Soilworks products are the industry’s top standard due to our insistence on creating high performance soil stabilization and dust control products that stand up to rigorous testing – both in the lab and in the field. Our commitment to quality and performance has led to our involvement and testing in hundreds of real-world situations. The following library of reports, presentations, specifications, approvals and other similar documents provide you, our customer, the transparency and dependable assurance that is expected from Soilworks.
Antero Resources
Battlement Mesa Natural Gas Development Plan
Meeting #7
Envirnonmental Program – Air Quality and Water Resource Protection and Noise, Dust, Weed, Light, and Visual Mitigation
October 7, 2009
BMOGC Meeting Series – Brief Overview
(All meetings are open to the public and times are posted in Grand Valley Echo and on battlementmesacolorado.com website)
Slide 2
Today’s Meeting Purpose
|
|
– Air Quality and Odor Mitigation – Surface Water Resource Protection
– Mitigation Strategies
Slide 3 |
|
Air Quality Modeling Study – Brief Overview
|
|
– Truck Traffic and Construction of Pads and Pipelines – fugitive dust
– Drilling Rig Generators – diesel fumes and exhaust emissions
– Drilling Reserve Pits
– Fraccing Operations – diesel fumes and exhaust emissions, flowback tanks
Long Term – Production Tanks – VOC emissions from condensate flashing (> 90% of potential)
– Separators and Wellheads – fugitive VOC emissions from valves and flanges
– Water Handling Facility – VOC and bacterial odors
Slide 4 |
|
Air Quality Modeling Study – Brief Overview
|
|
− Expansion of voluntary Antero programs
– Continuous source of emissions over the productive life of a natural gas well – Uncontrolled emissions can be relatively significant compared to the other emission sources
− To identify and evaluate the potential air quality impacts at nearby residences from production tanks at planned well pads
Slide 5 |
|
Air Quality Modeling Study – Brief Overview
|
|
– EPA approved air model (AERMOD) used to estimate air quality impacts – Air Quality Impacts = Predicted benzene concentrations around well pads – EPA model used Rifle Airport meteorological data and worst case production tank emission rates
– Compared to EPA Health Based Standards and – Colorado Air Monitoring Data
Slide 6 |
|
Modeling Inputs – Worst Case Emissions Scenario
|
|
– No tank emission controls – Up to 20 wells on a completed pad (2x Antero actual dev. plans) – 11 proposed pads – 1.78 bbls condensate per MMscf (Grand Valley and Parachute Field) – Each well makes 2 MMscf/day – Each pad was modeled assuming 75 bbls/day condensate
– EPA Approved Model (E&P Tanks 2.0) – Used to determine condensate tank VOC/benzene emission rates – Uncontrolled Benzene emissions ~ 0.36 tpy from each well pad – Uncontrolled Emission Factor = 0.026 lbs benzene/bbl condensate Slide 7 |
|
Modeling Inputs – Worst Case Emissions Scenario (cont.)
|
|
– Actual production tank well pad emissions controlled by flare with potential to be fitted with auto igniter – Actual modeled emissions (controlled) will be significantly less than worst case modeled emissions (uncontrolled) – If worst case modeled benzene concentrations are below EPA health based standards then actual benzene impacts will be significantly less |
|
Modeling Inputs – Meteorology
|
|
– Most representative of Battlement Mesa meteorological conditions – Prevailing wind direction are from west and south (see Rifle Airport Wind Rose Slide)
– Similar to Battlement Mesa – Both locations immediately south of river and I-70 – Rifle Airport at 5,500 ft, Battlement Mesa at 5,100 to 5,500 ft
– Located in Grand Valley oriented NW to SE – PCGP Wind Rose shows prevailing winds parallel to Grand Valley – Dataset limited to 1-yr
Slide 9 |
|
Modeling Inputs – Rifle Airport Wind Rose
Dominate Wind Directions
West
Air Quality Modeling – Predicting Impacts from Well Pad Production Tanks |
|
– Area specific maps include setback distances
Slide 11 |
|
Benzene Air Quality Data – Monitored
|
|
