Overview +
Glossary
H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
Participating University of Michigan Units
Graham Sustainability Institute
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise...
GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES
VOLUME II, REPORT 1
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE ...
2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
What is Happening in Michiga...
3
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
Currently identified U-M par...
4
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
Steering Committee	
The foll...
5
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
AIR QUALITY. A measure of th...
6
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
HIGH VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTU...
7
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013
SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2). A colo...
© 2013 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
MARK J. BERNSTEIN, ANN ARBOR
JULIA DONOVAN DARLOW, ANN ARBOR
LAURENCE ...
Technology
Technical
Report
H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
Participating University of Michigan Units
Graham Sustainability Institute
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise...
GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES
VOLUME II, REPORT 2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE ...
2
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T
...
3
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
problem, and its use...
4
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013
areas such as Kalkas...
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports

2,916 views

Published on

A series of seven reports (and an overview) produced by teams of faculty and students at the University of Michigan, part of a two-year project called the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment. This series of seven reports establishes the current situation and provides an excellent backgrounder for hydraulic fracturing and the process of shale drilling. Michigan has significant quanities of shale gas, particularly in the Utica-Collingwood layer. The reports say that with the low price of natural gas, it will not be economical to mine Michigan's shale gas for some years to come.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,916
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
74
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
129
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Univ of Michigan Hydraulic Fracturing Technical Reports

  1. 1. Overview + Glossary H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
  2. 2. Participating University of Michigan Units Graham Sustainability Institute Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise Risk Science Center University of Michigan Energy Institute THIS PUBLICATION IS A RESULT OF WORK SPONSORED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Direct questions to grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu
  3. 3. GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES VOLUME II, REPORT 1 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Overview + Glossary SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 WHAT IS THE ISSUE? T here is significant momentum behind natural gas extraction efforts in the United States, with many individual states embracing it as an opportunity to create jobs and foster economic strength. Natural gas extraction has also been championed as a way to move toward domestic energy independence and a cleaner energy supply. First demonstrated in the 1940’s, hydraulic fracturing is now the predom- inant method used to extract natural gas in the U.S. As domestic natural gas production has accelerated in recent years, however, the hydraulic fracturing process has come under increased public scrutiny. Concerns include perceived lack of transparency, chem- ical contamination, water availability, waste water disposal, and impacts on ecosystems, human health, and surrounding commu- nities. Consequently, numerous hydraulic fracturing studies are being undertaken by government agencies, industry, NGO’s, and academia, yet none have a particular focus on Michigan.
  4. 4. 2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 What is Happening in Michigan? Recent interest from energy developers, lease sales, and permit- ting activities suggest increasing activity around deep shale gas extraction in Michigan. • Roughly 9,800 Antrim Shale wells are currently in production and hydraulic fracturing was used as part of the completion activity in virtually every one of these wells without incident. Most of these wells were drilled and completed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Some new activity will still take place, and a very small number of the old wells may be hydraulically fractured in the future, but this is a “mature” play and is unlikely to be repeated. • The hydrocarbon resources in the Utica and Collingwood Shales in Northern Michigan will likely require hydraulic fracturing. • A May 2010 auction of state mineral leases brought in a record $178 million—nearly as much as the state had earned in the past 82 years of lease sales combined. Most of this money was spent for leases of State-owned mineral holdings with the Utica and Collingwood Shales as the probable primary targets. • Some ground water zones in Michigan are closer to gas zones than in other shale gas regions. It is significant that the Antrim Formation is only about 100 to about 1000 feet below the potential fresh water zones, and approximately 9,800 wells have been completed with no known contamination of fresh water zones to date. The Utica and Collingwood Shales are 3,000 to 10,000 feet below the fresh water zones. • State representatives have proposed packages of bills to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and state officials are reviewing existing regulations. Recognizing this context and that future hydraulic fracturing treatments will likely be of very high volume suggests a need for Michigan to be as well prepared as possible to manage this trend. What is being Done? Through a research-based partnership of University of Michigan (U-M) institutes, centers, and faculty, we are holistically evaluating the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. Hydraulic