Table of contents
  1. Story
  2. Slides
    1. Slide 1 Data Science for EPA & USGS Fracturing & Fracking­­­­­ Data
    2. Slide 2 Agenda
    3. Slide 3 Background
    4. Slide 4 Designing a Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Toolkit for the Federal Government
    5. Slide 5 Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science 
    6. Slide 6 Open Science and Innovation: Of the People, By the People, For the People
    7. Slide 7 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    8. Slide 8 Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Generated within States
    9. Slide 9 Specific EPA Nutrient Indicators
    10. Slide 10 EPA Contact Us about Nutrient Policy and Data
    11. Slide 11 EPA State Milestones
    12. Slide 12 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Speadsheet
    13. Slide 13 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    14. Slide 14 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Metadata
    15. Slide 15 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page
    16. Slide 16 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    17. Slide 17 Week 4 Modeling
    18. Slide 18 IPNINuGIS-Spotfire
    19. Slide 19 Tamr Catalog
    20. Slide 20 Tamr Catalog and Tamr Platform
    21. Slide 21 Tamr Catalog ZIP File
    22. Slide 22 Tamr Catalog Application
    23. Slide 23 Tamr Catalog Views: Add Sources and Explore Table
    24. Slide 24 Tamr and TIBCO Spotfire
    25. Slide 25 
    26. EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page Interactions
    27. Slide 26 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Nutrient Dataset
    28. Slide 27 Data Column Properties Exported to Spreadsheet
    29. Slide 28 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    30. Slide 29 EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire Cover Page
    31. Slide 30 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Fracturing Data
    32. Slide 31 EPA Fracturing Data: additive_ingredients_final_030515_3
    33. Slide 32 USGS Produced Waters -Spotfire
    34. Slide 33 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: USGS Produced Waters
    35. Slide 34 USGS Produced Waters: USGSPWDB_v2.1
    36. Slide 35 Add Relation for EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire
    37. Slide 36 Column Matches and Calculated Columns - Spotfire
    38. Slide 37 EPA and USGS Fracturing and Fracking - Spotifre
    39. Slide 38 October 19th Meetup: Sensing Our Air: The Quest for Big Data About Our Air Quality
    40. Slide 39 New EPA Chief Data Scientist
    41. Slide 40 Rescheduled From June 29th
  3. Spotfire Dashboard
  4. Spotfire Dashboard
  5. Research Notes
    1. USGS Energy Resources Program
      1. Visualizing the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle
        1. Background
        2. Challenge
        3. Data & Visualization Resources
          1. Background
          2. Datasets
          3. Current Public Visualizations
          4. Potential Visualization Tools
          5. Potential Stakeholders / Users / Stories
        4. Next Steps
    2. List of Hackers
      1. Civic Hacking Communities
      2. Local Volunteers
      3. Potential Partners / Collaborators
  6. Produced Waters
    1. Overview
    2. Data
      1. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
        1. Introduction to the Provisional USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database
        2. Accessing the Data
    3. Research
      1. Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a coalbed methane production well. (Modified from Rice and Nuccio, 2000 by Eric A. Morrissey, USGS.)
        2. Figure 2. Cartoon showing hypothetical distribution of water and salts in a working SDI system employing CBM produced water, Powder River Basin
        3. References
      2. Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Locations of wells in the Appalachian Basin from which produced water samples were collected and analyzed. Data from Breit (2002) and Osborn and McIntosh (2010)
        2. Figure 2. Boxplot comparing distribution of TDS of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin and three western United States basins
        3. Figure 3. Piper diagram showing range of composition (percent equivalence) of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin
        4. Figure 4. Plot of TDS versus reservoir age for water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin. Data from Breit (2002)
      3. Water Balances for Energy Resource Production
        1. Figure 1. This drill rig, outside of Parshall, Northp Dakota, targets the Bakken Formation at a depth of approximately 14,000 feet
        2. Figure 2. Digital elevation model showing locations of wells producing oil from the Bakken Formation (red dots)
  7. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
    1. Disclaimers
    2. Introduction
    3. Database Compilation Procedure
    4. Removing duplicates
    5. Culling data based on chemistry
    6. Changes in database version 2.1
    7. References (input databases and a selection of individual reports)
    8. Tables
      1. Table 1 Short names of input databases, number of samples after removal of duplicates, and references on input databases
      2. Table 2 . Variable names and descriptions
      3. Table 3 Observed duplicates in combined database based on exact same Ca, Cl, HCO 3 , and API
  8. NEXT

Data Science for USGS Produced Waters

Last modified
Table of contents
  1. Story
  2. Slides
    1. Slide 1 Data Science for EPA & USGS Fracturing & Fracking­­­­­ Data
    2. Slide 2 Agenda
    3. Slide 3 Background
    4. Slide 4 Designing a Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Toolkit for the Federal Government
    5. Slide 5 Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science 
    6. Slide 6 Open Science and Innovation: Of the People, By the People, For the People
    7. Slide 7 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    8. Slide 8 Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Generated within States
    9. Slide 9 Specific EPA Nutrient Indicators
    10. Slide 10 EPA Contact Us about Nutrient Policy and Data
    11. Slide 11 EPA State Milestones
    12. Slide 12 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Speadsheet
    13. Slide 13 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    14. Slide 14 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Metadata
    15. Slide 15 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page
    16. Slide 16 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    17. Slide 17 Week 4 Modeling
    18. Slide 18 IPNINuGIS-Spotfire
    19. Slide 19 Tamr Catalog
    20. Slide 20 Tamr Catalog and Tamr Platform
    21. Slide 21 Tamr Catalog ZIP File
    22. Slide 22 Tamr Catalog Application
    23. Slide 23 Tamr Catalog Views: Add Sources and Explore Table
    24. Slide 24 Tamr and TIBCO Spotfire
    25. Slide 25 
    26. EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page Interactions
    27. Slide 26 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Nutrient Dataset
    28. Slide 27 Data Column Properties Exported to Spreadsheet
    29. Slide 28 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    30. Slide 29 EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire Cover Page
    31. Slide 30 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Fracturing Data
    32. Slide 31 EPA Fracturing Data: additive_ingredients_final_030515_3
    33. Slide 32 USGS Produced Waters -Spotfire
    34. Slide 33 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: USGS Produced Waters
    35. Slide 34 USGS Produced Waters: USGSPWDB_v2.1
    36. Slide 35 Add Relation for EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire
    37. Slide 36 Column Matches and Calculated Columns - Spotfire
    38. Slide 37 EPA and USGS Fracturing and Fracking - Spotifre
    39. Slide 38 October 19th Meetup: Sensing Our Air: The Quest for Big Data About Our Air Quality
    40. Slide 39 New EPA Chief Data Scientist
    41. Slide 40 Rescheduled From June 29th
  3. Spotfire Dashboard
  4. Spotfire Dashboard
  5. Research Notes
    1. USGS Energy Resources Program
      1. Visualizing the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle
        1. Background
        2. Challenge
        3. Data & Visualization Resources
          1. Background
          2. Datasets
          3. Current Public Visualizations
          4. Potential Visualization Tools
          5. Potential Stakeholders / Users / Stories
        4. Next Steps
    2. List of Hackers
      1. Civic Hacking Communities
      2. Local Volunteers
      3. Potential Partners / Collaborators
  6. Produced Waters
    1. Overview
    2. Data
      1. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
        1. Introduction to the Provisional USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database
        2. Accessing the Data
    3. Research
      1. Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a coalbed methane production well. (Modified from Rice and Nuccio, 2000 by Eric A. Morrissey, USGS.)
        2. Figure 2. Cartoon showing hypothetical distribution of water and salts in a working SDI system employing CBM produced water, Powder River Basin
        3. References
      2. Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Locations of wells in the Appalachian Basin from which produced water samples were collected and analyzed. Data from Breit (2002) and Osborn and McIntosh (2010)
        2. Figure 2. Boxplot comparing distribution of TDS of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin and three western United States basins
        3. Figure 3. Piper diagram showing range of composition (percent equivalence) of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin
        4. Figure 4. Plot of TDS versus reservoir age for water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin. Data from Breit (2002)
      3. Water Balances for Energy Resource Production
        1. Figure 1. This drill rig, outside of Parshall, Northp Dakota, targets the Bakken Formation at a depth of approximately 14,000 feet
        2. Figure 2. Digital elevation model showing locations of wells producing oil from the Bakken Formation (red dots)
  7. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
    1. Disclaimers
    2. Introduction
    3. Database Compilation Procedure
    4. Removing duplicates
    5. Culling data based on chemistry
    6. Changes in database version 2.1
    7. References (input databases and a selection of individual reports)
    8. Tables
      1. Table 1 Short names of input databases, number of samples after removal of duplicates, and references on input databases
      2. Table 2 . Variable names and descriptions
      3. Table 3 Observed duplicates in combined database based on exact same Ca, Cl, HCO 3 , and API
  8. NEXT

