Section will undertake methodical review of existing reporting requirements, forms, and data transmission types currently used by selected states (Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, California, Colorado, Alaska, Ohio, Michigan, and European Union) and perform survey of existing reports and organizations (such as API and GWPC) that have completed similar efforts. Gaps and overlaps on reporting guidance will be noted and new guidance written if section deems appropriate. Section will also coordinate with other D18.26 sections and review the content and suggest guidance or best practices for reporting for each section as-needed. Section will focus on four main areas that have been the subject of national discussion for hydraulic fracturing. 1) Public disclosure and reporting 2) Water sources, usage, quality and sampling 3) Risks-health and environmental 4) Well integrity and testing. The reporting section products (could include standards, guides, practices, test methods, terminology, etc as cited by ASTM) could be stand-alone or in conjunction with content from other D18.26 sections. The first deliverable of each area (1-4) will be a table/schema with appropriate field names, descriptions for inclusion to a database or use as a standalone database. The table will include names currently used by most states/agencies and recommend generic naming conventions and potential data mapping guidance. The second deliverable will be a suggested and preferred data transfer method for data and forms for each area (1-4) based on current international and industry conventions and best practices in the IT/networking. The intent would be to help standardize data, ensure proper data collection during hydraulic fracturing operations, and make data exchanges, extractions, and analysis by state agencies, industry and other stakeholders more efficient.
The intent is to help standardize data, ensure proper data collection during hydraulic fracturing operations, and make data exchanges, extractions, and analysis by state agencies, industry and other stakeholders more efficient. This guide covers what information should be obtained and how information should be transferred and stored for shale oil and gas operations that includes hydraulic fracturing operations.Data collection, management, and evaluation is necessary to support decision making efforts that are necessary to design and implement an effective and safe Hydrualic Fracturing(HF) operation. Decisions that typically are made during the life-cycle HF process fall into four broad categories:Planning and permitting;Regulatory compliance (with permit conditions);Impacts to human health and the environment;Optimize HF operations. This document will provide guidance on data collection, management, and reporting that can be used by various HF stakeholders including operators, consultants/engineers, regulatory/permitting agencies, land owners, and the general public to support decision making efforts in the above categories, and others as appropriate.
KeywordsProppants; Injection Wells; Well Casing; Cementing; Pipes; Pipe Emissions; Air Quality; Methane; Propane; Ethane; Flowback Water; Waste Water; ponds; pits; water trucks; truck traffic; state oil and gas boards; regulations, legislation; STRONGER, GWPC, IOCC, Marcellus Coalition, Site Infrastructure; Drilling Fluid Characterization; Permitting; Site Investigation; Water Supply Well, Residential Water Wells; Site Construction; Erosion, Dust Control, Aquifers, Marcellus Shale; Barnett Shale; Eagle Ford Shale; Monterrey Shale; Utica Shale; Natural Gas; Unconventional Gas; Earthquakes; Seismic; Leakage; Fractures; Radioactive Materials; Noise Levels; Bulk Density; Conductivity; Laboratories; US EPA; BLM; Pipe Failures; Pipe Emissions; API; DOE; NPDES; Radionuclide; hydrocarbons; TPH; metals; Drilling; Horizontal Wells;
The title and scope are in draft form and are under development within this ASTM Committee.Back to Top
Draft Under Development