fractur- ing has the potential to touch issues that all Michigan residents care about - drinking water, air quality, Great Lakes health, water supply, local land use, energy security, economic growth, tourism, and natural resource protection. This project’s technical analysis, stakeholder engagement, and proposed approaches to minimize negative impacts will be important outcomes that guide future decision making on this issue and hopefully help state decision makers avoid some of the pitfalls encountered in other states. The project is based on the premise that natural gas extraction pressures will likely increase in Michigan due to a desire for job creation, economic strength, energy independence, and cleaner fuels. What is Our Approach and Expertise? This project is using Integrated Assessment (IA) (http://graham. umich.edu/knowledge/ia), which is a useful method for analyzing environmental, social, and economic dimensions of challenging sustainability problems. The IA process achieves significant impact by leveraging interdisciplinary faculty expertise and engaging decision makers and stakeholders outside of academia to affect policy analysis and decision making. The figure above illustrates an IA framework focusing on hydrau- lic fracturing and its impact on Michigan’s communities, human health, and ecosystems. The project is: • Leveraging and building upon U-M’s existing relationships to facilitate successful partner and stakeholder engagement. • Drawing on key studies and regulatory approaches from across the country. Because hydraulic fracturing is thus far less con- tentious in Michigan, this project can be a platform to consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. • Acknowledging that hydraulic fracturing is likely to be part of Michigan’s future while providing analysis to address concerns and determine what strategies may be needed to improve the process. Ecosystem  Impacts Human Health  Impacts Community  Impacts Hydraulic  Fracturing in  Michigan Technology Policy Science Economics
  5. 5. 3 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 Currently identified U-M partners with relevant expertise include: • The Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute is a bound- ary organization connecting academics and policy-makers to address challenging sustainability problems. • The Risk Science Center is an interdisciplinary research and communication center in the School of Public Health that supports science-informed decision making on health risks. • The Energy Institute seeks to chart the path to a clean, afford- able and sustainable energy future through multi-disciplinary research. • The Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise is com- mitted to creating a socially and environmentally sustainable society through the power of business. How Long Will it Take? IA’s typically involve a 2 year timeline, the approach allows for flexi- bility and interim deliverables based on partners’ needs. PROCESS Phase 1: Technical Reports An effective IA in this context first requires compiling technical reports to provide a solid foundation of information for decision makers and stakeholders, and upon which the policy analysis can be built. These reports cover key issues within each topic related to hydraulic fracturing, and conclude with Michigan-specific ques- tions/issues for later analysis in Phase 2. Below are the primary topics which were identified for the technical reports and the lead authors for each report: • Technology: Johannes Schwank, Chemical Engineering; John Wilson, U-M Energy Institute • Geology/hydrogeology: Brian Ellis, Civil and Environmental Engineering • Environment/ecology: Allen Burton, School of Natural Resources & Environment; Knute Nadelhoffer, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology • Human health: Nil Basu, School of Public Health • Policy/law: Sara Gosman, Law School • Economics: Roland Zullo, Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, & the Economy • Social/public perception: Andy Hoffman and Kim Wolske, Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise Each report considers a range of impacts/issues related to the primary topic. There may be overlaps of impacts/issues analyses as many of the items connect to multiple topics. Below is a non-ex- haustive list of possible impacts/issues which may be considered in the technical reports. While the IA has been developed to focus on High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) in Michigan (defined by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as hydrau- lic fracturing activity intended to use a total of more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid), data and analyses may cover a range of activity depending on topic or issue. Groundwater Impacts Health Impacts Surface Water Impacts Community Benefits/Impacts Risk Assessment State Economy Impact Air Quality Impacts Indirect Impacts (noise, traffic, roads) Fracturing Materials Catastrophic Events Federal-State-Local Policy Nexus Emergency Preparedness Process Innovations Public Perception Life Cycle Assessment Communications and Messaging Non-regulatory Strategies Local Land Use Policy Terrestrial and Aquatic System Impacts Lease Agreements/Good Neighbor Models Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil Production Management and Reuse of Flowback Water Methane Gas Releases On-site Diesel Emissions Phase 2: Integrated Assessment The IA will build from the technical reports, focus on identifying strategic policy options, and work to address the following guiding question: What are the best environmental, economic, social, and technological approaches for managing hydraulic fracturing in the State of Michigan? The IA will likely be formed around topics identified in the techni- cal reports and faculty authors from Phase 1 will likely be involved with the IA as leaders of topic specific analysis teams. However, new faculty may also become engaged at this point. Key aspects of the IA that will distinguish it from the technical reports include: • focus on the identification of key strategies and policy options, • collaboration and coordination across analysis teams to identify common themes and strategies, • regular engagement with decision makers, and • robust stakeholder engagement process to gauge public concerns and perceptions.
