Baseline assessment and monitoring of water resources exposed to unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction activities.
Date: 2022-08-11
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: energy technology, environmental impact, environmental indicator, extraction of oil, fracking, hydrocarbon, natural gas, petroleum, report, water resources

Baseline assessment and monitoring 
of water resources exposed to 
unconventional hydrocarbon 
exploration and extraction activities 

Bernd Manfred Gawlik 
Comero Sara 

2022

EUR 27749 EN 

Baseline assessment and monitoring 
of water resources exposed to 
unconventional hydrocarbon 
exploration and extraction activities 

This publication is a Conference and Workshop report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s 
in-house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making 
process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the 
European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might 
be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Name: Bernd Manfred Gawlik 
Address: Joint Research Centre, Unit H 01 - Water Resources Unit 

Via Enrico Fermi 2749 
I-21027 Ispra/Italy
E-mail: bernd.gawlik@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Tel.: +39 0332 78 9487

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC 100279 

EUR 27749 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-55329-5 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2788/922935 (online) 

© European Union, 2022 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

All images © European Union, 2022 

How to cite: Gawlik B., Comero, S.; Baseline assessment and monitoring of water resources exposed to 
unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction activities; EUR 27749 EN; Publications Office of the European 
Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 78-92-79-55329-5, doi:10.2788/922935  

Table of contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................... 3 

1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 

2. National Experiences and User Perspectives ....................................................... 5 

3. Research Projects ........................................................................................... 8 

Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 10 

Workshop final agenda ......................................................................................... 11 

List of presentations ............................................................................................ 12 

2 

Abstract  

The EU has potential reserves of natural gas and oil that is trapped in shale formations 
and  some  Member  States  are  actively  pursuing  shale  gas  exploration.  Extraction  of  oil 
and gas from shale formations necessitates the use of hydraulic fracturing. The impact of 
this  technology  on  the  environment  and  in  particular  on  groundwater  needs  to  be 
monitored  in  order  assess  the  performance  of  wells  that  have  been  fractured.  In  this 
setting, contamination of groundwater  from the use  of  fracturing technology is of great 
public  concern  and  the  public  concerned  of  shale  gas  projects  expects  to  be  informed 
about  releases  of  pollutants  from  shale  oil  and  gas  production.  It  is  necessary  to 
determine  baseline  parameters  before  fracturing  takes  place  and  to  monitor  these 
parameters  during  and  after  fracturing.  There  is  no  agreed  methodology  or  use  of 
standards  for  the  measurement  of  the  baseline  and  the  monitoring  of  baseline 
parameters. 

This  technical  workshop  was  organized  with  the  aim  to  discuss  the  technical  and 
scientific  challenges  of  baseline  assessment  and  subsequent  monitoring  of  those  water 
resources  which  may  be  exposed  to  unconventional  hydrocarbon  exploration  and 
extraction activities. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

To set the scene, the existing framework on chemical monitoring of water was presented 
briefly.  The  workshop  gave  an  overview  on  national  experiences  in  the  UK,  Poland  and 
Germany  and  provided  an  overview  on  the  monitoring  challenge  as  addressed  by 
research consortia. Some 40 experts including colleagues from the JRC sites in Ispra and 
Seville (connected by video conferencing) discussed possible approaches and challenges 
for  baseline  assessment  as  well  as  surveillance/control  monitoring.  The  discussions 
addressed  also  data  infrastructure  need  to  share  such  information  while  protecting 
intellectual  property  rights  and  sensitive  information.  In  this  context,  the  recently 
launched Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring Data was presented, too. 

The discussion was mainly focused on highlighting the importance of the following 
anchor points, focusing in particular on the (ground)water impact: 

-  Establishment of a baseline assessment; 
-  Discussion about the organisation of monitoring campaigns 
-  Posing questions on the methodologies to be applied for the 

sampling/measurements. 

The final agenda of the workshop as well as the list of the presentations is attached at 
the end of the report.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. National Experiences and User Perspectives 

The  first  part  of  the  Workshop  dealt  with  the  National  Experiences  and  User 
Perspectives. 

The  Shale  gas  baseline  monitoring  in  the  United  Kingdom  was  discussed  by  Rob  Ward, 
which provided a clear picture of characterisation of the natural quality of groundwater. 
Since the information on the methane concentration in groundwater was limited, in 2013 
a  methane  survey  has  been  started  with  the  aim  to  focus  on  its  provenience.  Trace 
organics were also analysed for.  

Concerning  the  shale  gas  potential  on  methane  in in  groundwater,  the  main issue  is  to 
understand  the  provenience  of  elevated  methane  concentrations,  its  behaviour  in  the 
sub-surface  and  the  risks  associated  with  it,  limiting  the  number  of  measurements  of 
methane in groundwater.  

Preliminary  results  from  the  survey  show  that  from  drinking  water  abstractions  and 
shallow (<100m deep) monitoring boreholes concentrations are low, ranging from below 
detection to 3.7 mg/l with a median of around 0.005mg/l. 

The  main  outcomes  were  also  discussed  in  terms  of  temporal  variation,  wondering  if 
geographical  point  could  influence  the  measured  concentration  value.  It  is  then 
evidenced  the  importance  of  a  baseline  (monitoring  of  the  concentration  during 
years/months  to  understand  the  trend  of  the  measured  parameter).  From  these 
baseline,  it  resulted  that  the  variation  in  the  water  level  during  months  and  years  is 
correlated by the nitrate concentration. This reflect the anthropogenic factor determined 
by fertilisers. 

The  future  is  to  extend  toward  a  national  baseline  monitoring  in  order  to  establish  an 
independent  monitoring  programme,  and  to  provide  high  resolution  data,  both  spatial 
and temporal. Results of this monitoring will be used to inform the public and industry, 
but also to assist regulation and help for the development of new technology.  

The  monitoring  work  package  included  the  study  of  the  following  parameters: 
groundwater, ground motion (InSAR - satellite radar interferometry), induced seismicity 
and air quality (CH4, CO2, GHG) 

The  baseline  monitoring  comprise  the  evaluation  of  existing  groundwater  sampling 
points,  as  well  new  boreholes  and  included  the  laboratory  analysis  of:  inorganic  and 
organic  chemistry,  dissolved  gases,  stable  isotopes,  tracers  and  naturally  occurring 
radioactive material. 

The preliminary studies of inorganic chemistry show that in the examined groundwater, 
the  natural  concentration  exceed  the  drinking  water  standard  for  Al,  Cu,  Fe  and 
methane.  In  the  case  of  organic  chemistry,  chemicals  above  the  standard  are  mainly 
associated with an anthropogenic impact, excluding a natural origin. 

