Posts

Utica Shale Drill Cuttings Production – Back of the Envelope Recipe

By Ted Auch, OH Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Ohio is the only shale gas state in the Marcellus and/or Utica Shale Basin that has decided to go “all in.” i.e. The state is moving forward with shale gas production, Class II Injection Well disposal of brine waste from fracking, and more recently the processing and disposal of drill cuttings/muds via the state’s Solid Waste Disposal (SWD) districts and waste landfills. The latter would fall under the joint ODNR, ODH, and EPA’s September 18, 2012  Solidification and Disposal Activities Associated with Drilling-Related Wastes advisory. It occurred to us that it might be time to try to estimate how much of these materials are produced here in Ohio on a per-well basis using basic math, data gleaned from Ohio’s current inventory of Utica wells and the current inventory of PLAT maps, and some broad assumptions as to the density of Ohio’s geology.

Developing the Estimate

1) Start with a 341 Actual Utica well lateral dataset generated utilizing the ODNR Ohio Oil & Gas Well Database PLAT inventory or the current inventory of 1,137 permitted Utica wells. Generate a Straight Line lateral dataset by converting this data from “XY To Line” with the following summary statistics:

Variable

Actual

Straight Line

#

341

1,137

Minimum

186

50

Maximum

20,295

12,109

Sum

2,196,856

7,190,889

Mean

6,442 ±1,480

6,386 ±1,489

Median

6,428

6,096

2) Average Vertical Depth for 109 Utica wells utilizing data from the ODNR RBDMS Microsoft Access database = 6,819 feet (207,843 centimeters)

Average Lateral + Vertical Footage = 13,205-13,261 total feet (402,488-404,195 centimeters) (Figure 1)

Ohio Utica Shale Actual Vs Straight Line Lateral Lengths

Fig. 1. An example of Actual and Straight Line Utica well laterals in Southeast Carroll County, Ohio

3) We assume a rough diameter of 8″ down to 5″ (20-13 centimeters) for all of 1) and 14″ to 8″ (36-20 centimeters) for the entirety of 2)

4) The density of 1) is roughly 2.61 g cm3 assuming the average of seven regional shale formations (Manger, 1963)

5) None of the materials being drilled through are igneous or metamorphic (limestone, siltstone, sandstone, and coal) thus the density of 2) is all going to be
≈2.75 g cm3

6) The volume of the above is calculated assuming the volume of a cylinder
(i.e., V = hπr2):

    1. Σ of Actual Lateral Length 49,205,721 cm3 * 2.61 g = 128,180,904 g
    2. Σ of Actual Lateral Length 153,991,464 cm3 * 2.75 g = 423,476,526 g

Average Lateral + Vertical Volume = 551,657,430 grams = 1,216,195 pounds =
608 tons of drill cuttings per Utica well * 829 drilled, drilling, or producing wells = 504,113 million tons

To put these numbers into perspective, the average Ohio household of 2.46 people generates about 3,933 pounds of waste per year or 1.78 metric tons.

7) Caveats include:

    • The coarse assumptions as to density of materials and the fact that these materials experience significant increases in surface area once they have been drilled through.
    • The assumptions as to pipe diameter could be over or underestimating drill cuttings due to the fact that we know laterals taper as they near their endpoint. We assume 45% of the vertical depth is comprised of 14″ diameter pipe, 40% 11″ diameter pipe, and 15% 8″ pipe. Similarly we assume the same percentage distribution for 8″, 6.5″, and 5″ lateral pipe.

Ohio Drilling Mud Generation and Processing

Caroll-Columbiana-Harrison Ohio Solid Waste District Drilling Muds Processed (January, 2011-April, 2014)

Fig. 2. Month-to-month and cumulative drilling muds processed by CCHSWD, one of six OH SWDs charged with processing shale gas drilling waste from OH, WV, and PA.

Ohio’s primary SWDs responsible for handling the above waste streams – from in state as well as from Pennsylvania and West Virginia – are the six southeastern SWDs along with the counties of Portage and Mahoning according to several anonymous sources. However, when attempting to acquire numbers that speak to the flows/stocks of fracking related SWD waste (i.e., drilling muds) the only district that keeps track of this data is the Carroll-Columbiana-Harrison Solid Waste District (CCHSWD). The CCHSWD’s Director of Administration was generous enough to provide us with this data. According to a month-over-month analysis they have processed 636,450 tons generating a fixed fee of $3.5 per ton or $2.23 million to date (Figure 2). This trend translates into a 1,046-1,571 ton monthly increase depending on how you fit your trend line to the data (i.e., linear Vs power functions) or put another way annual drilling mud increases of 12,546-18,847 tons.

 

WV Field Visits 2013

H 2 O Where Did It Go?

By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

A Water Use Series

Many of us do our best to stay current with the latest research related to water impacts from unconventional drilling activities, especially those related to hydraulic fracturing.  However, after attending presentations and reading recent publications, I realized that I knew too little about questions like:

  • How much water is used by hydraulic fracturing activities, in general?
  • How much of that can eventually be used for drinking water again?
  • How much is removed from the hydrologic cycle permanently?

To help answer these kinds of questions, FracTracker will be running a series of articles that look at the issue of drilling-related water consumption, the potential community impacts, and recommendations to protect community water resources.

Ceres Report

We have posted several articles on water use and scarcity in the past here, here, here and here.  This article in the series will share information primarily from Monika Freyman’s recent Ceres report, Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Water Demand by the Numbers, February 2014.  If you hunger for maps, graphs and stats, you will feast on this report. The study looks at oil and gas wells that were hydraulically fractured between January 2011 and May 2013 based on records from FracFocus.

Class 2 UI Wells

Class 2 UI Wells

Water scarcity from unconventional drilling is a serious concern. According to Ceres analysis, horizontal gas production is far more water intensive than vertical drilling.  Also, the liquids that return to the surface from unconventional drilling are often disposed of through deep well injection, which takes the water out of the water cycle permanently.   By contrast, water uses are also high for other industries, such as agriculture and electrical generation.  However, most of the water used in agriculture and for cooling in power plants eventually returns to the hydrological cycle.  It makes its way back into local rivers and water sources.