  6. 6. 4 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 Steering Committee The following steering committee has been assembled to guide project efforts including the configuration and structure of the IA during Phase 2: • Mark Barteau, Director, U-M Energy Institute • Valerie Brader, Senior Strategy Officer, Office of Strategic Policy, State of Michigan • John Callewaert, Int. Assessment Program Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute • James Clift, Policy Director, Michigan Environmental Council • John De Vries, Attorney, Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones; Michigan Oil and Gas Association • Hal Fitch, Director of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality • Gregory Fogle, Owner, Old Mission Energy; Michigan Oil and Gas Association • James Goodheart, Senior Policy Advisor, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality • Andy Hoffman, Director, U-M Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise • Drew Horning, Deputy Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute • Andrew Maynard, Director, U-M Risk Science Center • Tammy Newcomb, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Michigan Department of Natural Resources • Don Scavia, Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute • Tracy Swinburn, Managing Director, U-M Risk Science Center • Grenetta Thomassey, Program Director, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council • John Wilson, Consultant, U-M Energy Institute The role of the steering committee is to provide broad stakeholder input and guidance to the overall IA process and to ensure the scope of study is relevant to key decision makers. Committee members may also provide data and input to research teams throughout the process, but decisions regarding content of project analyses and reports are determined by the researchers. Engagement The IA will be informed by semi-annual meetings with analysis teams and the steering committee for project updates and dis- cussions. Twice during the IA, these meetings will involve a larger group of decision makers and stakeholders. An online comments/ ideas submission site has been established to direct public input to the steering committee and analysis teams: http://graham.umich. edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing Funding At present, the IA is entirely funded by the University of Michigan. The project is expected to cost at least $600,000 with support coming from the University of Michigan’s Graham Institute, Energy Institute and Risk Science Center. Current funding sources are limited to the U-M general fund and gift funds, all of which are governed solely by the University of Michigan. As the project develops, the Graham Institute may seek additional funding to expand stakeholder engagement efforts. All funding sources will be publicly disclosed. Timeline • Mid May 2013: steering committee and technical report leads meet to discuss technical reports and plans for the Integrated Assessment • Early September 2013: technical reports are released with 30 day public comment period for ideas and questions for the Integrated Assessment • Early Fall 2013: plans are developed for the Integrated Assessment • Mid 2014: final Integrated Assessment report released (tentative) Direct comments or questions to: grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu
  7. 7. 5 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 AIR QUALITY. A measure of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere and the dispersion potential of an area to dilute those pollutants. AQUIFER. A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to con- duct groundwater and to yield economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs. BASIN. A closed geologic structure in which the beds dip toward a central location; the youngest rocks are at the center of a basin and are partly or completely ringed by progressively older rocks. BIOGENIC GAS. Natural gas produced by living organisms or biological processes. CASING. Steel piping positioned in a wellbore and cemented in place to prevent the soil or rock from caving in. It also serves to isolate fluids, such as water, gas, and oil, from the surrounding geologic formations. COAL BED METHANE/NATURAL GAS (CBM/CBNG). A clean‐burning natural gas found deep inside and around coal seams. The gas has an affinity to coal and is held in place by pres- sure from groundwater. CBNG is produced by drilling a wellbore into the coal seam(s), pumping out large volumes of groundwater to reduce the hydrostatic pressure, allowing the gas to dissociate from the coal and flow to the surface. COMPLETION. The activities and methods to prepare a well for production and following drilling. Includes installation of equip- ment for production from a gas well. CONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS. Natural gas comes from both ‘conventional’ (easier to produce) and ‘unconventional’ (more difficult to produce) geological formations. The key difference between “conventional” and “unconventional” natural gas is the manner, ease and cost associated with extracting the resource. Exploration for conventional gas has been almost the sole focus of the oil and gas industry since it began nearly 100 years ago. Conventional gas is typically “free gas” trapped in multiple, relatively small, porous zones in various naturally occurring rock formations such as carbonates, sandstones, and siltstones. CORRIDOR. A strip of land through which one or more existing or potential utilities may be colocated. DISPOSAL WELL. A well which injects produced water into an underground formation for disposal. DIRECTIONAL DRILLING. The technique of drilling at an angle from a surface location to reach a target formation not located directly underneath the well pad. DRILL RIG. The mast, draw works, and attendant surface equip- ment of a drilling or workover unit. EMISSION. Air pollution discharge into the atmosphere, usually specified by mass per unit time. ENDANGERED SPECIES. Those species of plants or animals clas- sified by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce as endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. See also Threatened and Endangered Species. EXPLORATION. The process of identifying a potential subsur- face geologic target formation and the active drilling of a borehole designed to assess the natural gas or oil. FLOW LINE. A small diameter pipeline that generally connects a well to the initial processing facility. FORMATION (GEOLOGIC). A rock body distinguishable from other rock bodies and useful for mapping or description. Formations may be combined into groups or subdivided into members. FRACTURING FLUIDS. A mixture of water and additives used to hydraulically induce cracks in the target formation. GROUND WATER. Subsurface water that is in the zone of sat- uration; source of water for wells, seepage, and springs. The top surface of the groundwater is the “water table.” HABITAT. The area in which a particular species lives. In wildlife management, the major elements of a habitat are considered to be food, water, cover, breeding space, and living space. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING GLOSSARY OF COMMONLY USED TERMS1 1. General sources include: • “Modern Shale Gas Development,” a Department of Energy Report: www.eogresources.com/responsibility/doeModernShaleGasDevelopment.pdf • The Canadian Association of Petroleum Products: www.capp.ca/ CANADAINDUSTRY/NATURALGAS/CONVENTIONAL-UNCONVENTIONAL/ Pages/default.aspx • The Union of Concerned Scientists: www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/ our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/how-natural-gas-works.html
  8. 8. 6 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 HIGH VOLUME HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. High volume hydraulic fracturing well completion is defined by the State of Michigan as a “well completion operation that is intended to use a total of more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid.”2 HORIZONTAL DRILLING. A drilling procedure in which the wellbore is drilled vertically to a kickoff depth above the target formation and then angled through a wide 90 degree arc such that the producing portion of the well extends horizontally through the target formation. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING. Injecting fracturing fluids into the target formation at a force exceeding the parting pressure of the rock thus inducing a network of fractures through which oil or nat- ural gas can flow to the wellbore. HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. The pressure exerted by a fluid at rest due to its inherent physical properties and the amount of pressure being exerted on it from outside forces. INJECTION WELL. A well used to inject fluids into an under- ground formation either for enhanced recovery or disposal. LEASE. A legal document that conveys to an operator the right to drill for oil and gas. Also, the tract of land, on which a lease has been obtained, where producing wells and production equipment are located. NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material). Low‐level, radioactive material that naturally exists in native materials. ORIGINAL GAS IN PLACE. The entire volume of gas contained in the reservoir, regardless of the ability to produce it. PARTICULATE MATTER (PM). A small particle of solid or liquid matter (e.g., soot, dust, and mist).PM10 refers to particu- late matter having a size diameter of less than 10 millionths of a meter (micrometer)and PM2.5 being less than 2.5 micro‐meters in diameter. PERMEABILITY. A rock’s capacity to transmit a fluid; dependent upon the size and shape of pores and interconnecting pore throats. A rock may have significant porosity (many microscopic pores) but have low permeability if the pores are not interconnected. Permeability may also exist or be enhanced through fractures that connect the pores. PRIMACY. A right that can be granted to state by the federal government that allows state agenciesto implement programs with federal oversight. Usually, the states develop their own set of regulations. By statute, states may adopt their own standards, however, these must be at least as protective as the federal stan- dards they replace, and may be even more protective in order to address local conditions. Once these state programs are approved by the relevant federal agency (usually the EPA), the state then has primacy jurisdiction. PRODUCED WATER. Water produced from oil and gas wells. PROPPING AGENTS/PROPPANT. Silica sand or other particles pumped into a formation during a hydraulic fracturing operation to keep fractures open and maintain permeability. PROVED RESERVES. That portion of recoverable resources that is demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be technically, economically, and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. RECLAMATION. Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to make it acceptable for designated uses. This normally involves regrading, replacement of topsoil, re‐vegetation, and other work necessary to restore it. SETBACK. The distance that must be maintained between a well or other specified equipment and any protected structure or feature. SHALE GAS. Natural gas produced from low permeability shale formations. SLICKWATER. A water based fluid mixed with friction reducing agents, commonly potassium chloride. SOLID WASTE. Any solid, semi‐solid, liquid, or contained gas- eous material that is intended for disposal. SPLIT ESTATE. Condition that exists when the surface rights and mineral rights of a given area are owned by different persons or entities; also referred to as “severed estate”. STIMULATION. Any of several processes used to enhance near wellbore permeability and reservoir permeability. STIPULATION. A condition or requirement attached to a lease or contract, usually dealing with protection of the environment, or recovery of a mineral. 2. Department of Environmental Quality, Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011 (2011), available at www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/SI_1-2011_353936_7.pdf (effective June 22, 2011). Michigan.
