Texas environmental regulators are planning to launch monitoring of Eagle Ford Shale air emissions some time this year. What has been learned from ongoing emissions monitoring in the Barnett Shale will be applied in the South Texas play, an engineer with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) told NGI.

The liquids-rich Eagle Ford Shale is in the midst of a drilling boom not unlike what was experienced previously in the Barnett Shale to the north. Some residents living in the Dallas-Fort Worth area have long complained about air emissions from drilling activities in the Barnett Shale, and TCEQ has an established air monitoring program in the region.

Now it is planning something similar for the 24-county Eagle Ford Shale region.

“Right now we are developing the plans on what it would take to accomplish that,” said Susana Hildebrand, TCEQ chief engineer. “In order to do monitoring, we have to have the resources, the equipment…to determine where we could even put monitors. If we put any stationary monitors in, we would have to make sure that there was electricity, things like that. All of those logistics have to be worked out before any monitoring actually hits the road.”

There is no money currently set aside in at TCEQ for an Eagle Ford monitoring program. Hildebrand said the agency would examine its resources “and see how we can shift things around to accommodate the needs.”

Based on TCEQ’s experience with monitoring emissions in the Barnett Shale, Hildebrand said Eagle Ford operators that are following regulations shouldn’t have anything to worry about. “…[W]e’ve observed that when the facility is operating correctly, we don’t see a concern with benzene concentrations. And benzene is kind of the toxic that we track because it has the lowest health threshold that we look at, so we know that if the benzene levels are low and below our action levels…then we feel comfortable with the other pollutants.

“So when we have seen concentrations that are higher than we are comfortable with, typically it’s because there is some sort of operation going on that needs to be looked into, perhaps a valve left open or things like that, things that are correctable.

“And that was a very important thing to learn…If the operator is paying attention to what they are doing and operating within our regulations, then we don’t see [emissions] concentrations of concern.”

Meanwhile in the Barnett Shale the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering adding Wise and Hood counties, which overlie the Barnett Shale, to the Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area. Gas drilling activities in the region are thought by EPA to be contributing to the ground-level ozone, or smog, problem (see NGI, Dec. 19, 2011).

The Barnett Shale air monitoring program now includes a dozen stationary monitors sampling for volatile organic compounds and other pollutants. “TCEQ is using state-of-the-art technology to address emissions from Barnett Shale activities and overall oil and gas operations,” the agency said on its website. “These initiatives will continue to reduce emissions through improved agency policies, guidance for regulated entities and possible enforcement if necessary.”

The Barnett air monitors have found a greater risk to Fort Worth area residents than a recent city-funded study, and the results of the study should be re-examined, a state lawmaker told Fort Worth’s mayor recently.

In his letter to Mayor Betsy Price, State Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) said he asked TCEQ to compile air quality monitoring findings for benzene in the Barnett gas patch. The findings Burnam reported to Price:

“While most of these exceedances occurred outside Fort Worth city limits, comparing TCEQ’s sample concentrations to the ATSDR comparison values raises important questions about the city of Fort Worth’s air quality study (AQS) conducted by ERG [Eastern Research Group Inc.] earlier this year,” Burnam wrote.

Results of the million-dollar ERG study were released last summer and were purported to indicate little for Barnett area residents to worry about (see NGI, July 25, 2011). While a handful of sites were found to have emissions exceeding regulatory allowances, setback requirements for natural gas facilities were generally said to be adequate. “Based on the emission rates that ERG calculated for this project, five sites — a processing facility, three compressor stations and one well pad — had overall emission rates that exceed regulatory thresholds that are supposed to trigger certain permitting requirements,” the report said.

“Comparing TCEQ’s results to ATSDR’s MRLs for non-cancerous (particularly immunological) health effects indicates that residents living near natural gas production facilities in the Barnett Shale could be at risk of damage to their immune systems,” Burnam wrote. “Because the Fort Worth AQS fails to use the more conservative (and thus more protective) health-based comparison values (such as those published by the ATSDR) in its health evaluation, the AQS’ conclusions regarding the health effects of emissions from natural gas production facilities could be misleading.”

Burnam said the benzene concentrations in ERG’s samples were below both TCEQ and ATSDR comparison values. But the ERG AQS only sampled air around eight sites and “‘ambient air monitoring stations were not close to some of the highest-emitting well pads,'” Burnam wrote, quoting from the AQS.

“Three out of four ERG dispersion modeling scenarios, however, yield benzene concentrations significantly above the ATSDR’s comparison values deemed safe for acute and intermediate exposure.”

Burnam called for the city to direct ERG to “reanalyze its dispersion modeling data” and its implications for public health. He wants the firm to use “the most conservative published comparison values, such as those published by the ATSDR.” The city should also reevaluate its well setback requirements using the most conservative values.

Price, in a statement, acknowledged Burnam’s letter and and asserted the city’s commitment to the health and safety of citizens. In October Fort Worth City Council voted down gas drilling ordinance changes that were based on the AQS findings (see NGI, Oct. 24, 2011).

One of the major differences between the Barnett Shale and the Eagle Ford is the surrounding communities: urban in the former, rural in the latter, noted Hildebrand. “We’ve seen drilling operations in Texas for years, but typically they’ve been out in the country and not necessarily near people. That was something that really distinguished the Barnett Shale from other drilling activities.

“In the Eagle Ford Shale, we see that more as a rural concern, but the gas that comes out of it may be a wetter gas, so we are interested in seeing how the change in the composition of the gas affects emissions.”

The Eagle Ford region got on TCEQ’s radar because of the increased drilling activity there, Hildebrand said. Another region that has seen significant increases in drilling activity is the Permian Basin in West Texas. For now, though, TCEQ does not have plans to initiate air monitoring there.

“At this time our targets are on Eagle Ford, continuing to monitor Barnett Shale and be observant about what’s happening there, but also we see Eagle Ford coming up very fast so we want to make sure that we’re able to answer questions that people may have about it.”

©Copyright 2012Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.