In the timeframe of this study, Ceres reports that:

  • 97 billion gallons of water were used, nearly half of it in Texas, followed by Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado and North Dakota, equivalent to the annual water need  of 55 cities with populations of ~ 5000 each.
  • Over 30 counties used at least one billion gallons of water.
  • Nearly half of the wells hydraulically fractured since 2011 were in regions with high or extremely high water stress, and over 55% were in areas experiencing drought.
  • Over 36% of the 39,294 hydraulically fractured wells in the study overlay regions experiencing groundwater depletion.
  • The largest volume of hydraulic fracturing water, 25 billion gallons, was handled by service provider, Halliburton.

Water withdrawals required for hydraulic fracturing activities have several worrisome impacts. For high stress and drought-impacted regions, these withdrawals now compete with demands for drinking water supplies, as well as other industrial and agricultural needs in many communities.  Often this demand falls upon already depleted and fragile aquifers and groundwater.  Groundwater withdrawals can cause land subsidence and also reduce surface water supplies. (USGS considers ground and surface waters essentially a single source due to their interconnections).  In some areas, rain and snowfall can recharge groundwater supplies in decades, but in other areas this could take centuries or longer.  In other areas, aquifers are confined and considered nonrenewable.   (We will look at these and additional impact in more detail in our next installments.)

Challenges of documenting water consumption and scarcity

Tracking water volumes and locations turns out to be a particularly difficult process.  A combination of factors confuse the numbers, like conflicting data sets or no data,  state records with varying criteria, definitions and categorization for waste, unclear or no records for water volumes used in refracturing wells or for well and pipeline maintenance.

Along with these impediments, “chain of custody” also presents its own obstacles for attempts at water bookkeeping. Unconventional drilling operations, from water sourcing to disposal, are often shared by many companies on many levels.  There are the operators making exploration and production decisions who are ultimately liable for environmental impacts of production. There are the service providers, like Halliburton mentioned above, who oversee field operations and supply chains. (Currently, service providers are not required to report to FracFocus.)  Then, these providers subcontract to specialists such as sand mining operations.  For a full cradle-to-grave assessment of water consumption, you would face a tangle of custody try tracking water consumption through that.

To further complicate the tracking of this industry’s water, FracFocus itself has several limitations. It was launched in April 2011 as a voluntary chemical disclosure registry for companies developing unconventional oil and gas wells. Two years later, eleven states direct or allow well operators and service companies to report their chemical use to this online registry. Although it is primarily intended for chemical disclosure, many studies, like several of those cited in this article, use its database to also track water volumes, simply because it is one of the few centralized sources of drilling water information.  A 2013 Harvard Law School study found serious limitations with FracFocus, citing incomplete and inaccurate disclosures, along with a truly cumbersome search format.  The study states, “the registry does not allow searching across forms – readers are limited to opening one PDF at a time. This prevents site managers, states, and the public from catching many mistakes or failures to report. More broadly, the limited search function sharply limits the utility of having a centralized data cache.”

To further complicate water accounting, state regulations on water withdrawal permits vary widely.  The 2011 study by Resources for the Future uses data from the Energy Information Agency to map permit categories.  Out of 30 states surveyed, 25 required some form of permit, but only half of these require permits for all withdrawals. Regulations also differ in states based on whether the withdrawal is from surface or groundwater.  (Groundwater is generally less regulated and thus at increased risk of depletion or contamination.)  Some states like Kentucky exempt the oil and gas industry from requiring withdrawal permits for both surface and groundwater sources.

Can we treat and recycle oil and gas wastewater to provide potable water?

WV Field Visits 2013Will recycling unconventional drilling wastewater be the solution to fresh water withdrawal impacts?  Currently, it is not the goal of the industry to recycle the wastewater to potable standards, but rather to treat it for future hydraulic fracturing purposes.  If the fluid immediately flowing back from the fractured well (flowback) or rising back to the surface over time (produced water) meets a certain quantity and quality criteria, it can be recycled and reused in future operations.  Recycled wastewater can also be used for certain industrial and agricultural purposes if treated properly and authorized by regulators.  However, if the wastewater is too contaminated (with salts, metals, radioactive materials, etc.), the amount of energy required to treat it, even for future fracturing purposes, can be too costly both in finances and in additional resources consumed.

It is difficult to find any peer reviewed case studies on using recycled wastewater for public drinking purposes, but perhaps an effective technology that is not cost prohibitive for impacted communities is in the works. In an article in the Dallas Business Journal, Brent Halldorson, a Roanoke-based Water Management Company COO, was asked if the treated wastewater was safe to drink.  He answered, “We don’t recommend drinking it. Pure distilled water is actually, if you drink it, it’s not good for you because it will actually absorb minerals out of your body.”

Can we use sources other than freshwater?

How about using municipal wastewater for hydraulic fracturing?  The challenge here is that once the wastewater is used for hydraulic fracturing purposes, we’re back to square one. While return estimates vary widely, some of the injected fluids stay within the formation.  The remaining water that returns to the surface then needs expensive treatment and most likely will be disposed in underground injection wells, thus taken out of the water cycle for community needs, whereas municipal wastewater would normally be treated and returned to rivers and streams.

Could brackish groundwater be the answer? The United States Geological Survey defines brackish groundwater as water that “has a greater dissolved-solids content than occurs in freshwater, but not as much as seawater (35,000 milligrams per liter*).” In some areas, this may be highly preferable to fresh water withdrawals.  However, in high stress water regions, these brackish water reserves are now more likely to be used for drinking water after treatment. The National Research Council predicts these brackish sources could supplement or replace uses of freshwater.  Also, remember the interconnectedness of ground to surface water, this is also true in some regions for aquifers. Therefore, pumping a brackish aquifer can put freshwater aquifers at risk in some geologies.