  9. 9. 7 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: OVERVIEW + GLOSSARY, SEPTEMBER 2013 SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2). A colorless gas formed when sulfur oxidizes, often as a result of burning trace amounts of sulfur in fossil fuels. TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE RESOURCES. The total amount of resource, discovered and undiscovered, that is thought to be recoverable with available technology, regardless of economics. THERMOGENIC GAS. Natural gas that is formed by the com- bined forces of high pressure and temperature (both from deep burial within the earth’s crust), resulting in the natural cracking of the organic matter in the source rock matrix. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. Plant or animal species that have been designated as being in danger of extinc- tion. See also Endangered Species. TIGHT GAS. Natural gas trapped in a hardrock, sandstone or limestone formation that is relatively impermeable. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS). The dry weight of dis- solved material, organic and inorganic, contained in water and usually expressed in parts per million. UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS. Natural gas comes from both ‘conventional’ (easier to produce) and ‘unconventional’ (more difficult to produce) geological formations. The key differ- ence between “conventional” and “unconventional” natural gas is the manner, ease and cost associated with extracting the resource. However, most of the growth in supply from today’s recoverable gas resources is found in unconventional formations. Unconventional gas reservoirs include tight gas, coal bed methane, gas hydrates, and shale gas. The technological breakthroughs in horizontal drill- ing and fracturing are making shale and other unconventional gas supplies commercially viable. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM (UIC). A program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, primacy state, or Indian tribe under the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that subsurface emplacement of fluids does not endanger underground sources of drinking water. UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER (USDW). 40 CFR Section 144.3 An aquifer or its portion: (a) (1) Which supplies any public water system; or (2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system; and (i) Currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or (ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids; and (b) Which is not an exempted aquifer. WATER QUALITY. The chemical, physical, and biological char- acteristics of water with respect to its suitability for a particular use. WATERSHED. All lands which are enclosed by a continuous hydrologic drainage divide and lay upslope from a specified point on a stream. WELL COMPLETION. See Completion. WORKOVER. To perform one or more remedial operations on a producing or injection well to increase production. Deepening, plugging back, pulling, and resetting the liner are examples of workover operations.
  10. 10. © 2013 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MARK J. BERNSTEIN, ANN ARBOR JULIA DONOVAN DARLOW, ANN ARBOR LAURENCE B. DEITCH, BLOOMFIELD HILLS SHAUNA RYDER DIGGS, GROSSE POINTE DENISE ILITCH, BINGHAM FARMS ANDREA FISCHER NEWMAN, ANN ARBOR ANDREW C. RICHNER, GROSSE POINTE PARK KATHERINE E. WHITE, ANN ARBOR MARY SUE COLEMAN, EX OFFICIO Please print sparingly and recycle
  11. 11. Technology Technical Report H Y D R A U L I C F R A C T U R I N G I N T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
  12. 12. Participating University of Michigan Units Graham Sustainability Institute Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise Risk Science Center University of Michigan Energy Institute ABOUT THIS REPORT This document is one of the seven technical reports com- pleted for the Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment conducted by the University of Michigan. During the initial phase of the project, seven faculty-led and student-staffed teams focused on the following topics: Technology, Geology/ Hydrogeology, Environment/Ecology, Human Health, Policy/ Law, Economics, and Public Perceptions. These reports were prepared to provide a solid foundation of information on the topic for decision makers and stakeholders and to help inform the Integrated Assessment, which will focus on the analysis of policy options. The reports were informed by comments from (but do not necessarily reflect the views of) the Integrated Assessment Steering Committee, expert peer reviewers, and numerous public comments. Upon completion of the peer review process, final decisions regarding the content of the reports were deter- mined by the faculty authors in consultation with the peer review editor. These reports should not be characterized or cited as final products of the Integrated Assessment. The reports cover a broad range of topics related to hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. In some cases, the authors determined that a general discussion of oil and gas development is important to provide a framing for a more specific discussion of hydraulic fracturing. The reports address common hydraulic fracturing (HF) as meaning use of hydraulic fracturing methods regardless of well depth, fluid volume, or orientation of the well (whether vertical, directional, or horizontal). HF has been used in thousands of wells throughout Michigan over the past several decades. Most of those wells have been shallower, vertical wells using approxi- mately 50,000 gallons of water; however, some have been deeper and some have been directional or horizontal wells. The reports also address the relatively newer high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) methods typically used in conjunction with directional or horizontal drilling. An HVHF well is defined by the State of Michigan as one that is intended to use more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Finally, material in the technical reports should be understood as providing a thorough hazard identification for hydraulic fracturing, and when appropriate, a prioritization according to likelihood of occurrence. The reports do not provide a scientific risk assess- ment for aspects of hydraulic fracturing.