  1. Story
  2. Slides
    1. Slide 1 Data Science for EPA & USGS Fracturing & Fracking­­­­­ Data
    2. Slide 2 Agenda
    3. Slide 3 Background
    4. Slide 4 Designing a Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Toolkit for the Federal Government
    5. Slide 5 Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science 
    6. Slide 6 Open Science and Innovation: Of the People, By the People, For the People
    7. Slide 7 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    8. Slide 8 Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Generated within States
    9. Slide 9 Specific EPA Nutrient Indicators
    10. Slide 10 EPA Contact Us about Nutrient Policy and Data
    11. Slide 11 EPA State Milestones
    12. Slide 12 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Speadsheet
    13. Slide 13 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset
    14. Slide 14 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Metadata
    15. Slide 15 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page
    16. Slide 16 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    17. Slide 17 Week 4 Modeling
    18. Slide 18 IPNINuGIS-Spotfire
    19. Slide 19 Tamr Catalog
    20. Slide 20 Tamr Catalog and Tamr Platform
    21. Slide 21 Tamr Catalog ZIP File
    22. Slide 22 Tamr Catalog Application
    23. Slide 23 Tamr Catalog Views: Add Sources and Explore Table
    24. Slide 24 Tamr and TIBCO Spotfire
    25. Slide 25 
    26. EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page Interactions
    27. Slide 26 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Nutrient Dataset
    28. Slide 27 Data Column Properties Exported to Spreadsheet
    29. Slide 28 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships
    30. Slide 29 EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire Cover Page
    31. Slide 30 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Fracturing Data
    32. Slide 31 EPA Fracturing Data: additive_ingredients_final_030515_3
    33. Slide 32 USGS Produced Waters -Spotfire
    34. Slide 33 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: USGS Produced Waters
    35. Slide 34 USGS Produced Waters: USGSPWDB_v2.1
    36. Slide 35 Add Relation for EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire
    37. Slide 36 Column Matches and Calculated Columns - Spotfire
    38. Slide 37 EPA and USGS Fracturing and Fracking - Spotifre
    39. Slide 38 October 19th Meetup: Sensing Our Air: The Quest for Big Data About Our Air Quality
    40. Slide 39 New EPA Chief Data Scientist
    41. Slide 40 Rescheduled From June 29th
  3. Spotfire Dashboard
  4. Spotfire Dashboard
  5. Research Notes
    1. USGS Energy Resources Program
      1. Visualizing the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle
        1. Background
        2. Challenge
        3. Data & Visualization Resources
          1. Background
          2. Datasets
          3. Current Public Visualizations
          4. Potential Visualization Tools
          5. Potential Stakeholders / Users / Stories
        4. Next Steps
    2. List of Hackers
      1. Civic Hacking Communities
      2. Local Volunteers
      3. Potential Partners / Collaborators
  6. Produced Waters
    1. Overview
    2. Data
      1. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
        1. Introduction to the Provisional USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database
        2. Accessing the Data
    3. Research
      1. Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a coalbed methane production well. (Modified from Rice and Nuccio, 2000 by Eric A. Morrissey, USGS.)
        2. Figure 2. Cartoon showing hypothetical distribution of water and salts in a working SDI system employing CBM produced water, Powder River Basin
        3. References
      2. Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters
        1. Figure 1. Locations of wells in the Appalachian Basin from which produced water samples were collected and analyzed. Data from Breit (2002) and Osborn and McIntosh (2010)
        2. Figure 2. Boxplot comparing distribution of TDS of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin and three western United States basins
        3. Figure 3. Piper diagram showing range of composition (percent equivalence) of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin
        4. Figure 4. Plot of TDS versus reservoir age for water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin. Data from Breit (2002)
      3. Water Balances for Energy Resource Production
        1. Figure 1. This drill rig, outside of Parshall, Northp Dakota, targets the Bakken Formation at a depth of approximately 14,000 feet
        2. Figure 2. Digital elevation model showing locations of wells producing oil from the Bakken Formation (red dots)
  7. U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)
    1. Disclaimers
    2. Introduction
    3. Database Compilation Procedure
    4. Removing duplicates
    5. Culling data based on chemistry
    6. Changes in database version 2.1
    7. References (input databases and a selection of individual reports)
    8. Tables
      1. Table 1 Short names of input databases, number of samples after removal of duplicates, and references on input databases
      2. Table 2 . Variable names and descriptions
      3. Table 3 Observed duplicates in combined database based on exact same Ca, Cl, HCO 3 , and API
  8. NEXT

Story

Data Science for USGS Produced Waters

The goal is to do data science on the USGS Produced Waters data set and explore integration of it with the EPA Fracturing Data in preparation for a Hackathon by a Hacking Community and a Federal Big Data Working Group Meetup in 2016.

I mined the USGS Produced Waters Web Pages for Data (67 MB) and Documentation (PDF converted to Word and repurposed to this MindTouch Wiki) and created a Knowledge Base in MindTouch and a Spreadsheet in Excel for import into Spotfire. After exploring the USGS Produced Waters Data and Documentation by itself then I will import those data into the EPA Fracturing Data Spotfire file and work on the integration problem.

I tried to quickly recreate the three USGS Produced Waters visualizations below (Box Plot of TDS by Basin, TDS by AgeCode, and Map by Basin with Colors.

USGSProducedWatersTDSBoxPlotandBasinMap-Spotfire.png

MORE TO FOLLOW

Slides

Slides

Slide 1 Data Science for EPA & USGS Fracturing & Fracking­­­­­ Data

Semantic Community

Data Science

EPA Fracturing Data

Data Science for USGS Produced Waters

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide1.PNG

Slide 4 Designing a Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing Toolkit for the Federal Government

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/02/designing-citizen-science-and-crowdsourcing-toolkit-federal-government

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide4.PNG

Slide 5 Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science 

http://www2.epa.gov/innovation/federal-community-practice-crowdsourcing-and-citizen-science

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide5.PNG

Slide 6 Open Science and Innovation: Of the People, By the People, For the People

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/09/09/open-science-and-innovation-people-people-people

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide6.PNG

Slide 8 Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads and Yields Generated within States

http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide8.PNG

Slide 9 Specific EPA Nutrient Indicators

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide9.PNG

Slide 12 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Speadsheet

Nutrient loads and yields Download the loadsdatatable.xlsx (2 pp, 26 K)

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide12.PNG

Slide 13 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset

EPANutrientIndicatorsDataSet.xlsx

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide13.PNG

Slide 14 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset Metadata

EPANutrientIndicatorsDataSet.xlsx

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide14.PNG

Slide 15 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide15.PNG

Slide 16 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide16.PNG

Slide 18 IPNINuGIS-Spotfire

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide18.PNG

Slide 20 Tamr Catalog and Tamr Platform

http://www.tamr.com/tamr-catalog-2

http://www.tamr.com/tamr-connect

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide20.PNG

Slide 21 Tamr Catalog ZIP File

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide21.PNG

Slide 22 Tamr Catalog Application

http://localhost:8228/

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide22.PNG

Slide 23 Tamr Catalog Views: Add Sources and Explore Table

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide23.PNG

Slide 24 Tamr and TIBCO Spotfire

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide24.PNG

Slide 25 

EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Cover Page Interactions

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide25.PNG

Slide 26 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Nutrient Dataset

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide26.PNG

Slide 27 Data Column Properties Exported to Spreadsheet

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide27.PNG

Slide 28 EPA Nutrient Indicators Dataset - Spotfire Data Relationships

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide28.PNG

Slide 29 EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire Cover Page

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide29.PNG

Slide 30 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: EPA Fracturing Data

