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

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

There has been a long history of oil and gas

development in Colorado.

Boulder Oil Field, ca. 1905

The first oil well

in Colorado

(actually, west of

Missippi River)

was in Florence,

near Canon City,

in

1862

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling allow

access to more resources.

http://www.propublica.org/special/ hydraulic-fracturing-national

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/a nalysis_publications/maps/maps.htm#pdf

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}

Example conceptual figure of the potential risks of oil

and gas development.

[Perry, Env. Practice, 2012]

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

?

Analysis of Texas shows there is no uniform

method for determining an appropriate setback

distance in the state.

Urban areas and shale deposits in Texas. Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) has more than 4 million

residents.

Water Treatment UCB CSM Embedded Tech U Michigan UC Boulder Social-Economic Systems UCB CSU UCD Water Quality CSPUP UCB Air Quality UCB NOAA NREL Water Quantity UCB CSU Health Effects CSPH Analytical Laboratory UC Boulder Policy and Practices UCB

Oil and Gas Infrastructure CSM Outreach Education UCB UCAR Data Management UCB Assessment UCB

Within the AirWaterGas network, our

project looks at

local effects

of oil and gas

development, using setback distance

regulations as an example.

This presentation shows preliminary work

on our framework.

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]

Refs: [6] Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules, Sec. 604. https://cogcc.state.co.us/ [7] Swinnerton, Westword, July 17, 2014

How can SRN research inform the pros and cons of

such regulations?

We seek to perform decision analysis to support

potential setback regulations

One general framework for decision analysis

http://home.ubalt.edu/ntsbarsh/business-stat/opre/partIX.htm



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

Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms (MOEAs)

are used to generate new policy alternatives

MOEA Search

[Reed et al., Advances in Water Resources, 2013; Maier et al., Env. Mod. Soft. 2015]

(from MOEA to model)

Decision variables that describe new policy alternatives (e.g., setback

regulation)

Simulation Models

(from model to MOEA)

Objectives that measure the performance of the

alternatives

Constraint violations that determine whether the

solution is acceptable The MOEA search creates

better and better values of the decisions, to improve

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

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?

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

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)

Existing work on multi-well pad configuration can

inform the analysis.

We will also consider the timing of the process in

our calculations



Drilling operations

(larger

pad, more equipment)



Hydraulic fracturing

operations



Production

(different types

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}

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

Hypothetical result

Once the simulation-optimization experiments are run, our results will look like the below. Illustrative example only!

Decision

Objectives

Setback Profits from

O&G Development Air Pollution Noise Pollution

Pre ferre d D ire ct ion

High High Low Low

Low Low High High

2000 ft 500 ft

100 ft

Jobs from O&G Development

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

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 1240584. 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.

Excerpts from COGCC Rules

[p. 100-3]

Excerpts from COGCC Rules

Excerpts from COGCC Rules

[p. 600-4]

Density regulations:

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.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/local/ci_26394883/lets-make-a-deal:-how-colorado-came-to-a-fracking-compromise

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. 2014. Web. 20 July 2015.

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

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. 2014. Web. 20 July 2015.

At each stage of the process, the air quality and

environmental effects are different, so we will

Problem formulation for MOEA



Objectives

: quantitative performance

measures

Problem formulation for MOEA



Constraints

: limits on acceptable performance



Simulation Model:

how decisions are mapped

The goal of the MOEA tradeoff analysis is to find

non-dominated (Pareto optimal) solutions

[12]

.

1.0009 0.995 0.990 0.985 0.980 10 11 12 13 Co st (m illi on s) Dominated Region

Non-dominated tradeoff

Each point is a

system design

that was

generated by the

MOEA.

The iterative MOEA search should achieve

convergence and diversity.

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): 423–52. doi:10.1162/EVCO_a_00053. Hadka, D., and P. Reed. “Borg: An Auto-Adaptive Many-Objective

Evolutionary Computing Framework.” Evolutionary Computation 21, no. 2 (2013): 231–59. doi:doi:10.1162/EVCO_a_00075.