The IWM Network & UK approach to establishing Environmental Baselines was discussed 
by  Steve  Thompsett.  After  the  circulation  of  a  discussion  paper  on  Integrated  Water 
Management to industry at the end of 2014, terms of references were established. 

From  the  discussion  it  emerged  the  importance  for  establishing  an  environmental 
baseline. Guidelines for the establishment of environmental baselines for UK onshore oil 
and gas was published in January 2015. A conceptual site model was developed by the 
identification  of  all  potential  pathways  keeping  in  mind  that  the  key  step  is  the 
monitoring phase 

The Water user’s point of view and concerns was discussed by Mark Mulcahy. He focused 
on  the  comparison  between  bottle  water  and  the  initial  water,  with  the  absence  of  any 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
substance  in  the  bottle  water  (very  low  levels).  The  priority  is  the  protection  of  water 
quality and the protection of groundwater. 

The topic Groundwater Monitoring – Findings of the German Federal Environment Agency 
Study  on  Environmental  Impacts  of  Hydraulic  Fracturing  was  presented  by  Bernd 
Kirschbaum. The first study on environmental impact of fracking was  released in 2012. 
The  second  study  was  terminated  in  2014  with  the  aim  to  develop  a  first  concept  to 
detect possible impacts from different pathways in groundwater. 

They  reveal  that  potential  impact  pathways  of  hydraulic  fracturing  on  groundwater 
resources could be due both to technical and artificial pathways such us the handling of 
fracking  fluids,  possible  spills,  and  natural  pathways  (a  common  natural  pass  way  is 
nitration). 

Main  topics  treated  in  the  studies  are  the  number  of  locations  for  monitoring 
groundwater and the number of well. Regarding the first topic, four locations have been 
chosen: 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

Top groundwater horizon, which is not used for drinking water extraction; 
Aquifer relevant for drinking-water extraction (drinking-water aquifer); 
First aquifer below the last drinking-water aquifer; 
Horizon up to approximately 200 m - 300 m above the frack horizon. 

The proposed number for groundwater test well in the drilling area is: 

1. 
2. 

4 monitoring wells for top groundwater horizon; 
2 for drinking water aquifers. 

Chemical  parameters  examined  are  based  on  EU  fracking  chemicals  including  additives 
and solvents, and reaction products occurring during fracking. 

For  groundwater  monitoring  the  open  questions  are  still  many  with  concern  on  the 
number and location of well, the sampling intervals, the parameters to be measured as 
well as the selection between target vs. non-target screening. 

Recommendations of the study were helpful for the implementation of a comprehensive 
groundwater  monitoring  before,  during  and  after  hydraulic  fracturing  operations  in  the 
new regulations in Germany. 

The  Polish  experiences  on  environmental  monitoring  and  groundwater  management  in 
the  process  of  unconventional  hydrocarbon  exploration  was  presented  by  Monika 
Konieczyńska  and  Małgorzata  Woźnicka.  The  study  was  published  in  2010  and  the 
second  study  on  fracking  would  also  include  the  drilling  wells,  the  horizon  drilling  the 
closure  of  the  wells  and  gases.  However,  the  study  does  not  include  the  waste  water 
reuse  giving  the  motivation  that  from  a  legislative  point  of  view  it is hard  to  follow  the 
waste and moreover the frack agencies do not compete with it. 

The monitored media were: air, ground surface, soil, surface water and groundwater. 

What  emerged  from  the  monitoring  study  in  terms  of  main  issue  related  to  the 
monitoring  study  is  that  every  site  is  different  (even  in  the  production  stage)  and  it  is 
not possible to shift results from site to site. 

In terms  of main issue  related to the monitoring study it emerged that it would be not 
possible to shift results from site to site because every site show different characteristic 
from  the  others  in  all  the  monitoring  stages  (including  the  production  one).  Another 
problem  encountered  was  the  adequate  control  of  technical  operations  which  was 
difficult to supervise due to unknown timetables of industry works. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In the case of the water media it is considered both the surface (first layer of the water 
surface)  and  the  ground  (main  bottom  of  acquirers).  It  also  emerged  a  difficulty  in 
monitoring deeper aquifers because of their complicate detection. 

It is moreover to be considered that what goes directly into the environment is the flow 
back concentration and not the fracking fluid. 

The sampling design was built considering the following steps: 

-  Examination of the baseline: before the drill site construction 
-  Measurements during the preparation of the hydraulic fracture 
-  Studies during the hydraulic fracture for fluids control 
-  Examination of the status of the environment on completion of drill operations 
-  Monitoring the status of the environment one or two years after the completion of 

the operations.  

After  the  presentation  of  the  monitoring  study,  an  open  discussion  generated  the 
following questions and proposals: 

-  Proposal  for  the  analysis  of  waste  (with  “waste”  meaning  that  nothing  is  left  on 

the site)  

-  Question on the path: is it considered a waste facility? 
-  The emission of methane from soil could both came from oil and gas exploration, 
and  shale  gas.  This  is  a  very  site  specific  issue  because  depends  on  the 
underground; 

-  Recommendation  of  shale  gas  should  suffice  for  regulation.  No  need  of  more 
regulation  for  UK  since  the  status  basic  for  controlling  this  process  in  terms  of 
regulation is sufficient. Even in Europe the status of regulation is sufficient. 

The discussion also focused on the following issues: 

-  The  horizontal  priority  is  the  water  monitoring  and  modelling.  The  issues  to  be 
resolved are related to the monitoring phase (which not always means costs) and 
to the training support for sharing and exchanging of the information. 

-  The water demand is rather low but there are no information on water protection 
and fate.  In case  of water demand, it is necessary to multiply by the number of 
well. 

-  Composition of fracking fluids: all Polish companies reveal the composition of the 
fluids  they  are  using  but  the  information  on  the  concentration  is  only  given  in 
terms  of  minimum  and  maximum  concentrations  (range  of  concentration).  The 
recipe (final composition of the fluids) is given. 

-  The time scale is much more important of the location for scenario hypothesis. It 

is important to observe the post production phase. 

-  The  monitoring  study  is  usually  area  specific  and  not  site  specific;  during  the 
organization phase for shale production, it is important to look at a geographical 
area and not at a specific site (area not in terms of region). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Research Projects 

The second part of the workshop introduced the Research Projects. 