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide30.PNG

Slide 31 EPA Fracturing Data: additive_ingredients_final_030515_3

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide31.PNG

Slide 32 USGS Produced Waters -Spotfire

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide32.PNG

Slide 33 TIBCO Spotfire Data Table and Data Column Properties: USGS Produced Waters

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide33.PNG

Slide 34 USGS Produced Waters: USGSPWDB_v2.1

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide34.PNG

Slide 35 Add Relation for EPA Fracturing Data - Spotfire

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide35.PNG

Slide 36 Column Matches and Calculated Columns - Spotfire

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide36.PNG

Slide 37 EPA and USGS Fracturing and Fracking - Spotifre

Web Player

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide37.PNG

Slide 38 October 19th Meetup: Sensing Our Air: The Quest for Big Data About Our Air Quality

http://www.meetup.com/Federal-Big-Data-Working-Group/events/223605766/

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide38.PNG

Slide 39 New EPA Chief Data Scientist

Robin Thottungal

BrandNiemann10052015ASlide39.PNG

Spotfire Dashboard

For Internet Explorer Users and Those Wanting Full Screen Display Use: Web Player Get Spotfire for iPad App

Error: Embedded data could not be displayed. Use Google Chrome

Spotfire Dashboard

For Internet Explorer Users and Those Wanting Full Screen Display Use: Web Player Get Spotfire for iPad App

Error: Embedded data could not be displayed. Use Google Chrome

Research Notes

USGS Energy Resources Program

Source: https://usgs-emeh.hackpad.com/USGS-E...Hydraulic-Frac

Visualizing the Hydraulic Fracturing Lifecycle

Develop interactive visualizations and stories about the water and chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Integrate the USGS Produced Waters Geochemical Database with other datasets related to hydraulic fracturing, like FracFocus, to visualize and explain the lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing water and chemicals.
Background
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts research and develops products that characterize the complex energy resource lifecycle of occurrence, formation processes, extraction methods, and use. Understanding the energy resource lifecycle can influence and be influenced by landscape, hydrology, climate, ecosystems, and human health. Development and production of energy resources require and produce significant quantities of water and chemicals that can affect environmental and human health. The USGS has developed a product called the Produced Waters Geochemical Database, which is a compilation of 25 individual databases, publications, and reports containing geochemical and other information about produced waters and other deep formation waters of the United States. The Groundwater Protection Council developed the FracFocus website to provide the public with voluntary disclosure reports submitted by oil and gas drilling operators about the chemicals they used in hydraulic fracturing operations across the United States.
 
In an ideal world, prior to developing unconventional oil and gas accumulations, we would first have a sample of pre-existing formation water in a given reservoir. We would also know the composition of the fracking fluid, not only the chemical additives listed in FracFocus, but also the full composition of the injected water, which may itself be a produced water from another reservoir. Then, we would have a series of flowback waters from the well that represent a mixture of injected water, formation water, and additives, including any chemical reactions that happened underground. In reality, we usually only have that last flowback mixture sample. FracFocus provides information about additives and water volumes, but the two major unknowns are the initial formation water composition and the composition of the injected fluid. Sometimes the composition of the fluid is disclosed from some service companies, like Schlumberger’s OpenFRAC Fully Disclosed Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, but these compositions can be somewhat vague.
Challenge
We would like your help with generating interactive visualizations related to hydraulic fracturing by integrating the Produced Waters Geochemical Database with other datasets like FracFocus to address the following questions: Where in the U.S. have produced waters and chemicals been injected into wells? How much water was actually used in the wells that have already been fracked? How can integrating multiple datasets help us begin visualizing the lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing water and chemicals?
 
You can produce proof-of-concept visualizations or interactive stories about the lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing water and chemicals. You can also provide recommendations on how USGS datasets and other hydraulic fracturing datasets could be better organized, architected, and presented to make it easier for you to produce visualizations and to tell better stories about hydraulic fracturing.
 
Hashtags and Tags:
@USGS, @USGSenergy
Next Steps
Any output resulting from the challenge are intended to be used by the USGS Energy Resources Program for research and potentially integrated with other online products at http://energy.usgs.gov.

List of Hackers

Source: https://usgs-emeh.hackpad.com/List-o...rs-TVHyL8UgxeB

Local Volunteers

Potential Partners / Collaborators

  • DOI, DOE, EPA, USDA, USFS, USGIF, AGI, ...

Produced Waters

Source: http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmental...cedWaters.aspx

Overview

Source: http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmental...22110-overview

Significant quantities of water are produced in the extraction of hydrocarbon energy resources (currently estimated at ~14 billion bbl/yr across the United States [1 bbl=42 gallons]). An additional volume of hydraulic fracturing (“fracing”) fluid, used to increase permeability, porosity, and hydrocarbon yield of reservoir rocks, is recovered at the end of the process (flowback fluids). Water is also generated from scrubbers in power plants, dewatering and extracting uranium resources, carbon sequestration, and development of unconventional energy sources. Although derived from a variety of different sources, these all represent sources of produced waters in that they are extracted in the process of trying to develop, extract, or dispose of energy-related products.

 

Sampling produced water from an oil well in northern Louisiana

Photo: Sampling produced water from an oil well in northern Louisiana.

Produced waters typically exhibit significant variations in salinity, sodicity, trace element composition, and organic geochemistry resulting from differences in environmental and geologic conditions. Some of these waters contain relatively high salinity values, sometimes greater than seawater, while others are potable. However, continued concerns over diminishing water resources and expanding needs for next generation energy sources have lead to the characterization of produced waters as possible resources.

Researchers in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Energy Resources Program (ERP) and colleagues are actively engaged in examining several aspects related to characterization, use, and impact of produced waters. Currently research is focused in three areas:

  • Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters – Coalbed methane is produced by de-watering coal beds, and has become an increasingly important source of energy in the United States. The USGS is studying the environmental impacts from use and disposal of related produced waters.
  • Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters – Despite a long history of oil and gas development in the eastern United States, sparse compositional dataexist for produced waters. This drive, along with renewed interest in Marcellus Shale gas accumulations, is sparking research on the source and chemistry of current and future produced waters from the Appalachian Basin.
  • Water Balances for Energy Resource Production – USGS scientists are developing water budget methods for understanding inputs and outputs from regional oil and gas resources.

Mark Engle
Project Chief

Data

Source: http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmental...x#3822349-data

U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)

by Madalyn S. Blondes 1, Kathleen D. Gans 2, James J. Thordsen 2, Mark E. Reidy1, Burt Thomas 2, Mark A. Engle1 3, Yousif K. Kharaka 2, Elizabeth L. Rowan 1

U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center, Reston, VA, USA

2 U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, Menlo Park, CA, USA

3 Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

For questions, comments, or to submit new data, please contact Madalyn S. Blondes, email: mblondes@usgs.gov, telephone: (703) 648-6509

Disclaimer: The data you have secured from the U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 are provisional and subject to revision. The data are released on the condition that neither the USGS nor the United States Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.

