Tongue River Information Tongue River Information Program (Program (TRIPTRIP))

Sponsored by:

Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation

AUTHORSAUTHORS

• William Schafer, Ph.D., Soil Scientist

• Neal Fehringer, CPAg, Agronomist

• Kevin Harvey, CPSSc, Soil Scientist

• Tom Osborne, P.H., Hydrologist

The Tongue River Information Project The Tongue River Information Project (TRIP)(TRIP)

Who & WhyWho & Why• Response to concerns by irrigators that

discharge of CBNG produced water could be affecting the water quality of the river and, in turn, soil properties and crop production.

• Sponsored by Fidelity Exploration & Production Company in 2003-2006

• Sponsored by the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation in 2006-2007

Components of the Components of the TRIPTRIP Project Project

• an agronomic and soils research and monitoring program called the Agronomic Monitoring and Protection Program (AMPP), and

• a hydrologic component, which is a summary of current stream flow, water quality and contaminant sources in the Tongue River basin.

The Tongue River Basin

Upper Basin- above Birney, MT

Lower Basin- Birney to Miles City, MT

Annual Discharge of the Tongue River at State Line

Source: USGS, 2008

Annual Discharge of the Tongue River at Miles City, MT

Source: USGS, 2008

Annual Average Flows for the Annual Average Flows for the Tongue River at State LineTongue River at State Line

Ranked Starting with LowestRanked Starting with LowestYear by

RankAnnual

Dischargecfs

2002 137.92004 149.62001 163.02006 180.01961 187.2

Source: USGS, 2008

Irrigated Lands in the Tongue River Basin

Total: ~ 62,000 acres27% in MT73% in WY

Water Wells Water Wells Distribution in the Distribution in the

Tongue River Basin Tongue River Basin and Surrounding and Surrounding

AreasAreas

Total: 6,606 wellsTotal: 6,606 wells64% in MT64% in MT36% in WY36% in WY

Based on available recordsBased on available records

Water UseWater UseSheridan County, WYSheridan County, WY

346,172

650

78

56

246,847

314

56

Public Supply GW

Public Supply SW

Domestic GW

Industrial GW

Industrial SW

Irrigation SW

Mining GW

Mining SW

Values reported in Ac-ft/yr. Values of zero were reported for Domestic SW and Irrigation GW, which were left off the chart.

Source: USGS, 2000

Water UseWater UseMontana Portion of TRMontana Portion of TR

728

515

728

82,783

23,457

269202

Livestock-GW-Withdrawals

Livestock-SW-Withdrawals

Irrigation-GW-Withdrawals

Irrigation-SW-Withdrawals

Irrigation-Consumptive Use

Public-Supply-GW-Withdrawals

Self-Supplied-Domestic-GW-Withdrawals

Values shown as Ac-ft/yr. Values of zero were reported for Public-Supply-SW-Withdrawalsand Self-Supplied-Domestic-SW-Withdrawals and were left out of chart.

Source: USGS, 2000

Oil and Gas Well Oil and Gas Well Distribution in the Distribution in the

Tongue River Basin Tongue River Basin

Total: 7,398 wellsTotal: 7,398 wells26% in MT26% in MT74% in WY74% in WY

Combined History of CBNG Well Completions in the Tongue River Basin

Sources: WOGCC, 2008; MBOGC, 2008

CBNG Water in the BasinCBNG Water in the BasinEnd of 2007End of 2007

• About 3,200 CBNG wells in the basin

• 75% are in Wyoming

• Average rate per well in 2007 = 3.3 gpm

• Average total produced water = 19.4 cfs

Sources: WOGCC, 2008; MBOGC, 2008; MDEQ, 2008; WDEQ, 2008

Fate of CBNG WaterFate of CBNG Water

• Over ¾ of total is discharged to off-channel impoundments, treated & discharged, beneficially used in managed irrigation, or injected.

• Less than ¼ of total is untreated discharge

Permitted Discharge Outfalls and

Irrigation Surface Return Flows to the Tongue River Basin

MT: 3 CBNG Permits; (2 treated)- 17 Outfalls

WY: 4 CBNG Permits;(2 treated)- 19 Outfalls

Sources: WDEQ, 2008; MDEQ, 2008; MDEQ, 2003; NRCS, 2002

Irrigation Return Flows

Mine Discharges

CBNG Discharges

CBNG Discharges to Tongue River Basin

• Permits are authorized for discharge of from 1,640 to 2,630 gpm (3.6 – 5.9 cfs) of untreated CBNG water, and

• 4,438 gpm (9.9 cfs) of treated CBNG water.