Contaminated coal mine water – maybe that’s the ticket?  Why not treat and use water from coal mines?  A study out of Duke University demonstrated in a lab setting that coal mine water may be useful in removing salts like barium and radioactive radium from wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing. However, there are still a couple of impediments to its use.  Mine water quality and constituents vary and may be too contaminated and acidic, rendering it still too expensive to treat for fracturing needs. Also, liability issues may bring financial risks to anyone handling the mine water.  In Pennsylvania, it’s called the “perpetual treatment liability” and it’s been imposed multiple times by DEP under the Clean Streams Law. Drillers worry that this law sets them up somewhere down the road, so that courts could hold them liable for cleaning up a particular stream contaminated by acid mine water that they did not pollute.

More to come on hydraulic fracturing and water scarcity

Although this article touches upon some of the issues presented by unconventional drilling’s demands on water sources, most water impacts are understood and experienced most intensely on the local and regional level.   The next installments will look at water use and loss in specific states, regions and watersheds and shine a light on areas already experiencing significant water demands from hydraulic fracturing.  In addition, we will look at some of the recommendations and solutions focused on protecting our precious water resources.

Class II Oil and Gas Wastewater Injection and Seismic Hazards in CA

By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance Shake Ground Cover

In collaboration with the environmental advocacy groups Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Water Action, The FracTracker Alliance has completed a proximity analysis of the locations of California’s Class II oil and gas wastewater injection wells to “recently” active fault zones in California. The results of the analysis can be found in the On Shaky Ground report, available for download at www.ShakyGround.org.1

Production of oil and natural gas results in a large and growing waste stream. Using current projections for oil development, the report projects a potential 9 trillion gallons of wastewater over the lifetime of the Monterey shale. In California the majority of wastewater is injected deep underground for disposal in wells deemed Class II wastewater injection.  The connection between seismic activity and underground injections of fluid has been well established, but with the current surge of shale resource development the occurrence of earthquakes in typically seismically inactive regions has increased, including a recent event in Ohio covered by the LA Times.   While both hydraulic fracturing and wastewater injection wells have been linked to the induction of seismic activity, the impacts of underground injection wells used for disposal are better documented and linked to larger magnitude earthquakes.

Therefore, while hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has also been documented to induce seismic activity, the focus of this report is underground injection of waste fluids.

Active CA Faults

A spatial overview of the wastewater injection activity in California and recently active faults can be viewed in Figure 1, below.


Figure 1. California’s Faults and Wastewater Injection Wells. With this and all maps on this page, click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map to view it fullscreen and to see the legend and more details.

The focus of the On Shaky Ground report outlines the relationship between does a thorough job reviewing the literature that shows how the underground injection of fluids induces seismic activity.  The proximity analysis of wastewater injection wells, conducted by The FracTracker Alliance, provides insight into the spatial distribution of the injection wells.  In addition, the report M7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas fault could cause 1,800 fatalities and nearly $213 billion in economic damages.2  To complement the report and provide further information on the potential impacts of earthquakes in California, FracTracker created the maps in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Shaking Assessments

Figure 2 presents shaking amplification and shaking hazards assessments. The dataset is generated from seismic evaluations.  When there is an earthquake, the ground will amplify the seismic activity in certain ways.  The amount of amplification is typically dependent on distance to the earthquake event and the material that comprises the Earth’s crust.  Softer materials, such as areas of San Francisco built on landfills, will typically shake more than areas comprised of bedrock at the surface.  The type of shaking, whether it is low frequency or high frequency will also present varying hazards for different types of structures.  Low frequency shaking is more hazardous to larger buildings and infrastructure, whereas high frequency events can be more damaging to smaller structure such as single family houses.  Various assessments have been conducted throughout the state, the majority by the California Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey.


Figure 2. California Earthquake Shaking Amplification and Class II Injection Wells

Landslide Hazards

Below, Figure 3. Southern California Landslide and Hazard Zones expands upon the map included in the On Shaky Ground report; during an earthquake liquefaction of soil and landslides represent some of the greatest hazards.  Liquefaction refers to the solid earth becoming “liquid-like”, whereas water-saturated, unconsolidated sediments are transformed into a substance that acts like a liquid, often in an earthquake. By undermining the foundations of infrastructure and buildings, liquefaction can cause serious damage. The highest hazard areas shown by the liquefaction hazard maps are concentrated in regions of man-made landfill, especially fill that was placed many decades ago in areas that were once submerged bay floor. Such areas along the Bay margins are found in San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda Island, as well as other places around San Francisco Bay. Other potentially hazardous areas include those along some of the larger streams, which produce the loose young soils that are particularly susceptible to liquefaction.  Liquefaction risks have been estimated by USGS and CGS specifically for the East Bay, multiple fault-slip scenarios for Santa Clara and for all the Bay Area in separate assessments.  There are not regional liquefaction risk estimate maps available outside of the bay area, although the CGS has identified regions of liquefaction and landslide hazards zones for the metropolitan areas surrounding the Bay Area and Los Angeles.  These maps outline the areas where liquefaction and landslides have occurred in the past and can be expected given a standard set of conservative assumptions, therefore there exist certain zoning codes and building requirements for infrastructure.


Figure 3. California Liquefaction/Landslide Hazards and Class II Injection Wells

Press Contacts

For more information about this report, please reach out to one of the following media contacts:

Alan Septoff
Earthworks
(202) 887-1872 x105
aseptoff@earthworksaction.org
Patrick Sullivan
Center for Biological Diversity
(415) 632-5316
psullivan@biologicaldiversity.org
Andrew Grinberg
Clean Water Action
(415) 369-9172
agrinberg@cleanwater.org

References

  1. Arbelaez, J., Wolf, S., Grinberg, A. 2014. On Shaky Ground. Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action. Available at ShakyGround.org
  2. Jones, L.M. et al. 2008. The Shakeout Scenario. USGS Open File Report 2008-1150. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

 

PA Production and Waste Data Updated

Every six months, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) publishes production and waste data for all unconventional wells drilled in the Commonwealth.  These data are self-reported by the industry to PADEP, and in the past, there have been numerous issues with the data not being reported in a timely fashion.  Therefore, the early versions of these two datasets are often incomplete.  For that reason, I now like to wait a few weeks before analyzing and mapping this data, so as to avoid false conclusions.  That time has now come.


