Reference Library

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

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

 

  • July 1st – Introductory Meeting (define future mtgs and public involvement process)
  • July 29th – Pad Locations, Facilities, and Setbacks
  • August 5th – Surface Use Agreement
  • August 19th – Drilling Schedule and Pace
  • September 2nd – Traffic Plan
  • September 16th – Drilling, Completion, and Water Management Plan
  • October 7th– Environmental Program
    • October 21st – Emergency Response Plan and Pad Security Plan
    • November 4th – Post Drilling and Completion Operations and Interim Reclamation

 

 

(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

    

 

 

  • Review Major Aspects of Environmental Program

–     Air Quality and Odor Mitigation

–     Surface Water Resource Protection

  • Spill Prevention
  • Stormwater/Erosion Control

–     Mitigation Strategies

  • Noise
  • Dust
  • Light
  • Weeds
  • Visual/Aesthetics
  • Question and Answer Session

Slide 3

 

 

 

 

Air Quality Modeling Study – Brief Overview

 

    

 

 

  • What are the major potential emission sources involved in natural gas development?Temporary

–      Truck Traffic and Construction of Pads and Pipelines – fugitive dust

  • Controls = reduce traffic (water pipeline), gravelling pads and dust suppression via water/Soiltac®

–      Drilling Rig Generators – diesel fumes and exhaust emissions

  • Controls = electric grid power-substitute for diesel generators, low NOX engines where grid unavailable

–      Drilling Reserve Pits

  • Controls = pitless drilling

–      Fraccing Operations – diesel fumes and exhaust emissions, flowback tanks

  • Controls = Green completion skids and covered flowback tanks

Long Term

–      Production Tanks – VOC emissions from condensate flashing (> 90% of potential)

  • Controls = Combustor flare controls and automatic igniters

–      Separators and Wellheads – fugitive VOC emissions from valves and flanges

  • Controls = Low bleed valves and routine maintenance of connection integrity

–      Water Handling Facility – VOC and bacterial odors

  • Controls = Eliminate through use of covered pit design and vapor collection/combustion

Slide 4

 

 

 

 

Air Quality Modeling Study – Brief Overview

 

    

 

 

 

  • What did Antero model and why?
    • The community expressed concerns about air quality

−    Expansion of voluntary Antero programs

 

  • Antero modeled VOC emissions from production tanks because:

–          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

 

  • Purpose of modeling study

−   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

 

    

 

 

 

 

  • Potential Air Quality Impacts

–      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

 

  • Modeled Benzene Concentrations

–      Compared to EPA Health Based Standards and

–      Colorado Air Monitoring Data

 

  • Conclusion – Modeled Worst Case Benzene Concentrations at Nearby Residences Are Significantly Below EPA Health Based Standard

 

 

Slide 6

 

 

 

 

Modeling Inputs – Worst Case Emissions Scenario

 

    

 

 

  • Assumptions

–        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

  • Antero Tank Emission Factor

–        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.)

 

    

 

 

 

  • Why Model Worst Case Uncontrolled Emission Scenario?

–        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

    

 

 

 

  • Used a Rifle Airport 5-yr meteorological dataset
  • Rifle Airport dataset provided by Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
  • Rifle Airport – Wind direction/speed data

–      Most representative of Battlement Mesa meteorological conditions

–      Prevailing wind direction are from west and south (see Rifle Airport Wind Rose Slide)

  • Rifle Airport – Terrain influences

–      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

 

 

 

 

  • Closet meteorological dataset is Williams’ Parachute Creek Gas Plant (PCGP), however it was not used because:

–       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

 

 

  • Modeled potential offsite impacts at “Receptors” out to 1,500 feet in all directions from each well pad location

 

  • Receptor = residence, golf course clubhouse, schools, etc.

 

  • Impacts = Modeled 24-hr Benzene Concentrations

 

  • Identified location of Potential Maximum 24-hr impacts relative to each pad location

 

  • Modeled Results – See Area Specific Well Pad Impact Maps

–      Area specific maps include setback distances

  • 350 ft – COGCC Setback in high density areas
  • 500ft – Antero Internal Setback
  • 1,000 ft

 

 

Slide 11

 

 

 

 

Benzene Air Quality Data – Monitored

 

    

 

 

 

  • Compared modeled worst case uncontrolled 24-hr benzene concentrations to monitoring data in Denver, Grand Junction and Piceance Basin.

 

  • Average monitored 24-hr benzene concentrations

–           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)

 

  • Benzene monitoring data for Colorado are presented in following table

 

 

 

 

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:

  • EPA acceptable 24-hr exposure of 30 µg/m3 = benzene health based standard (U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Benzene. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 2002)

 

–       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

 Picture Placeholder

 

Slide 16

 

 

Air Quality – Southeastern Pads

 Picture Placeholder

 

30

 

 

Slide 17

 

 

Air Quality – Southwestern Pads

 Picture Placeholder

 

30

 

 

Slide 18

 

 

Air Quality – Northern Pads

 Picture Placeholder

 

30

 

 

Slide 19

 

 

Air Modeling Study – Conclusions

  • The modeled benzene concentrations at or above the EPA health based standard of 30 µg/m3 do not extend beyond pad boundaries

 

  • The modeled benzene concentrations at ALL residential receptors are between 3.2 and 9.2 ug/m3 – well below the 24-hr EPA acceptable exposure threshold of 30 ug/m3 (includes background)

 

  • Antero installed control measures will reduce incremental benzene emissions by approximately 95%

 

  • The highest modeled benzene concentration (worst case scenario) at nearest residence is about 30% of the acceptable EPA health based standard, average is                           about 19% of the acceptable EPA health based standard

 

 

Air Quality – Odor Mitigation

 Picture Placeholder

 

  • All tank venting emissions are routed to a VOC combustor
  • VOC combustor will operate with igniter

 

 

 

 

Slide 21

 

 

Air Quality – Odor Mitigation

 Picture Placeholder

  • Purpose is to eliminate odor/VOC releases to atmosphere
  • Gas is routed to the sales line instead of vented/flared

 

Slide 22

 

 

Air Quality – Odor Mitigation

 

 

Storage tanks enclosed for odor control

 Picture Placeholder

Slide 23

 

 

Air Quality – Odor Mitigation

 Picture Placeholder

Example of Cover Technology for Water Handling Facilities

 Picture Placeholder

Water Storage and Treatment Facility (Pad F)

 

Slide 24

 

 

Air Quality – Summary

    

 

 

 

 

 

  • Well Pads – potential air emissions reduced and/or eliminated with controls or design (e.g. electric power from grid)

 

  • Production Tank Air Quality Modeling Study

−     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

 

Complete the form below to download this document now.

https://bit.ly/3hVidL7