The  first  discussed  research  project  was  the  SHEER  project  and  the  strategy  for 
groundwater monitoring by Peter Styles and Andrew Gunning. SHEER is the acronym of 
shale  gas  exploration  induced  risk.  The  objective  of  SHEER  is  to  develop  best  practices 
for  assessing  and  mitigating  the  environmental  footprint  of  shale  gas  exploration  and 
exploitation.  In  particular,  assessing  short  and  long-term  risks  associated  with  the 
groundwater and surface water contamination, air pollution and induced seismicity. 

One of the main issue is the propagation of permeability during fracking (fracking cause 
a chance in permeability of the rocks). 

In  the  case  of  groundwater,  it  is  to  be  considered  the  impact  of  drinking  aquifers 
potentially by abandoned well or mining near the well through stimulation; this pose an 
issue in terms of regulation. 

Main questions derived from the project are: 

-  How  long  would  be  the  baseline?  Three  years  could  be  considered  as  minimum 

period. 

-  Which  are  the  compound  to  be  measured  for  the  baseline?  The  literature  could 

help, including coating gases. 

-  Methodology for fractures? Initially, a statistical estimation of fractures should be 

done. 

An  Overview  of  the  M4ShaleGas  project  was  given  by  Yvonne  Schavemaker.  The  key 
words  of  the  project  acronym  are:  measuring,  monitoring,  mitigation  and  managing. 
Sub-programmes of the project include the impact on surface, the global climate and the 
public  concern.  This  activities  will  be  conducted  through  integration,  recommendation 
and  dissemination.  The  project  started  the  1st  oh  June  2015  with  a  duration  of  12 
months and half. 

Main questions involved are: 

-  Are  modelled  compounds  the  same  used  for  the  baseline  monitoring?  Yes,  they 

are. 

-  How  to  plan  a  collaboration  bringing  knowledge  and  data  sharing  for  a  correct 

management of waste resulted from fracking and EC mining techniques? 

-  How to interact with stakeholders for the dissemination of results? Web, reports, 

meetings could be useful. 

-  What’s happens when the well is abandoned? Re-stimulation of the well including 
well  design  (fit  for  purpose  approach  and  not  a  standard  approach),  looking  at 
the integrity of abandoned well about and thinking to the future. Main issue are: 

o  No data available for the abandoned stage 
o  Exploratory stage well will never come into production 

An overview at European scale is needed. Monitoring program plans should also consider 
the  audience  to  be  satisfied  and  not  go  further  to  research  aspects  because  the  public 
perceptions is very important. 

Data and Data Sharing Systems was discussed by Alessandro Torello with a presentation 
on The NGS Facts System. The NGS Fact System is a web site on voluntary disclosure of 
HF  components  used  by  industries.  It  is  also  a  complement  to  another  initiative  called 
OPPPW. 

The  web  site  supplies  transparency  perception  and  need  to  the  public  to  understand 
industry; it also benefits from sharing policy.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
The website provides a platform for transparency, with data start from 2011, divided by 
countries, and with only <5% chemicals listed as trade secret. 

Main questions are: 

-  What  goes  up  from  the  well  is  much  dirtier?  Need  a  mirror  for  flow  back  fluids. 
Anomalies  comes  from  flow  back  fluids;  it  would  be  useful  as  a  complementary 
information  even  if  it  is  difficult  to  sample  the  flow  back  fluid  (takes  time  for 
operation).  20%  of  this  fluid  flow  back  in  the  first  15  days  but  small  amounts 
come  back  in  times  (maybe  somewhere  else)  and  at  the  end  nothing  remain. 
Also, it is to be considered the change of fluids from reactions with rocks. 

-  Degree of saturation? How much come back for modelling process. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusion  

The  workshop  provided  a  first  input  on  key  parameters  to  be  considered  for  baseline 
assessment  and  monitoring,  and  possible  technical  challenges  in  the  implementation. 
Participants  

A  great  deal  of  information  was  shared  among  the  participants,  who  appreciated  the 
technical  level  of  discussion  in  a  constructive  atmosphere  between  the  various 
stakeholders  from  the  European  gas  sector,  the  European  water  sector,  water  using 
industries, environmental authorities and the research community.  

Participants  agreed  their  interest  to  pursue  the  process  of  exchanging  knowledge  on 
baseline  assessment  and  monitoring  and  the idea  that  JRC  organizes  a  follow  up  event 
was  generally  accepted.  In  this  context,  the  idea  of  a  technical  level  meeting  with  the 
four H 2020 consortia on the monitoring aspects was brought into the discussion. 

Further  work  would  be  necessary  to  coordinate  and  facilitate  the  technical  discussions, 
working towards a better harmonization of methodologies for baseline 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Workshop final agenda  

09:00-09:15  Welcome and Objectives of the workshop 

30 June 2015 

(Commission) 

09:15-09:30  EU legislative framework on chemical monitoring of  

water 

  Presentation(s) (Commission) 

09:30-10:45  National Experiences and User Perspectives 
  Methane monitoring experience in the UK (Rob Ward) 
  The IWM network and UK approach to the Establishment of Environmental 

Baselines (Steve Thompsett) 

  Water user’s point of view and concerns (Mark Mulcahy) 
  Groundwater Monitoring – Findings of the German Federal Environment Agency 
Study on Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing (Bernd Kirschbaum) 
  Polish experiences on environmental monitoring and groundwater management 
in the process of unconventional hydrocarbon exploration (Monika Konieczyńska 
& Małgorzata Woźnicka) 

Coffee break during session 

10:45-12:00  Discussion: Baseline Monitoring 
12:00-13:30  Lunch at the EC canteen 
13:30-14:15  Research Projects 

  An Overview of the SHEER project and the strategy for groundwater monitoring’ 

(Peter Styles & Andrew Gunning) 

  An Overview of the M4ShaleGas project (Yvonne Schavemaker) 
  An Overview of the Shale4environment project (Adrian Jones) 

14:15-15:30  Discussion: Surveillance / Control Monitoring  

Coffee break during session 

15:30-16:45  Data and Data Sharing Systems 

  The NGS Facts System (Alessandro Torello) 
  Lessons learnt from FracFocus1 in the US (NN) 
 

IPCHEM (Bernd Gawlik) 

16:45-17:30  Conclusions and next steps 
           17:30  End of Workshop  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of presentations  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Joint Research Centre

The JRC inside the European Commission

The European Commission’s in-house science service

President
Jean-Claude Juncker

28 Commission Members

Baseline assessment and 
monitoring of water resources 
exposed to unconventional 
hydrocarbon exploration and 
extraction activities

Commissioner
Tibor Navracsics
Education, Culture, Youth and Sport

Director-General
Vladimir Šucha
Joint Research Centre

www.jrc.ec.europa.eu

21 January 2016

2

Overview

(cid:190) Established 1957

(cid:190) Only Commission Directorate General 

carrying out direct research

(cid:190) 7 institutes in 5 countries

(cid:190) 3,068 staff (35% short-term)

(cid:190) 622 peer-reviewed scientific

publications in 2013

(cid:190) Budget 2013: €393.29 million, plus 

€73.9 million earned income

The Joint Research Centre (JRC)
the Commission's in-house science service

(cid:190) Provides EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and 

technical support throughout the whole policy cycle.