This map contains production and waste totals from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from July to December, 2013. Based on data downloaded March 6, 2014. Also included are facilities that received the waste produced by these wells. To access the legend and other map controls, please click the expanding arrows icon at the top-right corner of the map.

Production

Top 20 unconventional gas producers in PA, from July to December 2013.  The highest values in each column are highlighted in red.

Table 1: Top 20 unconventional gas producers in PA, from July to December 2013. Highest values in each column are highlighted in red.

Production values can be summarized in many ways. In this post, we will summarize the data, first by operator, then by county. For operators, we will take a look at all operators on the production report, and see which operator has the highest total production, as well as production per well (Table 1).

It is important to note that not all of the wells on the report are actually in production, and not all of the ones that are produce for the entire cycle. However, there is some dramatic variance in the production that one might expect from an unconventional well in Pennsylvania that correlates strongly with which operator drilled the well in question.  For example, the average Cabot well produces ten times the gas that the average Atlas well does.  Even among the top two producers, the average Chesapeake well produces 2.75 times as much as the average Range Resources well.

The location of the well is the primary factor in regards to production values.  74 percent of Atlas’ wells are in Greene and Fayette counties, in southwestern Pennsylvania, while 99 percent of Cabot’s wells are in Susquehanna County.  Similarly, 79 percent of Range Resources’ wells are in the its southwestern PA stronghold of Washington County, while 62 percent of Chesapeake’s wells are in Bradford county, in the northeast.

Pennsylvania unconventional gas production by county, from July to December 2013.

Table 2: PA unconventional gas production by county, from July to December 2013

Altogether, there are unconventional wells drilled in 38 Pennsylvania counties, 33 of which have wells that are producing (see Table 2).  And yet, fully 1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of t he 1.7 Tcf produced by unconventional wells during the six month period in Pennsylvania came from the three northeastern counties of Susquehanna, Bradford, and Lycoming.

While production in Greene County does not compare to production in Susquehanna, this disparity still does not account for the really poor production of Atlas wells, as that operator averages less than one fourth of the typical well in the county.  Nor can we blame the problem on inactive wells, as 84 of their 85 wells in Greene County are listed as being in production.  There is an explanation, however.  All of  these Atlas wells were drilled from 2006 through early 2010, so none of them are in the peak of their production life cycles.

There is a different story in Allegheny County, which has a surprising high per well yield for a county in the southwestern part of the state.  Here, all of the wells on the report were drilled between 2008 and 2013, and are therefore in the most productive part of the well’s life cycle.  Only the most recent of these wells is listed as not being in production.

Per well production during the last half of 2013 for unconventional wells in Pennsylvania by year drilled.

Table 3: Per well production during last half of 2013 for PA unconventional wells by spud year

Generally speaking, the further back a well was originally drilled, the less gas it will produce (see Table 3). At first glance, it might be surprising to note that the wells drilled in 2012 produced more gas than those drilled in 2013, however, as the data period is for the last half of 2013, there were a number of wells drilled that year that were not in production for the entire data cycle.

In addition to gas, there were 1,649,699 barrels of condensate and 182,636 barrels of oil produced by unconventional wells in Pennsylvania during the six month period. The vast majority of both of these resources were extracted from Washington County, in the southwestern part of the state.  540 wells reported condensate production, while 12 wells reported oil.

Waste

There are eight types of waste detailed in the Pennsylvania data, including:

  • Basic Sediment (Barrels) – Impurities that accompany the desired product
  • Drill Cuttings (Tons) – Broken bits of rock produced during the drilling process
  • Flowback Fracturing Sand (Tons) – Sand used as proppants during hydraulic fracturing that return to the surface
  • Fracing Fluid Waste (Barrels) – Fluid pumped into the well for hydraulic fracturing that returns to the surface.  This includes chemicals that were added to the well.
  • Produced Fluid (Barrels) – Naturally occurring brines encountered during drilling that contain various contaminants, which are often toxic or radioactive
  • Servicing Fluid (Barrels) – Various other fluids used in the drilling process
  • Spent Lubricant (Barrels) – Oils used in engines as lubricants
Method of disposing of waste generated from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from July to December 2013.

Table 4: Method of disposing of waste generated from unconventional wells in PA from July to December 2013

Solid and liquid waste disposal for the top 20 producers of unconventional liquid waste in Pennsylvania during the last half of 2013.

Table 5: Solid & liquid waste disposal for top 20 producers of PA unconventional liquid waste during last half of 2013

This table shows solid and liquid waste totals for the ten counties that produced the most liquid waste over the six month period.

Table 6: Solid & liquid waste totals for the 10 counties that produced the most liquid waste over the 6 month period

There are numerous methods for disposing of drilling waste in Pennsylvania (see Table 4). Some of the categories include recycling for future use, others are merely designated as stored temporarily, and others are disposed or treated at a designated facility.  One of the bright points of the state’s waste data is that it includes the destination of that waste on a per well basis, which has allowed us to add receiving facilities to the map at the top of the page.

As eight data columns per table is a bit unwieldy, we have aggregated the types by whether they are solid (reported in tons) or liquid (reported in 42 gallon barrels).  Because solid waste is produced as a result of the drilling and fracturing phases, it isn’t surprising that the old Atlas wells produced no new solid waste (see Table 5).  Chevron Appalachia is more surprising, however, as the company spudded 46 wells in 2013, 12 of which were started during the last half of the year.  However, Chevron’s liquid waste totals were significant, so it is possible that some of their solid waste was reported, but miscategorized.

As with production, location matters when it comes to the generation of waste from these wells. But while the largest gas producing counties were led by three counties in the northeast, liquid waste production is most prolific in the southwest (see Table 6).

Table 7: PA Unconventional operators with the most wells that produced gas, oil, and/or condensate, but no amount of waste.  The column on the right shows total number of wells that are indicated as producing, for that same operator, regardless of waste production.

Table 7: PA unconventional operators with the most wells that produced gas, oil, and/or condensate, but no amount of waste.

