Tradeoff analysis of setback distance and density for oil and natural gas development

Transcription

1 Tradeoff analysis of setback distance and density for oil and natural gas development Joseph Kasprzyk, Joseph Ryan Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder Presented at American Water Resources Association meeting Denver, CO; November 18, 2015

2 There has been a long history of oil and gas development in Colorado. The first oil well in Colorado (actually, west of Missippi River) was in Florence, near Canon City, in 1862 Boulder Oil Field, ca. 1905

3 Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling allow access to more resources. hydraulic-fracturing-national

4 nalysis_publications/maps/maps.htm#pdf

5 Assessing the effects of oil and gas development Possible effects: Economic Increased revenue to the community Increased energy security Job creation Property values Environmental / social Air and water pollution Human health Noise and nuisance Environmental protection

6 Example conceptual figure of the potential risks of oil and gas development. [Perry, Env. Practice, 2012]

7 Setback distance regulations combine these concerns into a single regulation How close can a well or other oil and gas development activity occur, relative to a particular land use?

8 Analysis of Texas shows there is no uniform method for determining an appropriate setback distance in the state. [Fry, Energy Policy, 2013] Urban areas and shale deposits in Texas. Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) has more than 4 million residents.

9 Within the AirWaterGas network, our project looks at local effects of oil and gas development, using setback distance regulations as an example. Assessment UCB Policy and Practices UCB Data Management UCB Social-Economic Systems UCB CSU UCD Outreach Education UCB UCAR Oil and Gas Infrastructure CSM Water Quantity UCB CSU Water Quality CSPUP UCB Water Treatment UCB This presentation shows CSM preliminary NREL work Analytical Embedded on our framework. Laboratory Tech UC Boulder U Michigan UC Boulder Air Quality UCB NOAA Health Effects CSPH

10 Setback regulation in Colorado Prior to 2013, drilling rigs were required to be 150 ft away in rural areas, 350 ft in cities In 2013, distance increased to 500 ft [6] Initiative 88 would have increased to 2,000 ft [7] How can SRN research inform the pros and cons of such regulations? Refs: [6] Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules, Sec [7] Swinnerton, Westword, July 17, 2014

11 We seek to perform decision analysis to support potential setback regulations One general framework for decision analysis In the context of our project, the decision has to do with how to shape regulations in order to meet an acceptable compromise among multiple objectives Economic Social Environmental

12 Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs) are used to generate new policy alternatives Simulation Models (from MOEA to model) Decision variables that describe new policy alternatives (e.g., setback regulation) MOEA Search The MOEA search creates better and better values of the decisions, to improve the objectives. (from model to MOEA) Objectives that measure the performance of the alternatives Constraint violations that determine whether the solution is acceptable [Reed et al., Advances in Water Resources, 2013; Maier et al., Env. Mod. Soft. 2015]

13 Water resources example for MOEAs: Motivation Research with Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) in Texas [13] How can reservoir water storage be balanced between eastern and western reservoirs in their system? Used RiverWare simulation model and MOEA to create policy-relevant balancing schemes that could be used directly by TRWD Refs: [13] Smith et al. (In-Press)

14 Water resources example for MOEAs: Result Each alternative (a set of balancing rules for the reservoirs) is a straight line, and the plotting position shows objective function values. [Smith et al., Journ. Wat. Res. Planning and Man., 2015] This effectively shows tradeoffs among conflicting planning objectives: Can we meet one goal without sacrificing another?

15 We will consider scenarios where policy variables would limit feasible drilling locations Decisions: Setback distance from homes Restrictions on density of drilling sites Restrictions on the hours of the day that drilling can occur This will yield a new configuration of feasible drilling sites E.g., fewer sites for a larger setback The analysis can be run for different scenarios Topography Houses in the area, etc. Setback distances (color) from existing wells, with homes shown in red dots. Courtesy SRN researcher Adgate

16 Existing work on multi-well pad configuration can inform the analysis. Four 4-well pads One 12-well pad for drilling, 4 single wells in production Ref: Continental Divide-Creston Project Environmental Impact Statement: Air Quality Technical Support Document (2014)

17 We will also consider the timing of the process in our calculations Drilling operations (larger pad, more equipment) Hydraulic fracturing operations Production (different types of regional impacts)

18 A set of simulation models and calculations will be put together to model the effects of these processes. The algorithm creates decision variables that dictate the regulations for this particular policy alternative. From the regulation, a spatial configuration of wells can be calculated (i.e., higher setback distance means fewer wells) This spatial configuration of wells is placed into a set of linked simulation models Calculate timing of pad creation, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and production Use a model like AERMOD to determine impacts of PM10, PM2.5, NOx, SO2, CO and Hazardous Air Pollutants Determine noise effects using sound propagation models Estimate the number of jobs and economic impact Etc.