  13. 13. GRAHAM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT REPORT SERIES VOLUME II, REPORT 2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN The Application of Hydraulic Fracturing Technologies to Michigan Oil and Gas Recovery SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 Faculty Leads JOHN R. WILSON CONSULTANT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ENERGY INSTITUTE JOHANNES W. SCHWANK PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Executive Summary 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Status and Trends 12 3.0 Challenges and Opportunities 24 4.0 Prioritized Pathways For Phase 2 24 Literature Cited THIS PUBLICATION IS A RESULT OF WORK SPONSORED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Direct questions to grahaminstitute-ia@umich.edu
  14. 14. 2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T his report focuses on technical issues related to hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” technologies and related methods of oil and gas recovery with special emphasis on methods that find applications in the State of Michigan. The report also identifies technical issues in the area of hydraulic fracturing that may require additional research. A brief review of the history of oil and gas recovery in Michigan is included, and the Michigan-based activities are discussed and contrasted with other U.S. and Canadian hydraulic fracturing activities. Since Michigan has limited experience with deep and/or directional drilling, this report also draws on the experience devel- oped in other states. Michigan, compared to other states in the U.S., has been a mid- dle-of-the-pack producer of both oil and gas for many years. After the first commercially successful recovery of oil in Michigan in the Saginaw field in 1925, oil was also found near Muskegon, between Midland and Mount Pleasant, in the northern Niagaran Reef struc- ture and along a trend between Albion and Scipio. Oil production in Michigan peaked in 1981-83 at about 32 million barrels/year but has since than declined by about 50%1 . Natural gas production started later in Michigan, mostly in the Antrim Shale and in the northern Niagaran Reef, and peaked in 1996 at almost 300 billion cu. ft./year. Michigan’s natural gas production has since fallen steadily to a little under 150 billion cu. ft./year2,3 . For comparison, the U.S. uses about 18 million barrels of oil daily (6.6 billion barrels annually) and about 23 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas annually4 . In the past 30 years, there have been no significant new oil finds in Michigan. However, considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica- Collingwood, which underlies much of Michigan and eastern Lake Huron and extends well down into Ontario, Canada. Despite attempts dating back as far as 1859 in both Michigan and Ontario to extract gas, gas liquids and even oil from this very tight formation, there has been no successful commercial development to date. A few promising finds in Kalkaska County in Michigan, on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, and on the Southern Ontario mainland as far south as Niagara Falls have not yet led to commercial devel- opment. In view of the currently low price of gas, the high cost of drilling these deep shales, and the absence of new oil discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan (or Ontario) in the near-term future. High-pressure (usually deep well) hydraulic fracturing (HF) rep- resents one of many widely used methods of enhancing or ini- tiating oil and gas recovery from deep, tight formations5 . It has not found widespread application in Michigan, except for a few exploratory wells in the Utica/Collingwood and the associated A-1 and A-2 Carbonates. However, HF has been used in the form of low-pressure nitrogen foam fracking and also low-pressure water fracking in the Antrim Shale in the northern Lower Peninsula since the late 1940s (Hal Fitch, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, pers. comm.). Hydraulic fracking originated in 1947-1949, initially in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas as a means of stimulating production from uneconomic gas and (mostly) oil wells, and was quickly success- ful at increasing production rates by 50% or more, typically using hydrocarbon fluids (not water) as the carrier. Fracking now involves water mixed with at least 9-10% of sand or a synthetic ceramic such as calcined bauxite. The sand or ceramic particles are dispersed in the water to help keep the cracks in the formation open; the water also contains about 0.5 % of a total of about 10 chemical additives (such as surfactants and antibacterial agents similar to those used in dishwashing detergents) to help keep the newly-formed cracks open and clean. In the past, far less environmentally benign chem- icals were added but the use of these has been discontinued by all of the major operators and their sub-contractors, partly as a result of public pressure and greater state disclosure requirements. As noted, hydraulic fracturing was first performed experimentally in 1947 and the first commercial “frac job” was performed in 1949. As of 2010, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells worldwide were being hydraulically fractured6 . Many of these early fracking jobs were a mixture of stimulation of oil and gas produc- tion from existing under-performing