Finally, we will take a look at the 359 wells that are indicated as in production, yet were not represented on the waste report as of March 6th.  These remarkable wells are run by 38 different operators, but some companies are luckier with the waste-free wells than their rivals.  As there was a six-way tie for 10th place among these operators, as sorted by the number or wells that produce gas, condensate, or oil but not waste, we can take a look at the top 15 operators in this category (see Table 7). Of note, gas quantity only includes production from these wells. Column on the right shows total number of wells that are indicated as producing, for that same operator, regardless of waste production.

114 of Southwestern Energy’s 172 producing wells were not represented on the waste report as of March 6th, representing just under two thirds of the total.  In terms of the number of waste-free wells, Atlas was second, with 55.  As for the highest percentage, Dominon, Hunt, and Texas Keystone all managed to avoid producing any waste at all for each of their seven respective producing wells, according to this self-reported data.

Ohio Production and Injection Well Firms Map

Our latest Ohio-focused map shows the many companies involved in directional drilling in the state and the contact information for these firms.

Layer Descriptions

1. UNIVERSAL WELL SERVICES

Universal Well Services Inc. is a major firm involved in all manner of directional drilling services with an office in Wooster, OH, one in Allen, KY, six in Pennsylvania, six in Texas, and one in West Virginia

2. LLC & MLP’s

This is an inventory of 410 Ohio directional drilling affiliated LLC and MLP firms and contact information. Seventy-eight percent of these firms are domiciled in Ohio. The other primary states that house these firms are Pennsylvania (22), Texas (23), and West Virginia (9). The Economist wrote of these types of firms:

The move away from the C corporation began in earnest in 1975. Wyoming, that vibrant business hub, adopted a new entity structure, the limited-liability company (LLC). Imported from Panama, it provided the tax treatment of a partnership while preserving the corporate protection from individual liability for company debts and litigation. Other states followed in adopting the model. Businesses were quick to see the advantages. The various new types of firm that have risen in the wake of the LLC… make similar use of partnership structures. They have tended to be industry- or sector-specific, at least to begin with. The energy business has a lot of MLPs not only because it needs capital but because it is an easy place to set them up: since 1987, tax law has allowed “mineral or natural resource” companies to operate as listed partnerships, while withholding that privilege from others. But as with other pass-through structures, the constraints are being lowered and circumvented.

3. DRILLING FIRMS

This is an inventory of 393 Ohio Department of Natural Resources permitted directional and injection drilling firms with single locations and their contact information. Seventy-six percent of these firms are domiciled in Ohio with the other primary states of incorporation being Pennsylvania (15), Texas (14), Michigan (11), and West Virginia (9). Only 3 of these firms listed in the Ohio RBDMS Microsoft Access Database contained correct contact information or addresses. According to ODNR staff – and primary FOIA contact:

… it looks like the [active drillers] list [doesn’t contain] much information on the companies in general…We have mailing information for the operating companies, but a lot of the time they subcontract out to get their drillers. We do not require the information of the drillers they contract.

4. ADDITIONAL DRILLERS

This is an inventory of the 40 known locations for six firms permitted to drill in Ohio. The same lack of contact and address data for these firms were true for this data. The primary firms are Butch’s Rathole and Nomac Drilling Corporation. Given that the ODNR RBDMS does not indicate the actual location from which these companies migrated into the Ohio shale industry we decided to include all known locations for these firms.

5. CANADIAN FIRMS

This is an inventory of the 14 known locations for the 5 Canadian drilling firms permitted in Ohio. The primary firm is Savannah Drilling, which is composed of 10 locations across Alberta and Saskatchewan.

6. AMERICAN SUPPORTING CO.

This is an inventory of 1,837 Ohio energy firms operating in the Utica and Marcellus shale or servicing it in a secondary or tertiary fashion. Seventy-five percent (1,386) of these firms are domiciled in Ohio with secondary hotspots in Texas (76), West Virginia (65), Pennsylvania (49), Michigan (34), Colorado (27), Illinois (22), Oklahoma (21), California (16), New York and New Jersey (27), Kentucky (14).

7. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING CO.

This shows an inventory of 10 Ohio energy firms operating in the Utica and Marcellus shale or servicing it in a secondary or tertiary fashion extracted from the ODNR RBDMS that did not contain locational or contact information.

8. CANADIAN SUPPORTING CO.

This is an inventory of 5 (1 company Mar Oil Company was not found) Canadian energy firms operating in the Utica and Marcellus shale or servicing it in a secondary or tertiary fashion.

9. BRINE HAULERS

This is an inventory of 505 ODNR permitted brine haulers active in the transport and disposal of hydraulic fracturing waste either via injection or waste landfill disposal. Seventy-six percent of these firms are domiciled in Ohio with the primary cities being Zanesville (18), Cambridge, Wooster, and Millersburg (12 each), Canton and Marietta (11 each), Columbus (9), Jefferson (9), Logan (8), and North Canton and Newark (7 each). Pennsylvania and West Virginia are home to 84 and 32 brine haulers, respectively.

OH Shale Viewer

OH National Response Center Data on Shale Gas Viewer

By Ted Auch, PhD – Ohio Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we as US citizens have real-time access to “all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories” data via the National Response Center (NRC). The NRC is an:

initial report taking agency…[that] does not participate in the investigation or incident response. The NRC receives initial reporting information only and notifies Federal and State On-Scene Coordinators for response…Verification of data and incident response is the sole responsibility of Federal/State On-Scene Coordinators.[1]

We decided that NRC incident data would make for a useful layer in our Ohio Shale Gas Viewer. As of September 1, 2013 it is included and will be updated bi-monthly. Thanks go out to SkyTruth’s generous researchers Paul Woods and Craig Winters. We have converted an inventory of Ohio reports provided by SkyTruth into a GIS layer on our map, consisting of 1,191 events, including date and type, back to January 2012.


The layer is not visible until you zoom in twice from the default view on the map above. It appears as the silhouette of a person lying on the ground with Skull and crossbones next to it. View fullscreen>

Currently, the layer includes 28 hydraulic fracturing-related events, 61 “Big [Oil and Chemical] Spills,” and 1,102 additional events – most of which are concentrated in the urban centers of Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Toledo OH.

