Energy production and well site disturbance from conventional and unconventional natural gas development in West Virginia

Abstract

Natural gas production from the Appalachian region has reached record levels, primarily due to the rapid increase in development of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) resources. In 2020, over 65,000 conventional wells reported natural gas production; however, this only represented 5% of the total natural gas produced. The remaining 95% of natural gas production can be attributed to 3,901 UOG wells. There has been a wide body of research on disturbance trends related to unconventional development in the region; however, there is limited characterization of disturbance related to production of conventional oil and gas (COG) or research that details energy production in relation to land disturbance. This study compares land disturbance from COG and UOG development as well as energy production. Land disturbance related to COG and UOG development was assessed for wells drilled during 2009–2012. Production data were summarized for the same wells during the period of 2009–2020. The average area disturbed for COG pads was 0.82 ha while UOG pads disturbed 4.02 ha. Results from this study showed that COG wells disturbed significantly less land area during construction; however, UOG wells produced almost 28 times more energy per hectare of land disturbed. This energy production imbalance as well as the over 65,000 COG wells reporting production in 2020, indicates that the retirement and restoration of COG infrastructure could be done without significantly impacting total energy production. Continued research that includes ecosystem services and carbon sequestration opportunities in relation to production losses from retiring existing infrastructure should be considered.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Natural gas / Disturbance / Energy / Conventional energy production / Unconventional energy production / Engineering / Resources Engineering and Extractive Metallurgy

References

[1] AllredB, SmithW, TwidwellD, HaggertyJ, RunningS, NaugleE, FuhlendorfS. Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science, 2015, 3486233401-402.

[2] AppiahJ, OpioC, DonnellyS. Measuring forest change patterns from oil and gas land use dynamics in northeastern British Columbia, 1975 to 2017. Environ Monit Assess, 2020, 19211-18.

[3] CarterK, HarperJ, KostelnikJ. Unconventional natural gas resources in Pennsylvania: the backstory of the modern Marcellus Shale play. Environ Geosci, 2011, 18: 217-257.

[4] DeightonJ, Townsend-SmallA, SturmerS, HoschouerJ, HeldmanL. Measurements show that marginal wells are a disproportionate source of methane relative to production. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2020, 70101030-1042.

[5] DonnellyS, CobbinahWI, AppiahJO. Comparing land change from shale gas infrastructure development in neighboring Utica and Marcellus regions, 2006–2015. J Land Use Sci, 2017, 125338-350.

[6] DrohanP, BrittinghamM. Topographic and soil constraints to shale-gas development in the northcentral appalachians. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 2012, 7651696-1706.

[7] EntrekinS, Evans-WhiteM, JohnsonB, HagenbuchE. Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Front Ecol Environ, 2011, 99503-511.

[8] FangzhengJ. Re-recognition of “unconventional” in unconventional oil and gas. Pet Explor Dev, 2019, 465847-855.

[9] FarwellL, WoodP, DettmersR, BrittinghamM. Threshold responses of songbirds to forest loss and fragmentation across the Marcellus-Utica shale gas region of central Appalachia, USA. Landscape Ecol, 2020, 35: 1353-1370.

[10] FitzgeraldT, KuwayamaY, OlmsteadS, ThompsonA. Dynamic impacts of US energy development on agricultural land use. Energy Policy, 2020, 137. 111163

[11] FryJ, XianG, JinS, DewitzJ, HomerC, YangL, BarnesC, HeroldN, WickhamJ. Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. PE&RS, Photogramm Eng Remote Sens, 2011, 779858-864

[12] Harris K (2020) Disturbance related to unconventional oil and gas development in the Appalachian basin. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. The Research Repository. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.7548

[13] IEA (International Energy Agency) (2020) Gas 2020, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/gas-2020 Accessed 2022 February 6

[14] IEA (International Energy Agency) (2021a), Electricity Market Report–July 2021a, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-report-july-2021a

[15] IEA (International Energy Agency) (2021b) Natural Gas Information: Overview, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/natural-gas-information-overview Accessed 2022 February 6

[16] JantzC, KubachH, WardJ, WileyS, HestonD. Assessing land use changes due to natural gas drilling operations in the Marcellus shale in Bradford County, PA. Geogr Bull, 2014, 55: 18-35

[17] Johnson N, Gagnolet R, Ralls E, Zimmerman B, Eichelberger C, Tracey G, Kreitler S, Orndorf J, Tomlinson S, Bearer S, Sargent S (2010) Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment. Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind. The Nature Conservancy. https://www.nature.org/media/pa/tnc_energy_analysis.pdf. Accessed 2021 Sept 8

[18] KarakurtI, AydinG, AydinerK. Sources and mitigation of methane emissions by sectors: a critical review. Renewab Energy, 2012, 39140-48.

[19] LangloisL, DrohanP, BrittinghamM. Linear infrastructure drives habitat conversion and forest fragmentation associated with Marcellus shale gas development in a forested landscape. J Environ Manage, 2017, 197: 167-176.

[20] Litvak A (2018) These days, oil and gas companies are super-sizing their well pads. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. https://www.post-gazette.com/business/powersource/2018/01/15/These-days-oil-and-gas-companies-are-super-sizing-their-well-pads/stories/201801140023 Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[21] LiuY. Remote sensing of forest structural changes due to the recent boom of unconventional shale gas extraction activities in Appalachian Ohio. Remote Sens, 2021, 1381453.