wells and the development of new wells in “tight” formations from which commercially accept- able oil and gas flows could not otherwise be obtained. As of 2012, it is estimated that 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing jobs of all kinds have been performed on oil and gas wells worldwide, over one million of them in the United States7 . To date in the U.S., fracking technologies are estimated to have been applied to more than 1.25 million vertical or directional oil or gas wells. Canadian com- panies have fracked at least another 200,000 wells8 . In many recent cases, a combination of directional drilling and high-pressure multi-stage fracking has been used to access oil or gas trapped in larger ‘drainage volumes’ of a reservoir. Modern high-pressure HF is generally applied to deep, often directional wells and uses what are often perceived as high vol- umes of water (typically up to 7 million gallons per well although in a very small number of cases, including one in Michigan, quantities over 20 million gallons have been reported, usually associated with unusually low flowback water recoveries and apparently associated with abnormal “sinks” for water deep underground). Compared to other industrial or agricultural uses, these volumes of water are not large, but water availability tends to be a local or regional
  15. 15. 3 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013 problem, and its use for fracking has raised concerns especially in the western U.S. To decrease the use of water, several non-aque- ous fracking methods are now in use or being developed. A more serious problem is disposal or treatment of the often-substantial fraction of the fracking water returned as so-called flowback water and also of any subsequently produced water. Flowback or pro- duced water is now often (as in Michigan) disposed of in Federal or State approved deep injection wells. An increasing and so far partially successful effort is being made to develop better water treatment methods for the often highly saline return water which may also contain small amounts of hydrocarbons, some of them toxic9 . If these treatment methods are effective, the water can be re-used—and in some cases is, in Colorado and Pennsylvania, for example. Another concern for the natural gas industry is potential leakage of methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Over the years, substantial efforts have been made to gradually decrease the num- ber of both large and small leaks in the national distribution sys- tem. Newly designed pipeline compressors, once a major source of methane leaks, are now essentially leak-proof while gas process- ing plant hardware and instrumentation is improving through the use of welded joints and changes in design. In the past, fracked gas well sites used to be fairly major contributors to methane leaks due to careless handling of flowback water and practices such as open-well liquids unloading and incomplete combustion in flares. Field monitoring of methane emissions from such sites now shows them to be comparable to conventional gas wells producing under reservoir pressure, and field levels of methane leaking from HF sites are now generally low, as was very recently confirmed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)10 . Although methane leakage remains a concern for the natural gas industry in general, the probability of significant methane leakage in deep shale drill- ing, completion, hydraulic fracturing, testing, and production in Michigan is quite low provided that best practices are adhered to. However, local distribution systems in older cities are still thought to be a major source of methane leakage. Fracking, like oil or gas drilling, involves complex equipment and procedures operated by humans. Errors and accidents do occa- sionally occur, sometimes leading to the escape of fracking water or, much more often, gas into the atmosphere or into groundwater or drinking water aquifers. Fortunately, such events have become increasingly rare over the past ten years as both regulations and industry practices have improved. Most recent incidents have involved faulty equipment or its faulty installation. This report reviews the safety record accumulated over more than 30 years of high-pressure deep well fracking (and a much longer period of all forms of fracking) and arrives at the conclusion that the fracking process has a good safety record. Phase 2 work that is proposed includes a long-overdue study of the adsorption of natural gas components on minerals that are found in Michigan’s gas reservoirs as well as a more quantitative look at the physical characteristics of the Collingwood, Utica, and related shales that are thought to be important to Michigan’s natural gas future. 