From a Utica Shale corporation perspective, 21 of the 28 reports are attributed to Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (aka, Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK)) or 75% of the hydraulic fracturing (HF) events, while CHK only accounts for 48% of all HF drilled, drilling, or producing wells in OH. Anadarko, Devon, Halcon, and Rex are responsible for the remaining 7 reports. They collectively account for 2.7% of the state’s current inventory of unconventional drilled, drilling, or producing wells.


[1] To contact the NRC for legal purposes, email efoia@uscg.mil. The NRC makes this data available back to 1982, but we decided to focus on the period beginning with the first year of Utica permits here in Ohio to the present (i.e., 2010-2013).

Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013

PA Releases Unconventional Production and Waste Data

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) releases unconventional oil and gas production and waste data twice a year.  It is important to note that both datasets are self-reported from the industry, and there are usually a few operators who miss the reporting deadline.  For that reason, FracTracker usually waits a week or so to capture the results of the fashionably late.  However, after looking at the data, it is likely that there are still operators that have not yet reported.

Production

Production is perhaps the most important metric of the oil and gas industry.  After all, if there were no production, there would be no point in drilling in the first place.  Royalty payments for property owners are based on production values from the wells.  More than that though, it can be an indication of hot spots, and to some degree, which operators are better at getting the product out of the ground than the rest of the field.

Location

Unconventional formations–especially the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale–underlie about two-thirds of Pennsylvania.  However, that does not mean that if an operator drilling a hole in Clarion County can expect the same result as well in Sullivan County, for example.  Production is unevenly distributed throughout the state:

Unconventional gas production in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013.  All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf).  Counties with above average production per well are highlighted in orange.

Unconventional gas production in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Counties with above average production per well are highlighted in orange.

With 1.4 trillion cubic feet of gas production in half a year from unconventional wells, Pennsylvania has become a major leader in production.  For a quick comparison to other regions of the country, see the Energy Information Administration, (although the EIA has apparently not felt inspired to update their data in a while).

It should be noted that there is also oil and condensate production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania, although that really amounts to a drop in the barrel, so to speak.  Unlike the Bakken, where gas is seen as a byproduct that is routinely flared because there is no infrastructure ready to accept it, the Marcellus and Utica in Pennsylvania are really all about the gas.  Some of the gas from the western part of the state is considered wet, with heavier hydrocarbons like ethane and propane mixed with the methane, but in terms of this report, there is no distinction between wet gas and dry gas, or pure methane.  Eight out of 17 wells producing oil and 430 out of 505 wells producing condensate are located in Washington County.

Operators

The reason that production values are more telling for geographies than for operators is that most operators in Pennsylvania are limited to select portions of the state, where their leasing strategies were focused.  Therefore, certain companies occupy the regions that yield higher production, while others are left trying to extract from less productive areas.  So looking at production by operator does not necessarily reflect their skill at extraction, but it does does give a general impression of how much one of their wells is likely to produce, which could be useful for people trying to negotiate leases, among other considerations.

Unconventional gas production by operator in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013.  All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf).  Operators with above average production are highlighted in orange.

Unconventional gas production by operator in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Operators with above average production are highlighted in orange.

Note that eight operators on the list have no data.  Presumably, there are the operators that have not yet reported their data to the DEP, although it is possible that some of them could be defunct.  Obviously, any missing data here would also be missing from the county totals.  Alpha Shale is the clear leader in terms of production per well, with about 1.2 million Mcf per well.  Citrus, Rice, and Chief occupy the next teir, with each exceeding an average of 700,000 Mcf.  All four are relatively minor operators, however, with fewer than 100 wells reporting production.  In terms of total production, Chesapeake blows the competition out of the water, with roughly the same production as the next two producers (Cabot and Range) combined.

Waste

Along with all of the profitable gas being produced in Pennsylvania comes all of the various waste products that are created in the process.  Before jumping into the numbers, I’d like to point out that it is likely that operators who have not reported production also have not reported their contribution to the waste.  In its current form, the waste report has 12,604 lines of data from 4,991 different unconventional wells.    Here is a summary of the waste produced by type from unconventional formations in Pennsylvania:

Waste reported from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013.  Note that one barrel equals 42 US gallons.

Waste reported from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. Note that one barrel equals 42 US gallons.

Some interesting things are revealed when sorting the waste type data by operator, although the resulting table is a little unweildy, even for me.  But here are a few highlights:

  • Anadarko reported 99.5 percent of basic sediment production  
  • Southwestern Energy produced more than twice as much drill cuttings (128,000 tons) as the next highest operator (Cabot:  50,000 tons)
  • Range Resources led the pack with 172,000 barrels of drilling fluid, with Chevron Appalachia (168,000 barrels) close behind
  • PA Gen Energy had the most flowback fracturing sand reported, with over 8,600 tons, despite having fewer than 100 producing wells.
  • Chevron Appalachia produced the most fracing fluid waste (934,000 barrels), with Range Resources coming in at number two (773,000 barrels).  This is what Pennsylvania calls the flowback fluid; this is not the straight chemical additives that used in the hydraulic fracturing process, but those additives are included in this fluid
  • The most produced fluid, or formation brine, came from Range Resources wells (1.6 million barrels), followed by Chesapeake (1.4 million barrels)
  • 82 percent of the servicing fluid reported was from Cabot (1,741 barrels)
  • 100 percent of the spent lubricant was reported by SWEPI (19 barrels)

Amazingly, despite their overwhelming lead in gas production in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia did not have the most of any of the eight different waste types, and in some cases, were not even close:

Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013

Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013

The Pennsylvania waste data is also notable for including the disposal method of the waste:

Disposal method for unconventional waste from PA between January and June 2013

Disposal method for unconventional waste from PA between January and June 2013

And for those who can handle one last table, Pennsylvania also tells us where the waste is disposed:

Destination of unconventional oil and gas waste in PA between January and June 2013, by state

Destination of unconventional oil and gas waste in PA between January and June 2013, by state

 

 

Ohio’s Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network Map Now Online

By Ted Auch, Ohio Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

A complete inventory of Ohio’s Active Class II Injection Wells, as well as Ohio Department of Natural Resources certified Underground Injection Control (UIC) certified transporters, is now available in map form on FracTracker.org (See embedded map below). There is an interest in mapping Ohio’s waste facility network for many reasons; in addition to concerns regarding the spreading of waste on roads, problems with Class II Injection Wells in Youngstown are forcing the state to turn to secondary disposal options.

Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network


To view the map’s full set of controls, including legend, please click on the “fullscreen” button on the map.

Map Layers

In addition to the Class II waste injection wells, the map includes Ohio disposal wells designated for Enhanced Oil Recovery (129), Annular Disposal (82), Salt Water Disposal (221), Temporarily Abandoned Annular Disposal (1,987), and Class II Salt Mining (57).

Active Class II’s have quarter-mile buffering increments from 0.10 to 1.5 miles.On average, Ohio’s active Class II wells are 4,434±2,032 feet deep, with a maximum depth of 13,727 feet. There is a total of 793,734 linear feet worth of active Class II wells throughout the state. Utilizing capacity estimates from current Class II fracking waste well permits in Portage County, Ohio, the state’s active Class II’s are capable of accepting 34.6-97.2 million gallons of fracking waste. However, if we include the state’s aforementioned Class II’s that are not currently being utilized for fracking waste disposal, this capacity estimate jumps to 510.9-1,437.4 million gallons of fracking waste. Such volumes would profoundly affect surface water volumes and flows (i.e., headwater streams and vernal pools), aquifer and sub-surface water chemistry, and the types of issues facing California. [1]

At the present time Ohio’s Utica wells are utilizing 4.2-4.5 million gallons of water and 206,837-261,907 gallons of brine per well with an average of 1.96 barrels of brine produced per barrel of oil. To date Ohio’s 213 reported producing wells have utilized 949 million gallons of water and 681,789 gallons of brine. If the state’s remaining 481 permitted Utica wells produce and utilize water at a similar rate The Utica Play would utilize approximately 3.03 billion gallons of water and produce 113 million gallons of brine all of which would require additional Ohio Class II Injection Well capacity requiring the state to repurpose the existing stock to handle this sizeable increase in fracking fluids, drill cuttings and muds, and related oilfield fluids. Thus, FracTracker felt the need to begin to map the state’s non-shale gas Class II Injection Wells.

The map also shows the locations of current natural gas compressor stations and underground storage tanks, along with the state’s hazardous waste and orphaned landfills. These sites were included in response to the Ohio EPA’s recent advisory suggesting waste landfill facilities begin accepting drill cuttings, drilling muds and frac sands, and related oilfield fluids [1,2].

We also present Ohio’s network of Bulk Transporters, which are charged with transporting related materials.

Acknowledgements

This is an original map from The FracTracker Alliance and was constructed with the assistance of Ohio State University graduate student, Caleb Gallemore, and a selection of students from his GIS Class “Elements of Cartography: Serving the Community through cartography.” It was made possible by information from Bulk Transporter Magazine. [3]


References

[1]  Staff. (2013, May 14). Will Ohio’s Landfills Become a Dumping Ground for Radioactive Fracking Waste? EcoWatch. Read>

[2] See our recent post: Ohio’s Waste Not, Want Not!

[3] Who in their words “is the information source for liquid and dry bulk logistics industry. Written for bulk shippers, transporters, and storage operators, BT is dedicated to providing the latest information on regulations, technological developments, logistics management, and hazardous materials safety. For over 65 years, BT has been a trusted source of information for the bulk logistics industry.”

Waste produced by unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from June to December 2012.

Six Months of Production and Waste From PA’s Unconventional Wells

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently published its biannual reports for production and waste from unconventional wells throughout the state for the last half of 2012. FracTracker has learned the hard way not to be too eager in analyzing this data.  In the previous cycle, this data was released without the contribution several operators, one of which happened to be the biggest player in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia.  That incident prompted the inclusion of a data disclaimer from DEP, which includes the following text:

The Oil and Gas Act reporting is a self-reporting system, meaning that data is reported from producers to DEP as required by law. All production data is posted as it was received from the unconventional well operators. DEP does not independently verify the data before it is posted.

While the Oil and Gas Act requires accurate and on-time data reporting by producers, and the producers and DEP endeavor to correct any errors discovered after the data is posted, DEP makes no claims, promises or guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the operators’ data that DEP is required to post.

While considering content regarding production and waste in Pennsylvania, it is worth noting that the DEP considers the data to belong to the various operators.  All data for this post was downloaded on February 25, 2013, and while it seems reasonably complete, it is important to note that there could be operators which have not posted their data to DEP in a timely fashion.


PA Production and Waste From Unconventional Wells: July 2012 to December 2012. Click on any map icon for more information, or click the “Fullscreen” button at the top right of the map to access more toolbars.  To access data for individual wells, viewers must zoom in to 1:750,000, or an area equivalent to several counties.

The default map frame includes most of the activity for unconventional oil and gas production and waste from Pennsylvania, but if you zoom out, you can find a landfill in southwestern Idaho that accepted 11 tons of flowback fracturing sand for disposal.  Unfortunately, the available data does not give any indication of why an operator might choose to ship waste over 2,000 miles away from its source.

Below are the six month statewide production and waste totals for Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells, including the number of wells that contributed to each total:

 

Production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from July to December 2012

Production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from July to December 2012.  Mcf represents 1,000 cubic feet, and barrels measure 42 US gallons.

The total gas produced was over 1.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) for the six month period, which was over 250 billion cubic feet (Bcf) higher than the previous total of 895 Bcf.

Waste produced by unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from June to December 2012.

Waste produced by unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from June to December 2012.

And here is a look at the disposal method for each type of waste, in terms of percentage:

Disposal methods of Pennsylvania unconventional oil and gas waste products, in terms of percentage of the waste type.  July - December 2012.

Disposal methods of Pennsylvania unconventional oil and gas waste products, in terms of percentage of the waste type. July – December 2012.