Introduction to the Provisional USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database

During hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, water is typically co-produced from the same subsurface geologic formations. Understanding the composition of these produced waters is important to help investigate the regional hydrogeology, the source of the water and hydrocarbons, the necessary water treatment and disposal plans, potential economic benefits of commodities in the fluids, and the safety of potential sources of drinking or agricultural water. Additionally, during geothermal development or exploration, other deep formation waters are brought to the surface and may be sampled. This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Produced Waters Geochemical Database, which contains geochemical and other information for produced waters and other deep formation waters of the United States, is a provisional, updated version of the 2002 USGS Produced Waters Database. In addition to the major element data presented in the original, the new database contains trace elements, isotopes, and time-series data, as well as nearly 100,000 new samples with greater spatial coverage and from both conventional and unconventional well types, including geothermal. The database is a compilation of 25 individual databases, publications, or reports. The database was created in a manner to facilitate addition of new data and fix any compilation errors, and is expected to be updated with new data as provided and needed.

Produced Waters Geochemical Database Coverage Location Map
U.S. Map showing example coverage locations of the updated USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database. Launch Map Viewer My Note: See Spotfire

Accessing the Data

Complete List of Provisional National Produced Waters Geochemical Database Materials:

Research

Source: http://energy.usgs.gov/Environmental...22113-research

Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters

Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters

Assessing Impacts of Coalbed Methane Produced Waters

Coalbed methane (CBM), also called coalbed natural gas, currently contributes ~10% to U.S. natural gas production, but generates more water than traditional gas sources. CBM is generated by de-watering coal, and thus reducing pressure within the coal bed, allowing adsorbed volatile compounds, such as methane, to be transported out of the subsurface and captured (fig. 1).

Figure 1. Simplified illustration of a coalbed methane production well. (Modified from Rice and Nuccio, 2000 by Eric A. Morrissey, USGS.)

Simplified illustration of a coalbed methane production well

Water generated from CBM production is typically re-injected into a different unit, treated, beneficially used and/or directly discharged into ponds or surface waters. The USGS and colleagues are involved in examining environmental impacts from several different disposal/beneficial use strategies for CBM Produced Waters.

One area of focus is the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming and Montana, the second largest producer of CBM in the United States. Coalbed methane activities within the Wyoming portion of the basin currently generate 570-680 million bbls of water per year (1bbl = 42 gallons), little of which is reinjected into the subsurface. The CBM produced waters from the PRB are Na-HCO3type waters and contain relatively low concentrations of trace metals (Rice and others; 2000). However, some of the water samples collected from the basin exhibit low to moderate total dissolved solid concentrations (370-1,940 mg/L) and a relatively high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR=5.7-32). Direct discharge of these waters to the surface has the potential to damage soils and ecosystems. Additionally, infiltration of CBM waters have been shown to leach pre-existing salts from the unsaturated zone, and in some cases lead to high salinity plumes in shallow groundwater.

Figure 2. Cartoon showing hypothetical distribution of water and salts in a working SDI system employing CBM produced water, Powder River Basin

Cartoon showing hypothetical distribution of water and salts

 

One method for using CBM produced water is the irrigation of crops via subsurface drip irrigation (fig. 2). However, few data exist which examine potential impacts from this technology. To better understand impacts of salt and water derived from CBM produced waters on a SDI system, the USGS and colleagues are investigating through application of geochemical and geophysical tools. Additionally, because CBM produced waters are derived from a coal, an organic-rich substance, they often contain elevated levels of organic compounds. Organic compounds are indicative of energy sources potentially available for biological organisms to potentially generate additional CBM, through biogenic processes. Alternately, some of these compounds are toxicants and may present environmental concerns. Therefore further work is being conducted to better understand the behavior and distribution of organic compounds in CBM produced waters.

References

Rice, C.A. and Nuccio, V., 2000, Water Produced with Coalbed Methane: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-156-00. 

Rice, C.A., Ellis, M.S., and Bullock, J.H., Jr., 2000, Water co-produced with coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: preliminary compositional data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-372, 20 p.

Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters

Characterization and Sources of Appalachian Basin Produced Waters

Appalachian Basin Produced Waters

 

Figure 1. Locations of wells in the Appalachian Basin from which produced water samples were collected and analyzed. Data from Breit (2002) and Osborn and McIntosh (2010)

Locations of analyzed wells in the Appalachian Basin

Considerable work has been done to characterize the inorganic, major element chemistry of produced waters from western basins of the United States, but equivalent data for the Appalachian Basin are scarce, despite significant oil and gas production. Across the Appalachian Basin, salinities of produced waters range from fresh to more than 350,000 mg/L TDS (total dissolved solids); sea water is ~35,000 mg/L TDS). Initially, data from a variety of sources, including state and federal agencies, and possibly private sources, is being surveyed to compile basic information on the natural components of the deep groundwater. This information should be useful in advance planning for the disposal or possible recycling of produced formation water and flowback water. This information should be useful in advance planning for the disposal or possible recycling of produced formation water and flowback water.

A primary source of produced water geochemistry is a database compiled by Breit (2002) for localities throughout the United States, including 90 samples from the Appalachian Basin (fig. 1). The database reports the major cations and anions (i.e., Na, Ca, K, Mg, Cl, HCO3, and SO4) as well as mass and charge balance, pH, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The salinities of the Appalachian Basin produced waters compiled by Breit (2002) have a median of 246,000 mg/L TDS (fig. 2), markedly higher than for produced waters from almost all other oil and gas producing regions of the United States. The Rocky Mountain and Colorado Plateau regions, for example, have a median produced water salinity of 9000 mg/L TDS. The Appalachian Basin samples are predominantly Na-Cl-type waters; Ca is significant, but secondary to Na both in molality and equivalence. Concentrations of Mg, K, SO4 and HCO3, are minor to insignificant (fig. 3).

Figure 2. Boxplot comparing distribution of TDS of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin and three western United States basins

Boxplot comparing distribution of TDS of water samples

The upper and lower limits of the box indicate the 1st and 3rd quartiles, the median (2nd quartile) is denoted by the horizontal line in the box. The 5th and 95th percentiles are noted by the upper and lower bars, respectively, on the whiskers.

Figure 3. Piper diagram showing range of composition (percent equivalence) of water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin

Piper diagram showing range of composition of water

 

 

The plot suggests that most produced waters generated from the basin are Na-Cl dominated waters, but that some variations exist. Data from Breit (2002).

Figure 4. Plot of TDS versus reservoir age for water samples collected from the Appalachian Basin. Data from Breit (2002)

Plot of TDS versus reservoir age for water samples

 

The waters in a given reservoir are most commonly a mix of fluids from multiple horizons that have migrated varying distances through the basin over geologic time. In some cases however, reservoir fluid represent connate water, or the fluid originally trapped during deposition of the reservoir strata. The Appalachian Basin samples of Breit (2002) were obtained from reservoirs of Pennsylvanian through Cambrian age, with a majority from Silurian and Devonian reservoirs (fig. 4). Overall, these samples are not sufficiently evenly distributed throughout the stratigraphic section to permit conclusions as to reservoir age vs. salinity.

The USGS is investigating additional sources of data beyond the database of Breit (2002) in order to address the following long term objectives:

  • Characterization of the major element chemistry of formation waters to define geographic trends in salinity, and/or trends relative to reservoir age. Possible new sample locations and types of analyses should be investigated.
  • Identification of salinity sources (e.g., evaporite dissolution vs. connate water). This may help in predicting approximate salinity levels by reservoir age and location.
  • Characterization of the sources and concentrations of NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) and TENORM (technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material) in formation waters and produced waters across the Appalachian Basin.

Water Balances for Energy Resource Production

Water Balances for Energy Resource Production

Water Balances for Energy Resource Production

Figure 1. This drill rig, outside of Parshall, Northp Dakota, targets the Bakken Formation at a depth of approximately 14,000 feet

Photo of a Bakken Formation drill rig near Parshall, North Dakota

New technologies have expanded domestic oil and gas production to include low-permeability formations once considered to be inaccessible, including the Bakken Formation in northern Montana and North Dakota, the Barnett Shale in Texas, and the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian states (fig. 1). Hydrocarbon production from these formations requires considerable quantities of fresh water (surface and/or groundwater) to increase fluid conductivity of the reservoir unit through hydraulic fracturing (commonly called “fracing”). Fracing fluids must be removed prior to resource extraction. These returned fracing fluids, known as flowback water, generally contains salts and minerals from the formation in addition to the additives used to increase fracing efficiency. The large volumes of water involved in these practices (generally 1-5 million gallons per frac job) have already led to supply and disposal problems in some areas. To address such issues and to help stakeholders prepare appropriately, the USGS is developing water-budget methods for uses associated with oil and gas production. Established USGS energy assessments provide estimates of technically recoverable resources. These results will be extended to project the volume of water needed for hydrocarbon production.

