The project focuses on developing drilling technologies that can be used throughout the U.S., in particular, unconventional natural gas resources. Why create something called “Environmentally Friendly Drilling”? Because new technology will help meet the U.S. energy needs for the next century at the same time we reduce the environmental “footprint” of oil and gas operations. Exploration and production companies are aware that minimizing their environmental footprint is crucial to reducing environmental liabilities, controlling operational costs, and encouraging public acceptance for the sustainable development of the U.S. natural resources. There are certain restrictions for habitat protection and in some cases complete prohibitions that prevent drilling in many sensitive areas in the continental United States. Sustainable development of petroleum resources requires careful planning, monitoring and measurement of operations over the life cycle of a development, from the initial planning through decommissioning and site restoration. An onshore drill site has decreased in size from over 10 acres to less than 1 acre per well over the last 20 years. Other environmental tradeoffs also need to be measured and tracked. While there may be technologies available to accomplish environmentally acceptable drilling, technologies have to be proven to be accepted. In response to this need, the EFD project team works with government, industry, academia and public organizations to identify, develop, and provide industry with the tools to develop needed energy supplies. Many of these new and emerging technologies and methodologies can be applied to reduce environmental tradeoffs associated with oil and gas operations. Having a program that has the potential to “lighten the impact” of drilling in environmentally sensitive areas such as coastal margins, National Forests and Parks and other public lands is extremely important. Leases beneath many of state and national parks and public lands are owned by private companies, not the government. Only by setting environmentally responsible standards can park managers protect the environment while providing access to these resources. THE MORE YOU KNOW, THE LESS YOU NEED The drilling process is considered a complex activity composed of a set of processes interrelated by purpose, sequence, and time. Millheim defined the drilling process as a system in the mid 1980’s. The systems themselves are made up of sub systems. The rig and the surface equipment is a complex subsystem of the drilling process. Pedersen and Essendrop defined the drilling system (Millheim’s rig subsystem) as being comprised of six subsystems: drilling control system, drilling machine, pipe handling, blowout-preventer (BOP) and handling system, mud supply, and mud return . Though defined for the offshore jack up design environment, many of the concepts have transitioned to the onshore rig design. As knowledge has increased, technology has allowed the industry to contact almost 60 times the