Note that while road spreading rounds down to 0%, 425 barrels of produced fluid were used in this effort.

Ohio’s Waste Not, Want Not!

By Ted Auch, PhD – Ohio Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

The Akron Beacon Journal’s Bob Downing has just published an investigative report looking at the recent advisory put forth by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency’s (OEPA) Division of Materials and Waste Management – along with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and the Ohio Department of Health (OHD) [1] Bureau of Radiation Protection – to all of Ohio’s municipal solid waste landfills. The advisory suggests that the landfills statewide – including 17 industrial residual waste, 40 municipal solid waste, 36 orphaned landfill facilities along with 64 transfer stations – should prepare to start receiving solid Utica and Marcellus shale drilling waste, “including drill cuttings, drilling muds, and frac sands,” (especially since Pennsylvania seems to be cracking down on some of its traditional drilling waste disposal practices). This new waste stream is in addition to the millions of barrels of potentially radioactive liquid waste already being trucked in from PA and WV [2] for deep well injection – and potentially shipped into Washington County, OH along the Ohio River [3]. This advisory is concerning because the same regulatory bodies have been conveying to other media outlets (e.g. The Columbus Dispatch) that such activities are strictly prohibited and that injection of Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) is “almost the perfect solution” compared to to landfill disposal.

If the advisory is correct, however, there are complications associated with using this disposal method relative to the waste’s viscosity, elevated levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDSs), and/or concentrations of TENORM. Materials deemed suitable for municipal landfills must not exceed five picocuries per gram radium above background levels; however, early returns speak to the potential for shale wastewater to be:

… 3,609 times more radioactive than a federal safety limit for drinking water…[or] 300 times higher than a Nuclear Regulatory commission limit for industrial discharges to water. Learn more

Additionally, Marcellus brine may have salinity and radium levels three times that of traditional sandstone/limestone oil and gas wells of the Cambrian-Mississippian age. To put this Marcellus data in perspective, the range was 0-18 picocuries per gram with a median value of 2.46 picocuries per gram. Issues associated with brine disposal, however, are not new here in Ohio where researchers like The Ohio State University’s Wayne Pettyjohn reported excessive levels of freshwater chloride (35-320,000 mg/l) pollution in Morrow, Delaware, and Medina counties. These results prompted Pettyjohn to write “ground-water resources may be seriously and perhaps irreparably contaminated long before landowners are even aware that a problem exists” (Pettyjohn, 1971).

The solution proposed by the authors of this advisory is to use the US EPA’s “paint-filter test” bringing materials into compliance with Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 264.313 and 265.313, which basically ended the practice of disposing of “liquid waste or waste containing free liquids” in 1985. The EPA’s Paint Filter Liquids Test (Method 9095B) is summarized as follows:

Material is placed in a paint filter [Mesh number 60 +/- 5% (fine meshed size)] [4]. If any portion of the material passes through and drops from the filter … the material is deemed to contain free liquids.

Figure 1. Ohio’s Registered Non-Hazardous & Hazardous Waste Landfills

Figure 1. Ohio’s Registered Non-Hazardous & Hazardous Waste Landfills

This advisory is likely due to the backlash associated with injection well incidents, including the Youngstown earthquakes attributed by some scientists to the lubrication effect that injected materials have on geologic faults. Additionally, rural communities – and researchers – in Ohio’s Utica Shale basin are beginning to raise questions around the practice of spreading shale gas brine on roads as a substitute for salt in the winter and approved disposal method during the summer. Concerns revolve around elevated levels of chlorides in excess of 2-5 times EPA public drinking-water standards (Bair and Digel, 1990). Unfortunately, the OEPA advisory is ambiguous about post-disposal monitoring, suggesting only that:

… the landfill may need to perform monitoring of landfill systems, such as those related to leachate collection, to determine potential impacts to human health or the environment associated with these [TENORM] waste streams.

This inclusion of the word may rather than must further alienates communities already skeptical about the ability or will of ODNR – and now OEPA and ODH – to regulate and/or ensure adequate monitoring of unconventional natural gas drilling activities. If this advisory is any indication related activities will be spreading beyond the Utica Basin to the state’s 21 hazardous and 121 non-hazardous waste facilities (Figure 1), with specific focus on the 57 industrial residual and municipal solid waste facilities throughout the state (Figure 2 below). Such a regulatory development has serious ramifications for PA’s 40+ municipal waste landfills, 5 construction/demolition waste landfills, 3 residual waste landfills, and 6 resource recover/waste to energy facilities (see full PA stats) and the nation’s 1,908 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills as reported in BioCycle (2010).

As drilling intensifies in the Utica Shale, nearby states may be further burdened by the mounting waste stream. Communities once thought to be disconnected from hydraulic fracturing will be forced to debate the merits of allowing such waste in their communities, similar to the situation facing non-Utica Shale cities in Ohio. Such a discussion will be unavoidable given that 84% of the state’s waste treatment facilities are located outside what could liberally be referred to as the Ohio Shale play (Figure 2 Inset).

Figure 2. Ohio’s Registered Non-Hazardous Waste Facilities by Type (% of the state’s 121 facilities)

Figure 2. Ohio’s Registered Non-Hazardous Waste Facilities by Type (% of the state’s 121 facilities)


[1] The ODH co-signed the OEPA advisory even though its own radiation-protection chief Michael Snee told The Columbus Dispatch that “wastes trucked to landfills pose a bigger threat to groundwater” relative to injection wells only days prior to the OEPA advisories release last September.
[2] 53% of the 12.2 million barrels of brine injected into Ohio’s 160 injection wells came from these neighboring states (PA and WV).
[3] The company proposing the Washington County landfill in New Matamoras is confident that the shipping of shale gas drilling waste is safe because “barges ship hydrochloric acid,” as their VP of Appalachian business development told The Columbus Dispatch.
[4] Mesh number 60 is in the lower third of the US Sieve size distribution with an opening of 0.250 mm or 0.0098 in, with the smallest sieve size being No. 400 at 0.037 mm. or 0.0015 in. Learn more>