• Actual CBNG discharges have been 55% to 90% of permitted discharges.

Sources: WDEQ, 2008; MDEQ, 2008

Log Discharge vs. SC for the Tongue River Log Discharge vs. SC for the Tongue River at the State Lineat the State Line

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 10 100 1000 10000

SC

, um

ho

s/cm

25C

Discharge, cfs

1985-99 2000-06 2007

Log Discharge vs. SAR for the Tongue River Log Discharge vs. SAR for the Tongue River at the State Lineat the State Line

0.0

0.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

1 10 100 1000 10000

SA

R

Discharge, cfs

1985-99 2000-06 2007

Log Discharge vs. SC for the Tongue River Log Discharge vs. SC for the Tongue River at Miles City, MTat Miles City, MT

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 10 100 1000

SC

, um

ho

s/cm

25C

Discharge, cfs

1973-99 2000-06 2007

Log Discharge vs. SAR for the Tongue River Log Discharge vs. SAR for the Tongue River at Miles City, MTat Miles City, MT

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 10 100 1000

SA

R

Discharge, cfs

1973-99 2000-06 2007

USGS SIR 2007-5146USGS SIR 2007-5146(Clark & Mason, 2007)(Clark & Mason, 2007)

“Eight sites in the Tongue, Powder, and Belle Fourche River drainage basins having sufficient long-term data were evaluated for trends in specific conductance during water years 1991–2005. Trends in specific conductance were not significant (p-values greater than 0.10) at the eight sites when values were flow-adjusted for streamflow variability “

SummarySummary

• Graphical Comparisons of SC and SAR data at comparable stream flows for periods before and after the onset of CBNG development do not indicate increasing trends at any USGS monitoring station on the Tongue River.

Summary (continued)Summary (continued)• The Tongue River basin is a hard-working

watershed that has to date successfully supported both a long-standing agricultural economy and a rapidly-developing energy industry.

• Continued monitoring of the river’s flow and quality, and an improved accounting of basin-wide point and non-point sources of contaminants is warranted.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation, Tom Richmond, Administrator

Cooperating farmers & ranchers

Web Sites:Web Sites:http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/reports.asp

www.tongueriverampp.com

www.energylabs.com/ampp.aspx

www.hydrosi.com

Key to Global WarmingKey to Global Warming

Questions?

CBNG Produced WaterCBNG Produced Water • CBNG wells are drilled on 80 or160 acre spacings

• Wells are pumped at 3-22 gpm

(avg. 4.2)

• Single-completion well shown

• Trend is to mono-bores with commingled water

Source: Wheaton, et al, 2007

Composition of CBM WaterComposition of CBM Water

• TDS: 568 – 2028 mg/l; median: 1201 mg/l• SAR: 11.3 – 82.4; median: 46• Dominated by Sodium and Bicarbonate• Generally suitable for domestic use and

livestock• Generally unsuitable for application to soils

without treatment of either the soils or the water

Source: Wheaton, et al., 2007

Number of CBNG Wells and Average Rate of Water Production Per Well for the CX Field, Big

Horn County, MontanaSource: Fidelity, 2008

Number of CBNG Wells and Average Rate of Water Production Per Well for the CBNG Wells in Tongue

River Basin of WyomingSource: WOGCC, 2008

0 10,000 20,000 30,000

Johnson, WY

Powder River,MT

Rosebud, MT

Big Horn, MT

Custer, MT

Sheridan, WY

Population Distribution in BasinPopulation Distribution in Basin

Source: MDEQ, 2003

Well Depths- CBNG vs PrivateWell Depths- CBNG vs PrivateWyoming:

• 91% of CBNG wells are deeper than 400 ft

• 93% of private water wells are less than 400 ft deep.

Montana:

• 78% of CBNG wells are deeper than 400 ft

• 91% of private water wells are less than 400 ft deep.

Sources: MBOGC, 2006; WOGCC, 2007; GWIC, 2007; WSEO, 2007