1.0 INTRODUCTION A lthough Michigan has long been a moderately prolific (albeit now declining) producer of oil and gas, in common with many other states, it is in most ways geologically unique. While it has some charac- teristics in common with neighboring Indiana, Ohio and Ontario, Canada, the history of “fracking” in other states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, Colorado or Wyoming has limited relevance in Michigan. Among American states, Michigan has been a middle-of-the-pack producer of both oil and gas for many years. This report will combine that part of out-of-state experience that is relevant to Michigan with the state’s 100+ years of in-state discovery and production of oil and gas. It will provide an analy- sis of the past, present, and likely future of the use of formation drilling and fracturing technologies to enhance natural gas and oil production in the state. The first commercial discovery of oil in Michigan was made in the Saginaw field in 1925. This was followed by many other finds near Muskegon, between Midland and Mount Pleasant, in the northern Niagaran Reef structure and along a trend between Albion and Scipio11 . Oil production state-wide increased steadily and peaked in 1981-83 at about 32 million barrels/year but has declined by more than 50% since that time3 . Natural gas production devel- oped somewhat later in Michigan, mostly in the Antrim Shale and in the northern Niagaran Reef, and grew steadily until 1996 when it peaked at almost 300 billion cu. ft./year. Michigan’s natural gas production has since fallen to a little under 150 billion cu. ft./year. For comparison, the U.S. uses about 18 million barrels of oil daily (6.6 billion barrels annually) and about 23 trillion cu. ft. of natural gas annually7 . No significant new finds of oil have been made in Michigan in the past 30 years. Additional natural gas is thought to exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood, which underlies much of Lower Michigan and Lake Huron and extends well down into Ontario, Canada. Attempts have been made in both Michigan and Ontario to extract gas, gas liquids and even oil from this very tight formation dating back to 1859, but so far there has been no successful commercial development. There have, however, been one or two promising (but so far undeveloped) finds in several
  16. 16. 4 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN MICHIGAN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT: TECHNOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 2013 areas such as Kalkaska County in Michigan and on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron and on the Southern Ontario mainland as far south as Niagara Falls. Notwithstanding these positive indications, the low price of gas, the high cost of drilling these shales, and the absence of new oil finds do not bode well for the near-term future of the oil and gas industry in Michigan (or Ontario). 2.0 STATUS AND TRENDS 2.1 A Brief History of Oil and Gas in Michigan and Vicinity The following map shows the well-established bedrock geology of Michigan12 . The map shows the irregular “stack of dinner plates” characteristic of Michigan geology which has resulted in formation Figure 1: Geology of Michigan12 KEWEENAW HOUGHTON ONTONAGON BARAGA MARQUETTE GOGEBIC CHIPPEWA LUCE ALGER SCHOOLCRAFT IRON DICKINSON MACKINAC DELTA MENOMINEE EMMET CHEBOYGAN PRESQUE ISLE CHARLEVOIX ALPENA MONTMORENCY LEELANAU OTSEGO ANTRIM GRAND TRAVERSE ALCONAOSCODACRAW FORDKALKASKA BENZIE IOSCOOGEMAWROSCOMMONMANISTEE MISSAUKEEWEXFORD ARENAC MASON GLADWINCLAREOSCEOLALAKE HURON BAY MIDLANDISABELLAOCEANA MECOSTA NEWAYGO TUSCOLA SANILAC SAGINAW GRATIOTMUSKEGON MONTCALM LAPEER KENT GENESEE ST CLAIR OTTAW A SHIAWASSEE CLINTONIONIA MACOMB OAKLAND LIVINGSTONINGHAMEATONBARRYALLEGAN WAYNE WASHTENAWJACKSONCALHOUNKALAMAZOOVAN BUREN BERRIEN MONROE LENAWEEHILLSDALE BRANCHST JOSEPHCASS BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF LOWER PENINSULA SALINA GROUP BASS ISLAND GROUP GARDEN ISLAND FORMATION BOIS BLANC FORMATION MACKINAC BRECCIA SYLVANIA SANDSTONE DETROIT RIVER GROUP DUNDEE LIMESTONE BELL SHALE TRAVERSE GROUP ANTRIM SHALE ELLSWORTH SHALE BEDFORD SHALE BEREA SS & BEDFORD SH SUNBURY SHALE COLDWATER SHALE MARSHALL FORMATION MICHIGAN FORMATION BAYPORT LIMESTONE SAGINAW FORMATION GRAND RIVER FORMATION RED BEDS BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF WESTERN UPPER PENINSULA JACOBSVILLE SANDSTONE FREDA SANDSTONE NONESUCH FORMATION COPPER HARBOR CONGLOMERATE OAK BLUFF FORMATION PORTAGE LAKE VOLCANICS SIEMENS CREEK FORMATION INTRUSIVE QUINNESEC FORMATION PAINT RIVER GROUP RIVERTON IRON FORMATION BIJIKI IRON FORMATION NEGAUNEE IRON FORMATION IRONWOOD IRON FORMATION DUNN CREEK FORMATION BADWATER GREENSTONE MICHIGAMME FORMATION GOODRICH QUARTZITE HEMLOCK FORMATION MENOMINEE & CHOCOLAY GROUPS EMPEROR VULCANIC COMPLEX SIAMO SLATE & AJIBIK QUARTZITE PALMS FORMATION CHOCOLAY GROUP RANDVILLE DOLOMITE ARCHEAN ULTRAMAFIC ARCHEAN GRANITE & GNEISSIC ARCHEAN VOL. & SEDIMENTARY MACKINAC BRECCIA BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA MUNISING FORMATION TREMPEALEAU FORMATION PRAIRIE DU CHIEN GROUP BLACK RIVER GROUP TRENTON GROUP COLLINGWOOD SHALE MEMBER UTICA SHALE MEMBER STONINGTON FORMATION BIG HILL DOLOMITE QUEENSTON SHALE MANITOULIN DOLOMITE CABOT HEAD SHALE BURNT BLUFF GROUP MANISTIQUE GROUP ENGADINE GROUP POINT AUX CHENES SHALE SAINT IGNACE DOLOMITE SALINA GROUP BASS ISLAND GROUP GARDEN ISLAND FORMATION BOIS BLANC FORMATION MACKINAC BRECCIA 0 20 40 MilesDate: 11/12/99 N Michigan MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT O FNATURAL RESOU RCES LAND AND MINERALS SERVICES DIVISION RESOURCE MAPPING AND AERIAL PHO TOG RAPHY Michigan Resource Information System Part 609, Resource Inventory, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. Automated from "Bedrock Geology of Mi chi gan," 1987, 1:500,000 scal e, which was compiled from a vari ety of sources by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Geological Survey Division. SOURCE RMAP 1987 BEDROCK GEOLOGY OF MICHIGAN

×