(cid:190) Works in support of other Commission services, EU Institutions, and 
Member States, in close cooperation with industry, universities, and 
research organisations in the EU and worldwide.

(cid:190) Is independent of industrial and national interests,

has access to confidential information, and 
provides on-tap fast and flexible response.

4

Why this 
workshop?

• EU has potential reserves of UHC in 

shale formations

• Some MS are pursuing shale gas 

exploration

•

Impact in particular on 
(ground)water needs to be 
monitored:

• Baseline assessment

• Monitoring

• Questions on methodologies

• Need for a scientific exchange on:

• Key parameters to be considered

• Technical challenges in implementation

• Data sharing issues

09:00-09:15 Welcome and Objectives

13:30-14:15 Research Projects

Agenda

09:15-09:30 Chemical monitoring of water in the EU

09:30-10:45 National Experiences and User 

Perspectives

(cid:131) Methane monitoring experience in the UK

(Rob Ward)

(cid:131) The IWM network and UK approach to the Establishment 

of Environmental Baselines
(Steve Thompsett)

(cid:131) Water user’s point of view and concerns

(Mark Mulcahy)

(cid:131) Groundwater Monitoring – Findings of the German 

Federal Environment Agency Study on Environmental 
Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
(Bernd Kirschbaum)

(cid:131) Polish experiences on environmental monitoring and 

groundwater management in the process of 
unconventional hydrocarbon exploration
(Monika Konieczyńska & Małgorzata Woźnicka)

10:45-12:00 Discussion: Baseline Monitoring

(cid:131) An Overview of the SHEER project and the strategy for 

groundwater monitoring
(Peter Styles & Andrew Gunning)

(cid:131) An Overview of the M4ShaleGas project

(Yvonne Schavemaker)

(cid:131) An Overview of the Shale4environment project

(Adrian Jones)

14:15-15:30 Discussion: Monitoring 
Coffee break during session

15:30-16:45 Data and Data Sharing Systems

(cid:131) The NGS Facts System (Alessandro Torello)
(cid:131)

Lessons learnt from FracFocus1 in the US (miscellaneous 
input from US EPA, GS and DoE)
IPCHEM (Bernd Gawlik)

(cid:131)

16:45-17:30 Conclusions and next steps

21 January 2016

5

21 January 2016

6

1

European Union legislation provides for measures against chemical pollution of surface waters. 

Chemical Monitoring of Water in the 
EU
•

• Marine waters

Inland and coastal waters
• Substances of EU-wide concern 

(priority substances)

• Selection by Member States of 
substances of national or local 
concern (river basin specific 
pollutants) for control at the 
relevant level.

• Groundwater

• pollution trend studies ("baseline 

level" data obtained in 2007-2008);

• measures to prevent or limit inputs 

of pollutants into groundwater

• Annexes I and II under reform

• Contaminants in water

• Contaminants in fish and seafood

• Legislation to be 

mentioned 

• Water Framework Directive

• Groundwater Directive

• Marine Strategy Framework 

Directive

• QA/QC Directive

• … and related ones

Urban 
Waste 
Water

Drinking
Water

Habitats
Directive

Nitrates
Directive

Industrial
Pollution 
(IPPC)

Water 
Framework
Directive

Flood 
Protection

Ground-
Water

Bathing 
Water

Priority 
Substances

Marine 
Strategy
Directive 

The EU Framework for Water

Watershed drawing from Pearl (2005)

21 January 2016

7

21 January 2016

Arguments dealt 
with

• Priority Substances

• Identification
• EQS Setting

• Monitoring

• River-basin specific pollutants

• Selection
• Monitoring

• Watch List
• Purpose
• Selection

• And Exploratory Monitoring?

A vicious circle

Substance is not 
Substance is not 
monitored
monitored

No monitoring 
No monitoring 
requirements are 
requirements are 
set
set

No info on 
No info on 
environmental 
environmental 
fate
fate

Not included in 
Not included in 
legislation
legislation

Environmental 
Environmental 
Quality Standards 
Quality Standards 
cannot be derived
cannot be derived

21 January 2016

9

21 January 2016

10

“Emerging Pollutants – Compounds of emerging concern”

The “chemical” 
aspect

Fluid Composition 

Industrial grade

• Huge volumes
•
• No info about 
impurities
• Voluntary 
disclosure
In Europe, strong 
controversy 
between Member 
States

•

Sand  
10% 

Other  
 0.3% 

Acid 

Water 
Water 
89.7% 

4 Million Gallons of Fluid Used 
11,000 Gallons of Chemicals 

Source: FracFocus – Hopson 5H well 

http://www.hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org/

ImageSource: www.colorado.edu

21 January 2016

11

21 January 2016

12

2

Pan-European Substance Scanning
To produce independent data on the occurrence of new and less-investigated
contaminants in environmental media on a manageable sample set by sharing and
synchronising available resources.

Chemistry-based Assessment
Chemistry-based Assessment

Pesticides

Pharmaceuticals

Personal care products

Nano-materials

New chemicals

…

Effect-based Assessment
Effect-based Assessment
Target organisms

Biosensors

Bioassays

Transcriptogenomics
…

Risk-based Assessment
Risk-based Assessment

Effect-direct analyses

Emission loads

Fate assessment

…

Characteristics:
Characteristics:
(cid:131) Concern-driven approach
(cid:131) Concern-driven approach
(cid:131) Integrative assessment
(cid:131) Integrative assessment
(cid:131) Coordination of existing 
(cid:131) Coordination of existing 

capacities
capacities

(cid:131) Pan-regional assessment
(cid:131) Pan-regional assessment
(cid:131) Known data quality
(cid:131) Known data quality
(cid:131) Multi-parameter
(cid:131) Multi-parameter
(cid:131) Few experts - same samples
(cid:131) Few experts - same samples

Example: WWTP Effluents
Example: WWTP Effluents
(cid:131) 91 WWTP effluents analyzed
(cid:131) 91 WWTP effluents analyzed
(cid:131) 168 organic chemicals and 20 trace elements
(cid:131) 168 organic chemicals and 20 trace elements
(cid:131) 134 out of the 168 compounds were detected
(cid:131) 134 out of the 168 compounds were detected
(cid:131) Effect-based:
(cid:131) Effect-based:

(cid:131) Estrogenicity was detected in one third of 
(cid:131) Estrogenicity was detected in one third of 

the samples and
the samples and

(cid:131) Dioxin-like toxicity was detected in a 
(cid:131) Dioxin-like toxicity was detected in a 

quarter of the samples.
quarter of the samples.