[22] McNabW. A topographic index to quantify the effect of mesoscale landform on site productivity. Can J for Res, 1993, 2361100-1107.

[23] MiltA, GagnoletT, ArmsworthP. Synergies and tradeoffs among environmental impacts under conservation planning of shale gas surface infrastructure. Environ Manage, 2016, 57121-30.

[24] MitchellA, CasmanE. Economic incentives and regulatory framework for shale gas well site reclamation in Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol, 2011, 45229506-9514.

[25] NallurV, McClungM, MoranM. Potential for reclamation of abandoned gas wells to restore ecosystem services in the Fayetteville Shale of Arkansas. Environ Manage, 2020, 66: 180-190.

[26] NelsonS, FiskJ. End of the (pipe) line? Understanding how states manage the risks of oil and gas wells. Rev Policy Res, 2021, 382203-221.

[27] OlmsteadS, MuehlenbachsL, ShihJ, ChuZ, KrupnickA. Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2013, 110134962-4967.

[28] OmaraM, SullivanM, LiX, SubramanianR, RobinsonA, PrestoA. Methane emissions from conventional and unconventional natural gas production sites in the Marcellus Shale Basin. Environ Sci Technol, 2016, 5042099-2107.

[29] PierreJ, WolaverB, LabayB, LaDucT, DuranC, RybergW, HibbittsT, AndrewsJ. Comparison of recent oil and gas, wind energy, and other anthropogenic landscape alteration factors in Texas through 2014. Environ Manage, 2018, 61: 805-818.

[30] Natural Resource Analysis Center (2012). Ecological Land Units of West Virginia. West Virginia University. http://www.wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=452 Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[31] Popova O (2017a) Marcellus shale play: geology review. U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/maps/pdf/MarcellusPlayUpdate_Jan2017a.pdf Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[32] Popova O (2017b) Utica shale play: geology review. U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/maps/pdf/UticaShalePlayReport_April2017b.pdf Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[33] ScanlonB, ReedyR, MaleF, WalshM. Water issues related to transitioning from conventional to unconventional oil production in the Permian Basin. Environ Sci Technol, 2017, 511810903-10912.

[34] SloneckerE, MilheimL. Landscape disturbance from unconventional and conventional oil and gas development in the Marcellus Shale region of Pennsylvania, USA. Environments, 2015, 22200-220.

[35] Slonecker E, Milheim L, Roig-Silva C, Fisher G (2012a) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Greene and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2012a–1220, 32 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012a/1220/ofr2012a-1220.pdf

[36] Slonecker E, Milheim L, Roig-Silva C, Malizia A, Marr D, Fisher G (2012b) Landscape consequences of natural gas extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012b–1154, 36p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012b/1154/of2012b-1154.pdf

[37] SongY, LiZ, JiangL, HongF. The concept and the accumulation characteristics of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Pet Sci, 2015, 12: 563-572.

[38] United States Geological Survey (2005) West Virginia Statewide Digital Elevation Models. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and West Virginia Statewide Mapping Board (SAMB). Available online: http://www.wvgis.wvu.edu/data/dataset.php?ID=261 Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[39] United States Department of Agriculture (2007) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). Available online: https://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/Clearinghouse/imageryBaseMaps/NAIP2007/ Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[40] United States Department of Agriculture (2009) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). Available online: https://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/Clearinghouse/imageryBaseMaps/NAIP2009/ Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[41] United States Department of Agriculture (2011) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). Available online: https://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/Clearinghouse/imageryBaseMaps/NAIP2011/ Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[42] United States Department of Agriculture (2014) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). Available online: https://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/Clearinghouse/imageryBaseMaps/NAIP2014/ Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[43] United States Energy Information Administration (2021a) Natural Gas Weekly Update. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archivenew_ngwu/2021a/09_02/ Accessed 27 Oct 2021a

[44] United States Energy Information Administration (2021b) Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_FPD_mmcf_a.htm Accessed 27 Oct 2021b

[45] United States Energy Information Administration (2021c) Appendix A. British Thermal Unit Conversion Factors. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer_a.pdf Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[46] WangJ, BentleyY. Modelling world natural gas production. Energy Rep, 2020, 6: 1363-1372.

[47] WangH. The impact of shale oil and gas development on rangelands in the Permian Basin region: An assessment using high-resolution remote sensing data. Remote Sens, 2021, 134824.

[48] WangS, TangX, WangJ, ZhangB, SunW, HöökM. Environmental impacts from conventional and shale gas and oil development in China considering regional differences and well depth. Resour Conserv Recycl, 2021, 167. 105368

[49] West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), (2016). §22–6A Horizontal Well Permit Packet - Application Page. Horizontal drilling. http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Horizontal-Permits/Horizontal%20Well%20Permit%20Packet/Pages/default. Accessed 27 Oct 2021

[50] YoungJ, MaloneyK, SloneckerE, MilheimL, SiripoonsupD. Canopy volume removal from oil and gas development activity in the upper Susquehanna River basin in Pennsylvania and New York (USA): An assessment using lidar data. J Environ Manag, 2018, 222: 66-75.

[51] Zinkhan, F (2016) Site characteristics associated with conventional and unconventional petroleum development in West Virginia. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. The Research Repository. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. https://doi.org/10.33915/etd.7056

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture(WVA00806 - McIntire Stennis)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Joint Center on Global Change and Earth System Science of the University of Maryland and Beijing Normal University