1. SOUTH AFRICA’S CURRENT ANALYTICAL CAPABILITIES FOR STABLE ISOTOPES WITH REFERENCE TO COMPLIANCE MONITORING
FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND FUTURE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Danita Hohne1, Surina Esterhuyse 2, Robert Hansen3
Department Water and Sanitation,
1Upington, Northern Cape, South Africa; email: HohneD@dws.gov.za
University of the Free State
Centre for Environmental Management, Bloemfontein, Free State South Africa; email: EsterhuyseS@ufs.ac.za
Department of Geology, Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa: email: HansenR@ufs.ac.za
.
.
INTRODUCTION
CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN SA
Conclusion
.
.
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SA VS INTERNATIONAL LABORATORY CAPABILITIES INTERNATIONAL MONITORING AND REGULATIONS
OTHER NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
REFERENCES
CHEMICAL
INDICATORS
LABORATORY
CAPACITY
WORLD LEADING
LABORATORIES
TECHNICAL
CAPABILITIES
GROUNDWATER
TESTING
INTERNATIONAL
δ13CCH4, δ2HCH4
δ13CH2O, δ2HH2O,
δ18OH2O, δ13CDIC,
δ13CC2H6, δ2HC2H6,
δ34SSO4, δ11B,
δ14C, δ36Cl
Turn around time 6
days- 2 weeks
Duke university
Cornell University
Isotech
Australian National
University
Accelerator mass
spectrometry
Thermo Scientific Triton
thermal ionisation MS
Delta V Pus IPMS
SOUTH AFRICA’S
CAPABILITIES
δ13CCH4, δ2HCH4
(only UCT)
δ13CH2O, δ2HH2O,
δ18OH2O, (most
university
laboratories)
δ13CH2O, δ2HH2O,
δ18OH2O,Tritium,
Carbon-14 (incl.
Carbon-13), δ 15N,
δ 34S (iThemba)
30 days ;1 sample
per hour.
UCT and iThemba
can do some of the
analyses required
but we would need
the CSIR to assist in
the analyses to
ensure a quicker turn
around time and it is
not doing any
analyses anymore.
SA is able to analyse for
the main stable isotopes
making use of XP Delta
dual inlet Mass
Spectrometry and KAPq
ICP MS.
Constitution of RSA
(Basic rights of SA citizens)
National Environmental Act
107 of 1998 (NEMA)
(Framework defining and
entrenching sustainability
principles)
RAMSAR
SANBI
SEA for shale gas
No HF regulations
National Environmental
Management Waste Act 59 of 2008
(NEMWA)
No HF regulations
National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA)
and Water Services Act 108 of 1997
(WSA)
Must adhere to NEMA
Water quality SANS 241(2015)a and b
Sec 21 A-K
General Notice No. 999 (RSA, 2015b)
as section 37 (e) of the NWA (RSA,
1998a). A WULA would be needed.
No HF regulations
Mineral and Petroleum
Resources Development Act 28
of 2002 (MPRDA)
Must adhere to NEMA
Regulations for Petroleum
Exploration and Production, 2015
(GN R466).
Isotopes have been shown to be a powerful tool in compliance monitoring for
hydraulic fracturing (HF) [1,2]. As large areas of the Karoo in South Africa(SA) have
been identified as potential targets for hydraulic fracturing to exploit the natural gas
resources, the question needs to be asked: What is the current ability of the
laboratories in SA to test for stable isotopes?
Only a few laboratories in SA can analyse for stable isotopes and the range of stable
isotopes that can be analysed for is very limited. Most laboratories can only do the
standard δ13C; δ2H and δ18O. For HF isotopes such as δ11B, 87Sr/86Sr and 36Cl/Cl
would be needed [1,3]. SA laboratories are not fully equipped to deal with the
spectrum of isotopes that is required for monitoring water resources during shale gas
and would need to extend their analytical capabilities to assure environmental
compliance of hydraulic fracturing.
Internationally a limited number of studies have been conducted on the impacts of HF
on groundwater and surface water resources using isotopes during monitoring [1,2,5],
and similarly only a few detailed studies with reference to HF have been conducted
using stable isotopes in the SA context. The studies by Murray et al [6] and Talma and
Esterhuyse [3] are examples of two published studies.
A detailed investigation would need to be conducted, incorporating historic water-
related studies that have been conducted thus far and that is relevant to
unconventional gas extraction. This would form part of the groundwork that is needed
together with baseline monitoring of water resources. Compliance monitoring of SA
scarce water resources for hydraulic fracturing operations is crucial if we want to
protect it.
In this poster I review the laboratory analytical capabilities in SA and make
recommendations in terms of upgrades that would be required at SA laboratories to
effectively address the issues surrounding baseline monitoring for hydraulic fracturing
operations.