The Mariani Box

6

2

3

1

1. Battery 12 V

2. Flow-meter/Counter

3. Pump (Flow rate: 0.1-

0.2 L/min)

4. Holder-SPE: adsorbent

5. Water Sampling line 

6. Waste

4

5

30 cm

Cost prototype: 1500 Euro
Expected cost in production: 600 Euro
Patent: pending
Target volume: max. 10-20 L (cid:198) 10 to 20 fold increase of 
LoQ

N

Legend

Water
Sediment
Biota

22 April 2013

0

25 m

Geographical distribution

14

Water

Acesulfame 

Acesulfame (µg/L) 

Frequency of 
Detec on  
86% 

n.d. 
14% 

LOD 
27 ng/L 

LOQ 
54 ng/L 

Mean value  

50˚ percen le 

90˚ percen le 

Max 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

Acesulfame (µg/L) 

Max 
57 

90˚ percen le  50˚ percen le  Mean value  
1.7 

8.1 

3.7 

1H‐Benzotriazole 

1H‐Benzotriazole (µg/L) 

Frequency of 
Detec on  
71% 

n.d. 
29% 

LOD 
4.3 ng/L 

LOQ 
16 ng/L 

Mean value  

50˚ percen le 

90˚ percen le 

Max 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1H‐Benzotriazole (µg/L) 

Max 

5.7 

90˚ 
percen le 
1.1 

50˚ 
percen le 
0.2 

Mean value  

0.5 

21 January 2016

15

22 April 2013

16

Carbamazepine 

Carbamazepine (ng/L) 

Frequency of 
Detec on  
97% 

n.d. 
3% 

LOD 
0.03 ng/L 

LOQ 
0.07 ng/L 

Mean value  

50˚ percen le 

90˚ percen le 

Max 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

Carbamazepine (ng/L) 

Max 

3670 

90˚ 
percen le 
231 

50˚ 
percen le 
38.2 

Mean value  

122 

CBZ‐DiOH 

CBZ‐DiOH (ng/L) 

Frequency of 
Detec on  
98% 

n.d. 
2% 

LOD 
0.1 ng/L 

LOQ 
0.26 ng/L 

Mean value  

50˚ percen le 

90˚ percen le 

Max 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

Core process
“Chemical Monitoring”

The most common sampling 
method applied for 1L of 
water.

Extraction of Information

Sampling

Pre-treatment

Analyses

Quantification

Interpretation

Statistics

Mapping

Concentration vs
Effects

Communication

Report

Paper

Poster

Book

Media

In case of chemicals, these steps are usually carried out by 
sectorial specialists and the risk of misinterpretation is high

CBZ‐DiOH (ng/L) 

Max 
2320 

90˚ percen le  50˚ percen le  Mean value  
69.8 

197.4 

460 

22 April 2013

17

21 January 2016

18

3

 
 
 
 
Towards better approaches

The idea of a “Chemical Information System” Service

Monitoring 
campaign 
II

Monitoring 
campaign 
III

Monitoring 
Campaign 
IV

Monitoring 
campaign
I

Central 
Database

Etc.

Dissemination 

CENTRAL DATABASE

Regional 
sampling 
III

Regional 
sampling 
IV

EC 
coordinated 
Analyses
(Lab 1, 2,…)

Etc.

Regional 
sampling 
I

Regional 
sampling 
II

Data repository

•Lab I, Lab II, Lab III,…

Dissemination 

Monitoring 
Campaign 

IV 

Monitoring 
campaign 

III 

Etc. 

Monitoring 
campaign 

II 

Monitoring 
campaign 

I 

Central 
Database 

Dissemination  

Monitoring 
campaign 
II 

Monitoring 
campaign 
III 

Monitoring 
Campaign 
IV 

Monitoring 
campaign 
I 

Central 
Database 

Etc. 

Monitoring 
campaign 

II 

Monitoring 
campaign 

I 

Monitoring 
campaign 

III 

Central 
Database 

Monitoring 
Campaign 

IV 

Etc. 

M
ca
o
nitorin
m
p
II 
aig
n 

g 

M
cam
o
nitorin
p
aig
I 
n 

g 

Dissemination  

Mo
ca
nitorin
m
p
III 
aig
n 

g 

M
C
o
a
m
p
IV 

nitorin
aign 

g 

D
C
e
ata
ntral 
b
a
s
e 

Etc. 

Dis
s
e

min
atio
n  

A unique access point
to discover and access chemical 
monitoring data collections of 
Europe

Established through COM(2012) 252 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
The combination effects of chemicals - Chemical mixtures

21 January 2016

19

21 January 2016

20

Sharing data for 
better policy 
making

IPCheM is an initiative of the 
European Commission
• DG Environment (Chef de File)
• DG Joint Research Centre
• DG Health and Consumer Protection

Currently involved are in addition

European  Food Safety Authority

European  Environmental  Agency  

A
A

Information Platform for Chemical  
Information Platform for Chemical  
Monitoring 
Monitoring 

- IPCheM 
- IPCheM 

Improving comparability 
Improving comparability 

Understanding complexity  
Understanding complexity  

European  Chemical Agency

Enhancing access 
Enhancing access 

Federal Environmental  Agency – UBA (Germany)

Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety
and Environment  (Belgium)

Sharing data 
Sharing data 

Smarter regulation 
Smarter regulation 

Identifying threats 
Identifying threats 

Reusing interoperable 
Reusing interoperable 

components 
components 

SOLUTIONS

NORMAN  Association

21 January 2016

21

4

Shale gas baseline monitoring in the UK

Professor Rob Ward
Director of Groundwater Science
British Geological Survey

Outline

• National baseline monitoring
• Sub-regional integrated monitoring
• Preliminary results

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

BGS/EA/SEPA Baseline Project

National baseline monitoring

• Widespread concern in N. America (and UK)
• RS/RAE report, PHE report, UK Shale Gas Task 

Force report…..  