Figure 2. Digital elevation model showing locations of wells producing oil from the Bakken Formation (red dots)

Digital elevation model showing locations of wells producing oil

The blue line shows the boundary of the Bakken Formation, the red line shows the boundary of the Williston Basin, and the green lines denotes the approximate extent of the prairie potholes region. Data source: IHS database.

U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 (PROVISIONAL)

Documentation 10/16/2014

Source: http://energy.usgs.gov/Portals/0/Roo...umentation.pdf (PDF) (Word)

by Madalyn S. Blondes1*, Kathleen D. Gans2, James J. Thordsen2, Mark E. Reidy1, Burt Thomas2, Mark A. Engle1,3, Yousif K. Kharaka2, Elizabeth L. Rowan1

U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Energy Resources Science Center, Reston, VA, USA

U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Program, Menlo Park, CA, USA

Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA

Corresponding Author: Madalyn S. Blondes, email: mblondes@usgs.gov, telephone: (703) 648-6509

Disclaimers

Disclaimer for Provisional Database:

The data you have secured from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 are provisional and subject to revision. The data are released on the condition that neither the USGS nor the United States Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.

Distribution Liability:

Although the data have been processed on computer systems at the USGS, U.S. Department of the Interior, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the Geological Survey regarding the utility of the data on any other system, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. No responsibility is assumed by the USGS in the use of these data.

Additional Limitations:

The information in the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 should be used with careful consideration of its limitations. The database is considered sufficiently accurate to provide an indication of tendencies in water composition from geographically and geologically defined areas. It is not appropriate for depiction of modern produced water compositions or examination of trends on small scales. The USGS makes no warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of information presented in this database. Specific limitations of the database should be considered. Much of the information in the database cannot be independently verified. Methods of collection, sample preservation, analysis, assignment of geologic units and record keeping were not rigorous or standardized. Because of these uncertainties, users are advised to check data for inconsistencies, outliers, and obviously flawed information. Methods of well construction, sample collection and chemical analysis have changed over time. The distribution and relative amount of water produced within a province and among geologic units may not be fully represented by the samples in the database. No sampling was planned to accurately depict the aggregate water composition of any area whether it be province, state, county or field. The geologic unit nomenclature developed for petroleum production may have changed over time. Data from a province collected 30 years ago may not resemble current production. The composition of produced water within a province, field or even well may change in time as a result of water flooding, recompletion in other intervals, and workovers. Water samples are commonly collected when a well has production problems or during the initial development of a well. Although criteria were applied to remove the obviously contaminated samples, the culling of unrepresentative data is considered incomplete. Most obvious redundant entries were removed from this database, many of the records represent multiple samples of the same well. Therefore aggregate statistics may be weighted by relatively few wells.

Introduction

During hydrocarbon exploration and extraction, water is typically co-produced from the same subsurface geologic formations. Understanding the composition of these produced waters is important to help investigate the regional hydrogeology, the source of the water and hydrocarbons, the necessary water treatment and disposal plans, potential economic benefits of commodities in the fluids, and the safety of potential sources of drinking or agricultural water. Additionally, during geothermal development or exploration, other deep formation waters are brought to the surface and may be sampled. This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Produced Waters Geochemical Database, which contains geochemical and other information for 161,915 produced water and other deep formation water samples of the United States, is a provisional, updated version of the 2002 USGS Produced Waters Database (Breit and others, 2002). In addition to the major element data presented in the original, the new database contains trace elements, isotopes, and time-series data, as well as nearly 100,000 new samples with greater spatial coverage and from both conventional and unconventional well types, including geothermal. The database is a compilation of 25 individual databases, publications, or reports. The database was created in a manner to facilitate addition of new data and fix any compilation errors, and is expected to be updated with new data as provided and needed. Table 1 shows the abbreviated names (IDDB) of each input database, the number of samples from each, and its reference. Table 2 defines the 241 variables contained in the database and their descriptions. The database variables are organized first with identification and location information, followed by well descriptions, dates, rock properties, physical properties of the water, and then chemistry. The chemistry is organized alphabetically by elemental symbol, each element is followed by any associated compounds (e.g. H2S is found after S). After Zr, molecules containing carbon follow, including measures of alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and hydrocarbons. Isotopic data are found at the end of the dataset.

Database Compilation Procedure

Modification of the data or variable names is necessary to create a database with consistent headers, compositional units, and numeric data that can be plotted or analyzed as a whole. One of the main goals of this updated database is to create a compiled dataset where every change to the original datasets is reversible and recorded. Thus if errors are found, there is a coded record that can be adjusted as needed, and the compiled dataset can be easily recreated from scratch. To meet this goal, the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.1 is compiled using the statistical and data analysis program, Stata (StataCorp, 2014) 1. A Stata routine is written for each input database that imports the original data, renames the variables to match the template (table 2), and then appends the existing columns to a template header. Non-numeric characters within numeric variables (for example, chemistry and pH) are fixed, deleted, or replaced with the following numeric codes:

-1 = Trace, minor, present, or a qualitative description of some amount.

-2 = None detected, absent, null, or negative

-3 = NA, not analyzed, unknown

-4 = Transcription error or otherwise nonsensical entry

1 Disclaimer: Use of brand or trade names are for descriptive purpose and do not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Negative values are used for concentration data codes because all true concentrations are positive and therefore will not overlap with the codes. Negative values can easily be removed by the user when manipulating data. Furthermore, dates are formatted into a consistent date form and extra variables are removed. Units for all variables other than the major and minor ions are defined in table 2. The major and minor ions are generally reported in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm) on a mass basis, also defined as milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). If the ion concentrations were originally reported in mg/L, a “1” is added to the MGL variable column of the database. If the ion concentrations were originally reported in ppm, a “1” is added to the PPM variable column of the database. The user of this database must be careful to examine these units when using the data, and can convert between the two using measurements or estimates of brine density.

Each individual input database is then appended to the template using a global Stata routine. The database is further standardized here with internally consistent 14-digit American Petroleum Institute well identification numbers (API), state names (STATE), and one of seven well type (WELLTYPE) designations (Conventional Hydrocarbon, Shale Gas, Tight Oil, Tight Gas, Coal Bed Methane, Geothermal, and Groundwater). Future standardization will be performed on other important variables such as FORMATION.

Removing duplicates

Duplicates were found within single datasets and between them. Duplicate culling is done using API well numbers and the concentrations of variables with large numbers of significant figures because it is highly unlikely that even samples taken from the same well at the same time will have the exact same values for three or more elements. API, Calcium (Ca), Chloride (Cl), and bicarbonate (HCO3) concentrations are used to search for duplicates. Care was taken to avoid false duplicates (for example, where all three ions had the code of “-4” or all three ions had null data). There were 92,153 unique observations according to these duplicate search criteria, 8,539 groups of 2 observations (duplicates), 1,179 groups of 3 observations (triplicates), 157 groups of 4 observations, 13 groups of 5 observations, 5 groups of 6 observations, and 2 groups of 7 observations (table 3). After locating these duplicates, a second check was often performed using Mg, Na, or sample collection date to determine if they were true duplicates. The duplicate observation retained was generally the one in the database that contained more information. The order of which database had primacy follows the order of table 1.