19 Objectives The quantitative performance objectives can come from multiple simulation models, and could be calculated at different spatial scales. Representative objectives: Maximize profit from well production Minimize concentration of pollutants in air Minimize noise pollution Maximize oil and gas jobs

20 Hypothetical result Once the simulation-optimization experiments are run, our results will look like the below. Illustrative example only! 2000 ft Low Low High High 500 ft 100 ft Preferred Direction High High Low Low Setback Jobs from O&G Development Profits from O&G Development Air Pollution Noise Pollution Decision Objectives

21 Our goal is to provide quantitative information to aid in policy discussions about setback and other regulations, not to provide a single recommendation. [water projects show] varying degrees of effects relative to environmental, economic, and social goals. No hierarchical relationship exists among these three goals and a result, tradeoffs among potential solutions will need to be assessed US Priniciples and Requirements for Federal Investments in Water Resources, 2013

22 Acknowledgments / Contact For more information: joseph.kasprzyk@colorado.edu, joseph.ryan@colorado.edu Current and former AWG SRN students: Matt Alongi, Claire Howard, Angela Campbell Other AWG SRN team members: Tanya Heikkela, Michelle Haefele, Gaby Petron, et al. Water resources example: Rebecca Smith, Prof. Edith Zagona This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Thanks for coming! Questions?

23 EXTRA SLIDES AWRA 2015 Kasprzyk and Ryan November 18, 2015

24 Excerpts from COGCC Rules [p ] [p ]

25 Excerpts from COGCC Rules [p ]

26 Excerpts from COGCC Rules Density regulations: [p ] [p ]

27 Terms of the compromise over the ballot rules on setback [7] Here are the terms of the compromise: Four proposed ballot measures two supported by the industry, two opposed by the industry and financed by Polis would be withdrawn. The governor would convene an 18-member task force to make recommendations on oil and gas issues to the administration and the 2015 legislature. The panel would consist of six members from the local control and environmental community, six representatives from the oil and gas industry, and six civic leaders. The state would agree to drop its lawsuit against Longmont over it instituting its own drilling regulations.

28 We will also take into account the timing of the oil and gas production process. A pad of 3 acres of land is first created. A drilling rig is brought onsite to vertically drill up to 10,000 feet below the surface. This initial activity requires 7-10 days. Once the drilling rig reaches below the water table, drilling temporarily stops to encase the well in cement to prevent leaks from entering the water table. Drilling resumes using a 7-inch drill bit to continue up to a mile further underground to reach the shale formations. Once the formation is reached, the bend is drilled (up to 2 more additional days of work). This portion continues horizontally for 4,000-10,000 feet before being encased in cement, with a 4-inch metal pipe placed in the center of the hole. Ref: Dunn, Sharon. "Fracking 101: Breaking down the Most Important Part of Today's Oil, Gas Drilling GreeleyTribune.com." The Greeley Tribune. N.p., 5 Jan Web. 20 July 2015.

29 We will also take into account the timing of the oil and gas production process (cont.) Fracturing fluid, consisting of sand, water and chemical additives, is pumped into the well at very high pressure, fracturing the rocks. Most of the chemicals are added to create a thick gel substance that makes it easier for the sand to travel After the fractures have been created, the pressure from the fluid is released from the well, permitting the oil and gas to flow to the surface At each stage of the process, the air quality and environmental effects are different, so we will take this into account in the calculations. Ref: Dunn, Sharon. "Fracking 101: Breaking down the Most Important Part of Today's Oil, Gas Drilling GreeleyTribune.com." The Greeley Tribune. N.p., 5 Jan Web. 20 July 2015.

30 Problem formulation for MOEA Objectives: quantitative performance measures Decisions: policy variables that can be modified

31 Problem formulation for MOEA Constraints: limits on acceptable performance Simulation Model: how decisions are mapped to objectives and constraint violations

32 The goal of the MOEA tradeoff analysis is to find non-dominated (Pareto optimal) solutions [12]. 13 Cost (millions) Dominated Region 10 Non-dominated tradeoff Reliability Each point is a system design that was generated by the MOEA.

33 The iterative MOEA search should achieve convergence and diversity.

34 BORG Search Framework Favor search operators based on performance Adapting the probability distribution of offspring at runtime Tailoring distribution to the specific problem Adapts to the local conditions of the problem Hadka, D., and P. Reed. Diagnostic Assessment of Search Controls and Failure Modes in Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimization. Evolutionary Computation 20, no. 3 (2012): doi: /evco_a_ Hadka, D., and P. Reed. Borg: An Auto-Adaptive Many-Objective Evolutionary Computing Framework. Evolutionary Computation 21, no. 2 (2013): doi:doi: /evco_a_00075.