• Widespread recognition of importance and support 

for environmental baseline 

• BGS – national geological survey takes leading 

role:
• Resource estimation
• Seismic investigation
• Groundwater/aquifer protection
• Methane baseline

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Methane in sub-surface

Abbeystead, 1984
Lancashire Evening Post

Loscoe, 1986
Derby Evening Telegraph

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

•

29 reports (England, Wales and 
Scotland) – BGS, EA, SEPA

• Broad range of aquifer types

• Common format:

• geology/hydrogeology
• environmental data
• historical/current data
• hydrochemistry plots
• geochemical controls
• evolution of chemistry
• depth profiles
•

trends

• Currently used for WFD TVs, 
permit conditions, remedial 
targets, …….

BGS baseline 
methane survey

1. Waters characterised using:

• Dissolved concentrations of CH4 and 
CO2 plus general water chemistry 

• Stable isotopes of CH4 and CO2
• Trace organics 
• Groundwater residence time indicators 

2. Collation of other baseline data
• BGS/EA baseline studies

3. Temporal variation

• Quarterly sampling at selected sites

4. Publication

• Data summaries/statistics on BGS 

website

1

Summary data and statistics

Temporal methane monitoring

Region

Aquifer

Southern England

Bristol/Bath

S. Wales

Midalnds/Yorks

North West

Chalk
Lwr Greensand
Tunbridge Wells Sands
Ashdown Beds
Hampshire Tertiaries
Keuper Sandstone
Carb Limestone
Dolomitic  Limestone
Coal Measures
Coal Measures
Carb Limestone
Chalk
Chalk
Lwr Magnesian Lst
Sherwood Sandstone
Sherwood Sandstone
Drift

Concentration 
range (µg/l)
0.6 ‐ 1.1
<0.2 ‐ 1.9
8.1 ‐ 14
31 ‐ 57
12 ‐ 19
0.4 ‐3.1
0.4 ‐ 300
>0.2 ‐ 2.5
0.4 ‐ 132
2.1 ‐ 220
0.5 ‐ 483
0.1 ‐ 0.2
0.4 ‐ 1.0
0.3
0.1 ‐ 0.2
0.1
6.5‐15.5

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Importance of baseline

Lancashire monitoring

Nitrate – mg/l (as N)

Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm)

12

10

8

6

4

2

0
1987
2008

1988
2009

1990
2011

1989
2010
Water Level (m)

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

1991
2012

1992

2013

1993
2014

1987
2008

1988
2009

1989
2010

1990
2011

1991
2012

1992
2013

1993
2014

Sulphate (mg/l)

25

20

15

10

5

0

• Extend national baseline monitoring
• Establish independent monitoring programme
• Provide high resolution  (spatial and temporal) data -
information and scientific results on the web and in 
scientific literature:
• Inform public, industry, regulators of environmental 

baselines and their natural variability

• Assist in shaping regulatory monitoring and good practice
• Improve understanding of sub-surface in the context of 

UGEE (avoid issues encountered in NA)

• Develop new technology/sensors
• Establish effective partnership to build capability

1987
2008

1988
2009

1989
2010

1990
2011

1991
2012

1992
2013

199
2014

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Monitoring work packages

Geology and sampling sites

• Groundwater

• Ground motion

• Induced seismicity

• Air quality and fugitive emissions

--------------------------

• Flowback fluid

Sidmouth
Mudstone

Sherwood
Sandstone

Breckells
Mudstone

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

2

Geological X-section

Baseline groundwater monitoring

W

E

BGS (1990): 1:50k Solid Geology, Sheet 67 Garstang
© Crown copyright and database rights 1990 Ordnance Survey 100021290.

• Existing groundwater sampling points

• Unstable parameters (on-site)
•

Inorganic and organic chemistry (VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, broad 
screening for range of organic compounds)

• Dissolved gases (incl. CH4, noble gases)
• Stable isotopes (δ18O, δ2H, δ13C DIC/CH4)
• Tracers: CFCs, SF6
• NORM (Rn, Ra, U)
• New boreholes

• 6 pairs of shallow BHs – Quaternary (10-40 m depth)
• 1 deep borehole – Sherwood Sandstone (500 m depth)
• Real-time in situ monitoring : pH, T, DO, EC, water level
• Laboratory analysis of groundwater  - as above

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Preliminary 
results –
inorganic 
chemistry

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Seismicity

New seismometers

•

Instrumentally recorded 
earthquakes (red circles): 
1970 to present

• Historical earthquakes 
(yellow circles): <1970 
• Epicentre of the 1 April 

2011 earthquake (red star)

• Seismically quiet area
• Significant background 

noise

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

3

Satellite radar interferometry (InSAR)

Air quality (CH4 and CO2)

CO2

CH4

CH4

CO2

© NERC All rights reserved

© NERC All rights reserved

Thank you

www.bgs.ac.uk/research/groundwater

© NERC All rights reserved

4

21/01/2016

The UK voice for onshore oil and gas exploration

IWM Network &
UK approach to establishing Environmental Baselines

Technical Workshop on Monitoring

Tuesday 30th June 2015

Steve Thompsett
UKOOG – Executive Director

Agenda

Integrated Water Management 
– Water across regulation!
– Water and the Supply/Demand Chain
– An Integrated Approach to Water

Establishing Environmental Baselines

– Establishing Environmental Baselines Drivers
– Guidelines for UK Industry
– CSM
– Whole life approach to Monitoring

IWM Network

Env
Assessment

Environmental 
Impact 
Assessment 

Planning 
Consent

Community 
Engagement

DCLG
(MPAs)

Minerals 
Planning

Water across 
regulation….

Environmental 
Risk 
Assessment 

Licencing Petroleum 
Development

Seismic Traffic 
Light System

Emissions 
Targets 
(Resource Mgt)

Energy Development and 
Licensing 

Air

Fugitive 
Emissions to 
Air

DECC/ 
OGA

DEFRA
(EA, 
NRW, SEPA)

HSE

Environment

flow‐back 
fluids

Waste 
(eg drill cuttings)

‘Frack’ Fluid 
Chemicals

Water 
Abstraction

Workforce 
Safety

Well 
Integrity

Groundwater

Inspections

Local Issues 
and 
Opportunities 

Safety of 
workforce and 
personnel

Integrity of 
as‐built well

Well design 
and as‐built 
construction

Standards and Auditing

UK Best practice

Control, Monitoring, 
Inspection and Data 
Release

What are we doing?