Culling data based on chemistry

Quality control of the dataset can be performed by culling based on geochemical criteria. In this version 2.1 of the provisional database, the data that fall outside of the bounds of the following criteria are flagged, rather than culled. There are six temporary columns in the database that represent the failure of specific culling criteria, based on those published in Hitchon and Brulotte (1994). An “X” is placed in the columns shown in table 2 where the sample falls outside of the pH range of 4.5 – 10.5, where Mg > Ca, K > Cl, K > 5xNa, and the charge balance is greater than 5%.

Changes in database version 2.1

Version 2.1 corrects errors found in version 2.0 of the database. Incorrect LAT, LONG, or STATE variables were updated based on API or other well information. Chemical and well data in incorrect columns were placed in the correct columns. Unit problems were fixed for chemistry and specific gravity data. Alkalinity data were put into the correct columns based on the method of measurement. Certain variables not given in the original input datasets, including WELLTYPE and age information were determined based on well and formation data. Various other errors noted by users were corrected by referring back to the original source of the data. No new datasets were added except IDDB = “WILLISTON,” which is a compilation of the EASTPOPLAR and BAKKEN entries from version 2.0 of the database along with unpublished data (Thamke, 2014,  written communication).

References (input databases and a selection of individual reports)

Barton, G.J., Burruss, R.C., and Ryder, R.T., 1998, Water quality in the vicinity of Mosquito Creek Lake, Trumbull County, Ohio, in relation to the chemistry of locally occurring oil, natural gas, and brine: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 98-4180, 46 p.

Bassett, R.L., and Bentley, M.E., 1983, Deep brine aquifers in the Palo Duro Basin: regional flow and geochemical constraints: Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas, Report of Investigations, no. 130.

Bownocker, J.A., 1906, Salt deposits and the salt industry in Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 8, 42 p.

Breen, K. J., Angelo, C.G., Masters, R.W., and Sedam, A.C., 1985, Chemical and isotopic characteristics of brines from three oil- and gas-producing sandstones in eastern Ohio, with applications to the geochemical tracing of brine sources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report WRI 84-4314, 58 p., Accessed http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/WRI/wrir_84_4314.djvu.

Breit G.N., 2002, USGS Produced Waters Database, Accessed http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/prov/prodwat.

Carpenter, A.B., Trout, M.L., and Picket, E.E., 1974, Preliminary report on the origin and chemical evolution of lead and zinc-rich oil field brines in central Mississippi: Economic Geology, 1974, v. 69, p. 1191-1206.

Cimerex Energy Company, 2013, written communication.

Clifford, M.J., 1975, Subsurface liquid-waste injection in Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Information Circular 43, 27 p.

Conrey, G.W., 1921, The geology of Wayne County: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 24, 155 p. Dahm, K.G., 2013, written communication: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Dahm, K.G. et al., 2011, Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain region: Environmental Science and Technology, v. 45, p. 7655-7663.

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, NATCARB Brine Database, Accessed 2013 at http://www.netl.doe.gov.

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Produced Waters Database, 2005, Accessed http://www.alrc.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Software/database.html.

Dresel, P. E., and Rose, A. W., 2010, Chemistry and origin of oil and gas well brines in western Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey,. 4th series, Open-File Report OFOG 10–01.0, 48 p., web version, accessed on December 28, 2012, Accessed http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/pub/openfile/pdfs/ofog10_01.pdf.

Hanshaw, B.B., and Hill, G.A., 1969, Geochemistry and hydrodynamics of the Paradox Basin region, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico: Chemical Geology, v. 4, p. 263-164.

Hayes, T., 2009, Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with development of Marcellus Shale gas, Final Report, December 31, 2009: Marcellus Shale Coalition, p. 107-356, Accessed http://catskillcitizens.org/learnmore/20100916IOGAResponsetoDECChesapeake_IOGAResponsetoDEC.p    df.

Hitchon, B., and Brulotte, M., 1994, Culling criteria for “standard” formation water analyses: Applied Geochemistry, v. 9, p. 637-645.

Hoskins, H.A., 1947, Analyses of West Virginia brines: West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Investigations, no. 1, p. 1-21.

Keller, S.J., 1983, Analyses of subsurface brines of Indiana: Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Occasional Paper 41.

Lamborn, R.E., 1952, Additional analyses of brines from Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Report of Investigations 11, 56 p.

Lawhead, A.H., no date, Natural brines in the Illuminating Company service area: unpublished, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company report, not paged.

Leahy, J.N., 1996, Abandoned Alpha Portland Cement Company mine facility site, Ironton, Ohio: a groundwater flow and brine migration analysis: M.S. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 246 p.

Lowry, R. M., Faure, G., Mullet, D. I., and Jones, L. M., 1988, Interpretation of chemical and isotopic compositions of brines based on mixing and dilution, "Clinton" sandstones, eastern Ohio, U.S.A.: Applied Geochemistry, v. 3, p. 177-184.

McDonald, J., Riley, R.A., Wolfe, M.E., Wells, J.G., 2013, written communication, Brine geochemistry database of Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey.

McGrain, P., 1953, Miscellaneous analyses of Kentucky brines: Kentucky Geological Survey- Report of Investigations No. 7, p. 1-16.

McGrain, P., and Thomas, G. R., 1951, Preliminary report on the natural brines of eastern Kentucky: Kentucky Geological Survey, v. Report of Investigations No. 3, p. 1-22.

Meents, W.F., Bell, A.H., Rees, O.W., and Tilbury, W.G., 1952, Illinois oil-field brines Their geologic occurrence and chemical composition: Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois Petroleum no. 66, 38 p.

Meredith, E., Kuzara, S., Wheaton, J.R., Bierbach, S., Chandler, K., Donato, T., Gunderson, .J., and Schwartz, C., 2011, 2010 Annual coalbed methane regional groundwater monitoring report: Powder River Basin, Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report 600, 130 p., 6 sheets, Accessed http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-open-files/mbmg600-2010CBM-Report.pdf.

Mills, R. V. A., and Wells, R. C., 1919, The evaporation and concentration of waters associated with petroleum and natural gas: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 693, 104 p.

Moldovanyi, E.P. and Walter, L.M., 1992, Regional trends in water chemistry, Smackover Formation, southwest Arkansas: Geochemical and Physical Controls, AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, no. 6, p 864-894.

New Mexico Water and Information Data System (NM WAIDS), Accessed 2013 at http://octane.nmt.edu/waterquality.

North Dakota Oil and Gas Division, Accessed 2013 at https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009, Draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement on the oil, gas, and solution mining regulatory program, well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus Shale and other low-permeability gas reservoirs: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Appendix 13, Accessed http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html.

Orton, Edward, 1888, The Trenton Limestone as a source of oil and gas in Ohio: Ohio Division of Geological Survey, vol. 6, p. 101-310.

Osborn, S.G., and McIntosh, J.C., 2010, Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of microbial gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern Appalachian Basin: Applied Geochemistry, v. 25, p. 456-471.

Osborn, S.G., McIntosh, J.C., Hanor, J.S., and Biddulph, D., 2012, Iodine-129, 87Sr/86Sr, and trace elemental geochemistry of northern Appalachian Basin brines: evidence for basinal-scale fluid migration and clay mineral diagenesis: American Journal of Science, v. 312, p. 263-287.

Pashin, J., 2013, written communication.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, 1991, NORM Survey Summary, Accessed http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/RadiationProtection/NORM.pdf.

Peterman, Z.E., Thamke, J.N., Futa, K., Oliver, T.A., 2010, Strontium isotope detection of brine contamination in the East Poplar Oil Field, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1326, 20 p., accessed http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1326/.

Poth, C.W., 1962, The occurrence of brine in western Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, v.

Fourth Series, Bulletin M 47, 53 p.

Preston, T.M., Smith, B.D., Thamke, J.N., Chesley-Preston, T., 2012, Water-quality and geophysical data for three study sites within the Williston Basin and Prairie Pothole Region: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012-1149, 17 p., accessed http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1149/.

Price, P.H., Hare, C.E., McCue, J.B., and Hoskins, H.A., 1937, Salt Brines of West Virginia: West Virginia Geological Survey, v. VIII, 203 p.