[1] Osborn, SG.,Vengosh, A., Warner NR. and Jackson, RB.; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA. 2011 May 17; 108(20): 8172–8176.Methane contamination of drinking water
accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
[2] Darrah, TH., Vengosh A., Jacson RB., Warner NR., Poreda RJ.; PNAS; August 2014;
Noble gases identify the mechanisms of fugitive gas contamination in drinking-water
wells overlying the Marcellus and Barnett Shales
[3] Talma, A.S. and Esterhuyse, C.; 2013; Natural methane in the Karoo: its occurrence
and isotope clues to its origin
[5] The Council of Canadian Academies, 2014. Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas
Extraction in Canada. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Harnessing Science and
Technology to Understand the Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction
[6] Murray R. et al. (2015) The Use of Chemistry, Isotopes and Gases as Indicators of
Deeper Circulating Groundwater in the Main Karoo Basin; WRC Report No. 2254/1/15
[7] EPA (August 2016) SAB review of the EPA’s draft assessment of the potential impact
of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources EPA-SAB-16-005
[8]Department of Environment, Australian Government; independent Expert Scientific
Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development; Hydraulic
fracturing(fraccing) techniques, including reporting requirements and governance
arrangement s; June 2014
[9]Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy; Guidance on fracking:
Developing shale oil and gas in the UK;(11 April 2016)
A serious threat that SA currently faces in terms of groundwater resource protection
from oil and gas extraction, is the fact that we are running out of time.
Aspects that we need to prepare for and implement before oil and gas exploration,
includes:
• Upgrading laboratory equipment so that we can analyse a range of stable isotopes;
• Obtaining the necessary field sampling equipment;
• Training scientists for field sampling;
• Training laboratory technicians to analyse samples;
• Obtaining funding of baseline monitoring and monitoring during and after oil and
gas extraction.
SA should perform thorough baseline surveys on the groundwater resources in the
target oil and gas areas of the Karoo before exploration can be allowed. The current
human resource capacity and funding issues constrains SA’s ability to perform the
required baseline surveys. This is a grave threat to groundwater resources in SA.
Both the UK and Australia have regulations and acts in place for regulating HF. Both
countries emphasise the need of a baseline monitoring and monitoring throughout the
whole fracking process. Also any permits given out by the Environment Agency in the
UK to operators will have to be renewed every 15 years. The Oil and Gas authority
also ensure that the operators works sustainably with the environment.[9] In Australia
permits are given out by the Department of Environment. Australia also has a
Independent Expert Scientific Committee and they also insist in there requirements
for a baseline that stable isotopes must be analysed for, both the UK and Australia
see the need for this as the isotopes can indicate the source of methane.[8]
In Canada the Council for Canadians have also emphasised the need for baseline
monitoring to commence before fracking does, however no federal legislation exists
because permits vary from province to province.[5]
In the USA the operators have used the Halliburton loophole since 2005, meaning
that they don’t need to disclose the chemicals used during HF. Also no baseline
studies have been conducted and little monitoring have taken place. Since 2012
standards and regulations have been changed in Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Texas,
Colorado and California. Colorado is the state that have the best data to date and
also best regulation. The EPA released a report in Aug 2016 indicating that a baseline
would need to be established before HF commences.[7]
SA as can seen from this poster don’t have the capacity to do the required sample analyses as indicated from
international studies.SA would need to upgrade its laboratories to handle large scale samples and also need
to train people how to analyse and interpret the data that they are analysing.
SA also needs to get started right away on this as HF can happen within the next 2-3 years and then the
country still would not be prepared. SA can do the basics but the more intricate analyses at this stage would
need to be send away to the USA [1][2]or Australia to ensure the safety of the groundwater.
In terms or regulations the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) is the only department with regulations
the department of Water and Sanitation and Environmental Affairs are still without regulations, this then have
an effect on the procurement for money to invest in good laboratory services and also policies on the
environment and water quality.
To conclude SA would need to establish regulations as soon as possible. Policies then would need to be
written to ensure the safeguarding of the groundwater resources in the Karoo. The regulations and policies
would then ensure that money would be made available for these actions to take place.
The regulations and policies also need to take into consideration the scientific work that have already been
done internationally[1][2] and locally [3][6].
Regulations would need to stipulate that analyses must be done on the groundwater and gas to determine
the source of methane and also to determine weather the water is old or young water, indicating that it is
sourced from deep aquifers or shallow aquifers and the conclusions that was drawn by Dr. Murray et al. [6]
can be used as indicators for these types of water and its sources.
Prof. Harris from UCT indicated that they are not able to handle large scale samples thus SA would also
need to look into upgrading of laboratories to ensure sufficient sample turn around times this will ensure that
if pollution pathways have been created by HF it would be picked up quicker and action to prevent further
pollution can then be taken right away.
To end of SA is not prepared for what is coming and needs to take action as soon as possible to ensure that
HF can occur without being unprepared or holdups in the sampling and analyses part.
Note: No law is above any other law. All laws must be adhered to.
Acknowledgements
Dr. R. Diamond; University of Pretoria
Prof. C. Harris; University of Cape Town
Dr. S. Woodborne and Mr. M. Butler ; iThemba Labs