Current Position
(cid:131) Discussion Paper circulated – Autumn 14
(cid:131) Initial meeting hosted – early December 14
(cid:131) Terms of Reference established
(cid:131) Sub‐groups identified and 6 month plan 

formulated 

Environment and Process Safety Working Group initiative

Governance
(cid:131) UKOOG led Steering Board:  twice a year

(cid:131) O&G Operators
(cid:131) Academics
(cid:131) O&G Supply Chain
(cid:131) Water and O&G ‘Technical’ Experts
(cid:131) Water Industry
(cid:131) Next Board Autumn 15

Water is Key in operational terms!
Onshore O&G – Demand/Supply Chain

Supply Chain

Site Activity

Demand/Process Chain

National

Regional

Local

Logistics

Logistics

Local

Regional

National

Aggregates/
Cement

Road

Skilled Personnel

Civil site 
prep/projects

Road/Rail

Solid Waste

Drill Rigs

Drill muds

Well Casings

Pumps

Road

Road/Rail

Road/Rail

Road

Drill Muds

Drilling

Road/Mains 
supply

Road

Water

Road/Mains 
supply

Well 
Stimulation/
Completions

Road

Road

Flow Back 
Water

Water 
Treatment

Waste 
Water

Frack Additives

Road/Rail

Road

Proppant

Regional or Local 
warehouse

Road/Rail/Pipeline

Gas to Industry

Production

Road/Rail/Pipeline

Gas 
generator

Gas to Grid

Electricity to 
Grid

Priorities
(cid:131) Cross‐cutting quick wins – eg analysis suites, BAT for Monitoring …
(cid:131) ‘Sectoral’ groups to be established – networks/leadership 

(cid:131)1. Supply; 2. Site Mgt; 3. Operational Use and Re‐use; 4. Waste Management

(cid:131) Task and Finish activities by ‘sectoral’ area

1

21/01/2016

Integrated Water Management for 
Onshore Oil and Gas

Steering Group/Board

Water Supply/Delivery

Site Management and 
Operational Prep

Operational Use and Re‐use

Waste Management

Sectoral Network 
Lead

WaterUK

British Water

UKOOG

Source

Quality

Connection

Input

Fresh water storage

Site management 
best practice

Drilling

Well Stimulation

Produced water 
Mgt

Re‐injection

Re‐cycling

CIWEM

Waste water 
Storage

Mgt of Solids

NORM

Waste flow back fluid 
transportation

Surface Water 
waste

Output

Cross Cutting Areas

•
•
•
•

Analysis Suites ‐ Monitoring
Best Available Techniques – All areas
Drawing on International Experiences
Innovation – eg Waste water as a resource for the industry

Integrated Water Management ‐ Next Steps

This is a long term initiative ‐ circa 5 years!

Qtr 1 & 2 2015 

• Shape a priority programme!

• Form ‘Sectoral’ task groups

Qtr 3 to 4 2015

• Realising the Quick Win Cross‐cutting opportunities

•

Linking with other initiatives –Innovate – EA BAT projects

• Capturing Learning from EU and other geographies

• MWD BREF

Establishing Environmental 
Baselines

Establishing Environmental Baselines
‐ Drivers!

Building the Social Licence to Operate in the UK

Supporting Permitting & Consenting

Laying Foundations ‐ Culture of Transparency and Disclosure

Facilitating the Reinstatement of sites

Managing Politics!

Addressing Future Challenges

Establishing Environmental Baselines

Conceptual Site Model

Context 
(cid:131) Risk Based – Science led
(cid:131) Conceptual Site Model
(cid:131) Source – Pathway ‐ Receptor
(cid:131) Draws on Best Practice from other sectors
(cid:131) Avoid a ‘blanket approaches’
(cid:131) Covers all Onshore Oil and Gas
(cid:131) Covers Exploration and Production
(cid:131) Aimed for 12 pages – got 25!

Receptors
In Scope –
(cid:131) Groundwater, Surface water, Soil, Air, Ground Gases, NORM and 

Ecology
Outside Scope –
(cid:131) Nuisance (Dust, Noise etc)

Baseline Guidance ‐ Published on 7th January 2015          www.ukoog.org.uk

2

Monitoring – key steps

Surface 
Mobilisation

Intrusive 
Mobilisation

Plug and 
Decommission Well

Before 
Any Site 
Activity

Surface 
Activity

Site Preparation

Drilling

Sub‐
surface 
Activity

Well 
Stimulation

Post Site 
Monitoring

Site Relinquishment

Time

Concept 
Site 
Model

Baseline 
Monitoring

NORM

Baseline

Air

Ecology

Baseline

Baseline

Surface Water

Baseline

Soil

Baseline

Seismicity

Baseline

Ground 
Gasses

Groundwater 
Gasses

Baseline

Baseline

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

Post Decommissioning

Post Decommissioning

Post Decommissioning

Post Decommissioning

Compliance

Compliance

Compliance

Groundwater 
Contaminants

Baseline – Stage 1 – Analysis 
Suite linked to Surface Preparation 

Compliance

Baseline – Stage 2 – Analysis Suite linked to Drilling

Compliance

Post Decommissioning

Baseline – Stage 3 – Analysis Suite Linked to Well 
Stimulation

Compliance

Post Decommissioning

Baseline 
Established

Restoration 
& aftercare

21/01/2016

3

21/01/2016

For our Environment

Technical Workshop

Groundwater Monitoring –

Findings of the German Federal Environment 

Agency Study on Environmental Impacts of 

Hydraulic Fracturing

Bernd Kirschbaum
Federal Environment Agency
Section II 2.1 General Aspects of Water & Soil Protection

Studies of the Federal Environment Agency on Environmental 
Impacts of Fracking

First study ‐ released September 2012

(cid:131)
(cid:131)
(cid:131)
(cid:131)
(cid:131)

Risk Assessment of Potential Impacts on Groundwater
Fracturing Fluids , Flowback and Produced Water
Legal Regulations and administrative Structures
Recommendations for action and procedures
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/environmental‐
impacts‐of‐fracking‐related‐to

Second study ‐ released July 2014
WP 1 ‐ Monitoring Concept Groundwater
WP 2 ‐ Fracturing Fluids Registry
WP 3 ‐ Treatment and Disposal of Flowback and Produced Water

WP 4 ‐ GHG emissions – Compilation of Scientific  Knowledge
WP 5 ‐ Induced Seismicity
WP 6 ‐ Competing Uses and Environmental Protection
WP 7 ‐ Recommendations
(cid:131)

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/pu
blikationen/texte_53_2014_summary.pdf