Ransome, F.L., 1913, Contributions to economic geology, 1911, Part I, Metals and nonmetals except fuels-- Copper; Lead and Zinc: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 530-B, 400 p.

Reeves, F., 1917, The absence of water in certain sandstones of the Appalachian oil fields: Economic Geology, v. 12, p. 354-378. [PA and WV]

Rice, C.A., 2003, Production waters associated with the Ferron coalbed methane fields, central Utah: Chemical and isotopic composition and volumes, International Journal of Coal Geology, 56: 141-169.

Rice, C.A., et al., 2000, Water co-produced with coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: preliminary compositional data, United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 00-372.

Root, W.J., 1888, The manufacture of salt and bromine: Ohio Division of Geological Survey, vol. 6, p. 653- 670.

Rowan, E.L., Engle, M.A., Kirby, C., and Kraemer, T.F., 2011, Radium content of oil- and gas-field produced waters in the northern Appalachian Basin: Summary and discussion of data: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5135, 31 p.

Sanders, L.L., 1986, Geochemistry and paleotemperature of formation waters from the Lower Silurian “Clinton” formation, Eastern Ohio: Ph.D. Dissertation, Kent State University, 141 p.

Sanders, L. L., 1991, Geochemistry of formation waters from the Lower Silurian Clinton Formation (Albion Sandstone), eastern Ohio: AAPG Bulletin, v. 75, p. 1593-1608.

Shindel, H.S., Stewart, L.J., and Kolva, J.R., 1983, Water Resources Data, Ohio Water Year 1982--volume 2, St. Lawrence River Basin Statewide Project Data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report OH-82-2, p. 277-286.

Siegel, D. I., Szustakowski, R. J., and Frape, S., 1990, Regional appraisal of brine chemistry in the Albion Group sandstones (Silurian) of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio: Association of Petroleum Geochemical Explorationists, Bulletin 6, p. 66-72.

SPWLA, no date, RW Catalog database: Ohio Chapter of Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, unpublished.

Stith, D.A., and Knapp, N.F., 1989, Characterization of trace metals in Ohio brines, final report: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-1, unpaginated.

Stith, D.A., Morth, A.H., and Hatch, J.R., 1979, Brine analyses, 1972-1974: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1, 77 p.

Stout, Wilber, and Lamborn, R.E., 1924, The geology of Columbiana County: Ohio Division of Geological Survey Bulletin 28, 408 p.

Stout, W.E., Lamborn, R.E., and Schaaf, D., 1932, Brines of Ohio: Geological Survey of Ohio, Bulletin 37, 123 p.

Sunwall, M. T., and Pushkar, P., 1979, The isotopic composition of strontium in brines from petroleum fields of southeastern Ohio: Chemical Geology, v. 24, p. 189-197.

Thamke, J., 2014, written communication.

Thompson, W. E., 1973, Concentration of selected elements in brines of Perry County, Ohio: Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio, unpublished Master's thesis, 64 p.

Vugrinovich, 2013, written communication, Office of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, Michigan Department of Environmental  Quality.

Walter, L.M., Budai, J.M., Martini, A., and Ku, T., 1997, Hydrogeochemistry of the Antrim Shale in the Michigan Basin. Final Report, Gas Research Institute, 5093-220-2704, 98 p.

Warner, N.R., Jackson, R.B., Darrah, T.H., Osborn, S.G., Down, A., Zhao, K., White, A., and Vengosh, A., 2012, Geochemical evidence for possible natural migration of Marcellus Formation brine to shallow aquifers in Pennsylvania: PNAS, v. 109, no. 30, p. 11961–11966, Accessed www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/11910.11073/pnas.1121181109.

Wilk, G.B., 1987, Interpretation and geochemical analysis of “Clinton” brines from Mahoning County, Ohio:

M.S. Thesis, University of Akron, 73 p.

Williams, J.H., Taylor, L.E., and Low, D.J., 1998, Hydrogeology and groundwater quality of the glaciated valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources (DCNR); Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Ser., Water Resource Report 68, 89 p.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Accessed 2013 at http://wogcc.state.wy.us.

Tables

Table 1 Short names of input databases, number of samples after removal of duplicates, and references on input databases

My Note: See spreadsheet

 

ID of database

Samples

Reference

USGSMAIN

62,789

Breit and others (2002)

USGSOK

9,304

Breit and others (2002)

USGSARK

1,125

Breit and others (2002)

ROCKIES

3,188

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2005)

MICHIGAN

429

Vugrinovich (2013, written communication)

WYOGCC

9,252

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2013)

WILLISTON

47

Thamke (2014, written communication), USGS OFR 2010-1326, USGS OFR 2012-1149

PARADOX

89

Hanshaw and Hill (1969)

POWDERRIVERCBM

47

Rice and others (2000)

APPALACHIAN

1,647

multiple – see references

INDIANA

396

Keller (1983)

CBM

3,220

Dahm (2013, writen communication)

OHBRINE

579

McDonald (2013, written  communication)

PASHIN

126

Alabama Geological Survey (2013, written communication)

ARKMOLDOVANYI

41

Moldovanyi and Walter (1992)

CIMAREX

2,891

Cimarex Energy Company (2013, written  communication)

FERRON

46

Rice (2003)

ILLINOIS

342

Meents and others (1952)

MISSISSIPPI

82

Carpenter and others (1974)

MONTANACBM

20

Meredith and others (2010)

PALODURO

16

Bassett and Bentley (1983)

NORTHDAKOTA

7,334

North Dakota Oil and Gas Division (2013)

ANTRIM

53

Walter and others (1997)

NATCARB

57,208

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2013)

Total

161,915

 

 

Table 2 . Variable names and descriptions

My Note: This is not a real data table so see spreadsheet

Variable Name                          Description

IDORIG                                                    ID in original database

IDDB                                                        ID of database

SOURCE                                                   Source of data

REFERENCE                                               Publication

LAT                                                          Latitude

LONG                                                      Longitude

FLAT                                                        Field Latitude (estimate)

FLONG                                                     Field Longitude (estimate)

API                                                          API well number

USGSPROV                                               USGS Province

USGSREGION                                           USGS Region

BASIN                                                     Basin

BASINCODE                                             Basin Code

STATE                                                      State

STATECODE                                              State Code

COUNTY                                                   County

COUNTYCODE                                          County Code

FIELD                                                       Field

FIELDCODE                                              Field Code

WELL                                                       Well name

WELLCODE                                              Well code

WELLTYPE                                                Well type

WELLCLASS                                          Well class

TOWNSHIP                                              Township

TWNDIR                                                   Township  Direction

RANGE                                                     Range

RNGDIR                                                   Range Direction

SECTION                                                  Section

QUARTER                                                 Quarter

REGDIST                                                   Regional District

LOC                                                         Location

QUAD                                                      Quad

DATESAMPLE                                           Date of sample

DATEANALYS                                        Date of analysis

DATECOMP                                              Date of well completion

METHOD                                                  Sample Method

OPERATOR                                              Well operator

DRILLER                                                   Well driller

PERMIT                                                    Well permit holder

FORMATION                                            Geologic formation name

DFORM                                                    Geologic formation name of greatest depth

MEMBER                                                  Geologic member name

GEOLAGE                                                 Geologic age

AGECODE                                                Geologic Age code

ERA                                                         Geologic Era name

SYSTEM                                                  Geologic System name

SERIES                                                    Geologic Series name

DEPTHUPPER                                           Upper perforation depth

DEPTHLOWER                                          Lower perforation depth

DEPTHSAMP                                            Depth of sample, may be average

DEPTHTOTAL                                           Total depth of well

ELEVATION                                              Elevation of well

SUBSEA                                                  Depth below seafloor

LAB                                                         Laboratory

REMARKS                                                 Remarks or comments

LITHOLOGY                                              Lithology

SILT                                                        Silt 1 = sample is this rock type

SHALE                                                      Shale 1 = sample is this rock type

SAND                                                     Sand 1 = sample is this rock type