– Denver = 2.5 to 3.2 µg/m3 (data collection follows EPA monitoring protocols) – Grand Junction = 1.6 µg/m3 (data collection follows EPA monitoring protocols) – Parachute = 3 µg/m3 (likely less than 3 µg/m3 because benzene “non-detects” not counted – Garfield County monitoring data)
|
|
Monitoring Data – Benzene Background
Benzene Monitoring Results in Colorado
– 24-hr Measured Concentrations
Location |
24-hr Conc. (ug/m3) |
|
Average |
Maximum |
|
1Denver – Urban Site 1 |
3.2 |
7.4 |
1Denver – Urban Site 2 |
2.5 |
7.2 |
1Denver – Urban Site 3 |
2.8 |
7.0 |
2Grand Junction (Powell) |
1.6 |
4.2 |
Glenwood – Courthouse |
1.2 |
3.5 |
New Castle – Library |
2.0 |
15.0 |
Rifle – Henry Bldg |
2.9 |
6.9 |
Parachute |
3.0 |
5.1 |
Silt – Cox |
1.0 |
1.9 |
Silt – Bell |
2.0 |
7.4 |
Butterfly |
2.0 |
7.7 |
Isley |
1.2 |
3.0 |
West Landfill |
4.4 |
7.5 |
Sebold |
1.1 |
2.7 |
Haire |
1.0 |
2.3 |
1 Denver data from 2003 monitoring project
2 Grand Junction 2006-2007 data (Powell site)
* Garfield County date from 2005-2007 study
Benzene Air Quality Data – Modeled
|
|
– Worst case modeled benzene concentrations were compared to:
– Residential (receptor) locations are all below the EPA standard of 30 µg/m3
– 9.2 µg/m3 was the highest modeled 24-hr concentration (house north of N Pad). (maximum out of 365 X 5 yrs = 1825 days)
– Background benzene 24-hr concentration of 3 µg/m3 in Parachute was added to modeled results for comparison to the health based 24-hr standard.
– Maximum Modeled benzene 24-hr concentrations for each well pad are presented in the next slide. |
|
Benzene AERMOD Results – All Pads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antero Resources – All Proposed Production Pads |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1: AERMOD Modeled Benzene Impacts from Uncontrolled Tank Emissions |
|
|
|
|||
– Rifle Garfied County Airport Meteorological Data |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Modeled Benzene Concentrations (µg/m3) |
|
|
||
|
Distance to Sensitive Receptor (feet) |
Closest Sensitive Receptor2 |
Average of Monitored Benzene Samples collected in Parachute |
Total |
Comparison To Acceptable Health-Based Threshold Concentrations (µg/m3) |
|
Pad Location |
24-hr (acute) |
24-hr Background |
Acute (24-hr) – EPA1 |
Acute (24-hr) – Utah TLV2 |
||
Pad N |
~615′ |
6.17 |
3.0 |
9.2 |
30 (µg/m3) |
53 (µg/m3) |
~515′ |
0.67 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
|||
Watson Pad |
~680′ |
0.90 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
||
Pad A |
~529′ |
0.55 |
3.0 |
3.6 |
||
Pad B |
~585′ |
0.80 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
||
Pad C |
~535′ |
3.79 |
3.0 |
6.8 |
||
Pad D |
~540′ |
3.10 |
3.0 |
6.1 |
||
Pad E |
~730′ |
1.56 |
3.0 |
4.6 |
||
Pad G |
~1030′ |
1.65 |
3.0 |
4.7 |
||
Pad K |
~2600′ |
0.24 |
3.0 |
3.2 |
||
Pad L |
~1056′ |
4.52 |
3.0 |
7.5 |
||
Pad M |
~745′ |
1.20 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** Acute exposures are considered short-term 24-hr exposures |
|
|
|
|
||
1 EPA accepted standard for short-term exposures below which no inhalation health impacts are anticipated |
|
|
Air Quality – Base Map
Slide 16
Air Quality – Southeastern Pads
30
Slide 17
Air Quality – Southwestern Pads
30
Slide 18
Air Quality – Northern Pads
30
Slide 19
Air Modeling Study – Conclusions
Air Quality – Odor Mitigation
Slide 21
Air Quality – Odor Mitigation
Slide 22
Air Quality – Odor Mitigation
Storage tanks enclosed for odor control
Slide 23
Air Quality – Odor Mitigation
Example of Cover Technology for Water Handling Facilities
Water Storage and Treatment Facility (Pad F)
Slide 24
Air Quality – Summary
|
|
− Dr. Walker of Mesa State said during his August 2, 2009 GVCA annual meeting that “air quality modeling is a useful predictive tool for estimating exposures to VOC emissions from oil and gas.” − The modeled benzene concentrations at ALL residential receptors are well below the 24-hr EPA acceptable exposure threshold of 30 ug/m3
Slide 25 |
|
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil®are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.
Copyright Soilworks, LLC 2003-. All Rights Reserved. Soilworks®, Soiltac®, Gorilla-Snot®, and Durasoil® are registered trademarks of Soilworks, LCC.