CHERT                                                      Chert 1 = sample is this rock type

CARBONATE                                            Carbonate 1 = sample is this rock type

DOLOMITE                                               Dolomite 1 = sample is this rock type

LIMESTONE                                              Limestone 1 = sample is this rock type

ANHYDRITE                                              Anhydrite 1 = sample is this rock type

OTHERLITH                                              Other Lithology 1 = sample is this rock type

POROSITY                                                Porosity

PERM                                                       Permeability

TEMP                                                       Temperature, deg F

PRESSURE                                                Pressure, psi

SPGRAV                                                   Specific Gravity

SPGRAVT                                                 Temperature of Specific Gravity measurement, deg F

RESIS                                                      Resistivity, Ohm m

RESIST                                                    Temperature of Resistivity measurement, deg F

PH                                                           pH

PHT                                                         Temperature of pH measurement, deg F

EHORP                                                     Eh / Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)

COND                                                      Conductivity, uS/cm

CONDT                                                    Temperature of Conductivity measurement, deg  F

TURBIDITY                                                Turbidity

SEDIMENT                                                Sediment

HEM                                                        Oil and Grease

MBAS                                                      Surfactants and Detergents

MGL                                                        Units, mg/L; 1 = data are in these units

PPM                                                        Units, mg/kg; 1 = data are in these units

TDS                                                         Total Dissolved Solids, measured

TDSCALC                                                  Total Dissoved Solids, calculated

TSS                                                         Total Suspended Solids

CHARGEBAL                                             Charge Balance (%)

MASSBAL                                              Mass Balance (%)

Ag                                                           Silver

Al                                                            Aluminum

As                                                           Arsenic

Au                                                           Gold

B                                                             Boron

BO3                                                         Borate

Ba                                                            Barium

Be                                                           Beryllium

Bi                                                            Bismuth

Br                                                            Bromide

BrO3                                                       Bromate

CO2                                                         Carbon dioxide

CO3                                                         Carbonate

HCO3                                                      Bicarbonate

Ca                                                            Calcium

Cd                                                           Cadmium

Ce                                                           Cerium

ClO3                                                        Chlorate

ClO4                                                        Perchlorate

Cl                                                            Chloride

ClO2                                                        Chlorite

ClO                                                          Hypochlorite

Co                                                           Cobalt

Cr                                                            Chromium

Cs                                                           Cesium

Cu                                                           Copper

F                                                              Fluoride

FeTot                                                       Iron, total

FeIII                                                         Iron, 3+

FeII                                                          Iron, 2+

FeS                                                          Iron sulfide

FeAl                                                        Iron plus Aluminum, reported as elements

FeAl2O3                                                  Iron plus Aluminum, reported as oxides

Ga                                                           Gallium

Ge                                                           Germanium

Hg                                                           Mercury

Hf                                                            Hafnium

I                                                              Iodine

In                                                            Indium

Ir                                                             Iridium

K                                                             Potassium

KNa                                                         Potassium plus Sodium

La                                                            Lanthanum

Li                                                             Lithium

Mg                                                           Magnesium

Mn                                                          Mangansese

Mo                                                          Molybdenum

N                                                             Nitrogen, total

NO2                                                        Nitrite

NO3                                                        Nitrate

NO3NO2                                                 Nitrate plus Nitrite

NH3                                                         Ammonia

NH4                                                         Ammonium

TKN                                                         Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Na                                                           Sodium

Nb                                                           Niobium

Ni                                                            Nickel

O                                                             Oxygen

DO                                                          Dissolved Oxygen

OH                                                          Hydroxide

Os                                                           Osmium

P                                                              Phosphorus

PO4                                                         Phosphate

Pb                                                           Lead

Pd                                                           Palladium

Re                                                           Rhenium

Rh                                                           Rhodium

Rb                                                           Rubidium

Ru                                                           Ruthenium

S                                                             Sulfide

SO3                                                         Sulfite

SO4                                                         Sulfate

HS                                                           Bisulfide

H2S                                                         Hydrogen Sulfide

HSO4                                                       Bisulfate

Sb                                                            Antimony

Sc                                                           Scandium

Se                                                           Selenium

Si                                                            Silica

Sn                                                            Tin

Sr                                                            Strontium

Ta                                                            Tantalum

Te                                                            Tellurium

Th                                                            Thorium

Ti                                                             Titanium

Tl                                                             Thallium

U                                                              Uranium

V                                                              Vanadium

T                                                              Tungsten

Y                                                             Yttrium

Zn                                                            Zinc

Zr                                                            Zirconium

ALKTOTAL                                               Alkalinity, measurement method  unknown

ALKCACO3                                              Alkalinity as CaCO3

ALKHCO3                                                Alkalinity as HCO3

ALKCO3                                                   Alkalinity as CO3

ACIDITY                                                   Acidity as CaCO3

DIC                                                          Dissolved Inorganic Carbon

DOC                                                        Dissolved Organic Carbon

TOC                                                         Total Organic Carbon

CN                                                           Cyanide

BOD                                                        Biochemical Oxygen Demand

COD                                                        Chemical Oxygen Demand

CH4                                                         Methane

C2H3O2                                                  Acetate

C2H4O2                                                  Acetic Acid

C2H6O2                                                  Ethylene Glycol

C3H6O                                                    Acetone

C6H6                                                       Benzene

C6H6O                                                    Phenols

C7H8                                                       Toluene

C8H10_XY                                               Xylene

C8H10_ETH                                             Ethybenzene

ALPHA                                                     Alpha particle (4He), pCi/L

BETA                                                        Beta particle, pCi/L

dD                                                           delta 2H, per mil

H3                                                           Tritium, 3H, tritium units

d11B                                                       delta 11B, per mil

B11_10                                                   11B / 10B

d13C                                                       delta 13C, per mil

C14                                                         14C, pCi/L

d18O                                                       delta 18O, per mil

d34S                                                        delta 34S, per mil

d37Cl                                                      delta 37Cl, per mil

K40                                                         40K, pCi/L

Sr87_86                                                  87Sr / 86Sr

Cs127                                                      127Cs, pCi/L

I129                                                        129I, pCi/L

Tl206                                                       206Tl, pCi/L

Pb210                                                     210Pb, pCi/L

Pb212                                                     212Pb, pCi/L

Ra223                                                      223Ra, pCi/L

Ra226                                                      226Ra, pCi/L

Bi211                                                      211Bi, pCi/L

Bi212                                                      212Bi, pCi/L

Bi214                                                      214Bi, pCi/L

Pb214                                                     214Pb, pCi/L

Rn222                                                     222Rn, pCi/L

Th227                                                      227Th, pCi/L

Ac227                                                     227Ac, pCi/L

Ac228                                                     228Ac, pCi/L

Ra228                                                      228Ra, pCi/L

Th228                                                      228Th, pCi/L

Th230                                                      230Th, pCi/L

Pa231                                                      231Pa, pCi/L

Th232                                                      232Th, pCi/L

Th234                                                      234Th, pCi/L

Pa234                                                      234Pa, pCi/L

U234                                                       234U, pCi/L

U235                                                       235U, pCi/L

Np237                                                     237Np, pCi/L

U238                                                       238U, pCi/L

cull_PH                                                   “X” if pH < 4.5 or pH > 10.5

cull_MgCa                                               “X” if Mg > Ca

cull_KCl                                                   “X” if K > Cl

cull_K5Na                                                “X” if K > 5xNa

cull_CHARGEB                                         “X” if charge balance > 5%

chargebalance                                         charge balance percentage

Table 3 Observed duplicates in combined database based on exact same Ca, Cl, HCO 3 , and API

My Note: See spreadsheet

 

Copies

Observations

Surplus

1

92153

0

2

17078

8539

3

3537

2358

4

628

471

5

65

52

6

30

25

7

14

12

NEXT

Page statistics
1475 view(s) and 38 edit(s)
Social share
Share this page?

Tags

This page has no custom tags.
This page has no classifications.

Comments

You must to post a comment.

Attachments