30 June 2015

2

Potential Impact Pathways of Hydraulic Fracturing on Groundwater
Resources

Risks for well integrity failure

Above surface pathways

Technical/artificial pathways

Natural pathways, e.g. deep‐
reaching faults

Migration through high
permeability pathways

Disposal of
flowback/production water in 
injection wells

Zementation 
failure

pipe failure

Production
well

Lack of data

Design of frac
operation
Well construction

Human error

Performance

External
vulnerability

Geology
Hydrogeology
Geomechanic
Tension
Pressure
Hydrochemistry

Abandoned wells

Boreholes for
seismic and
hydrological
equipment

Source: ahu, 2012 

30 June 2015

3

30 June 2015

Source: RiskCom, 2014 

4

Overview of the aquifers to be monitored

Overview of the aquifers to be monitored for prospecting, extraction and 
injection

(cid:110)

(cid:111) (cid:112)

(cid:113)

(cid:110)

Top groundwater horizon
(no drinking‐water extraction)

(cid:113)

Source: RiskCom, 2014 

30 June 2015

(cid:111)

(cid:112)

Aquifer relevant for drinking‐
water extraction (drinking‐
water aquifer)

First aquifer below the last 
drinking‐water aquifer

(cid:113)

Horizon up to approximately 
200 m ‐ 300 m above the frac
horizon

5

Aquifer

Prospecting and extraction

Baseline 
monitoring

Surveillance 
monitoring

Injection

Top groundwater horizon
(cid:110)
(no drinking‐water extraction)
(cid:111)
extraction (drinking‐water aquifer)

Aquifer relevant for drinking‐water 

X

X

First aquifer below the last 

(cid:112)
drinking‐water aquifer

Horizon up to approximately 200 m 

(cid:113)
‐ 300 m above the frac horizon

only intended 
for R&D and 
demonstration 
projects.

only intended 
for R&D and 
demonstration 
projects.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Only for 
pressure 
monitoring

Source: RiskCom, 2014 

1

21/01/2016

Number and allocation of groundwater test wells – R&D Projects

Chemical Parameters

Legend

Drilling area

Drilling site

Horizontal boreholes with 
schematic fracs

Production well

Top groundwater horizon (cid:110)
Drinking water aquifer (cid:111)

First aquifer below the last 
drinking‐water aquifer (cid:112)

Horizon up to approximately 
200 m ‐ 300 m above the frac
horizon(cid:113)
Catchment area of pumptest
in drinking water aquifer

Source: RiskCom, 2014 

(cid:131)

Selection of chemical parameters for
monitoring based on:

(cid:190) Fracking Chemicals (Quality, quantity and
percentage of additives in der frac fluid)

(cid:190) Formation water (hydrocarbons, 

inorganic elements and ions, NORM)

(cid:190) Reaction Products formed from additives 

during fracking process

(cid:190) Mobilised solutes and solid products

from the shale play

(cid:190) Disolved gases (e.g. ethane, methane, 

H2S, CO2 )

(cid:131)

Exact Catalogue of Chemical Parameters that
has to be analyzed requires sample 

Groundwater flow

30 June 2015

7

30 June 2015

Source: C&EN, March  2015 

8

Current situation Germany - Regulations on Fracking

New Monitoring Regulation mentioned in the Draft Law

Change of the following laws and ordinances

Law

Regulations

Application

(cid:190) Federal Water Act (WHG)

(cid:190) Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatschG)

(cid:190) Federal Mining Act(BBergG)

(cid:190) Ordinance on Environmental Impact Assessment of mining 

projects (UVP‐V Bergbau)

(cid:190) General Federal Mining Ordinance (ABBergV)

(cid:190) Affected Burden Mining Ordinance (EinwBV)

Ordinance on EIA of 
mining projects;

Baseline study according to EU COM 2014/70/EU

Federal Water Act

Groundwater and surface water monitoring during
operation and closure;

Monitoring and quantitative + qualitative balance study of
flowback and produced water for each well

Monitoring of well integrity

Monitoring of air emissions (methane, etc.) and of
induced seismicity

‐ Shale gas
‐ CBM
‐ Tight gas
‐ Deep geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

‐ Shale gas
‐ CBM
‐ Tight gas
‐ Deep geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

30 June 2015

9

30 June 2015

10

Groundwater Monitoring

Summary and Outlook

(cid:190) Recommendations of the study were helpful for

implementation groundwater monitoring in the new
regulations (before, during and after hydraulic fracturing
operations)

(cid:190) Still many open questions:

(cid:190) Number, location and depth of groundwater test wells

(cid:190) Sampling intervalls

(cid:190) Exact Catalogue of Chemical Parameters that have to be

analyzed

(cid:190) Screening methods for groundwater monitoring

(cid:190) Assesment of findings

Thank you for attention

Bernd Kirschbaum
bernd.kirschbaum@uba.de

30 June 2015

11

30 June 2015

12

2

21/01/2016

Country Update ‐ Germany

Country Update ‐ Germany

Basic Elements of the Draft Law

1. Ban of Fracking

Ban of Fracking

Law

Regulation 

Application

Sensitive Areas

- Federal Water
Act

- Federal Nature 
Conservation Act

- Ban of fracking and subsurface disposal of
produced water in water protection areas
(drinking water and spa) and in catchment
areas of dams and lakes for drinking water
abstraction;

- Ban of fracking and subsurface disposal of
produced water nature protection areas, 
national parks and natura 2000-areas (partial)

Shale gas and
CBM

- Federal Water
Act

R+D Projects may be permitted to explore
and assess environmental impacts under
certain conditions :
•

Fracking Fluids: only non water
hazardous mixtures;
independent expert commission to 
accompany and evaluate R+D Projects

•

- Shale gas
- CBM
- Tight gas
- Deep
geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

- Shale gas
- CBM

Basic Elements of the Draft Law

2. Strict criteria
Strict criteria

Induced Seismicity

Frac-Fluid Registry

Environmental Impact 
Assessment

Liability
- Burden of proof in 
damages

Law

- General 
Federal 
Mining 
Ordinance

- Federal 
Water Act

- Ordinance 
on ElA of 
mining 
projects 

- Federal 
Mining Act;
- Affected
Burden
Mining 
Ordinance

Regulation 

Application

- seismological baseline report
- measures for controlled operation

- power to issue statutory instruments;

- EIA for exploration and exploitation of
natural gas, oil and geothermia using
hydraulic fracturing.

- Application of mining damage presumption
also on borehole mining

- Shale gas
- CBM
- Tight gas
- Deep geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

- Shale gas
- CBM
- Tight gas
- Shale gas
- CBM
- Tight gas
- Deep geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

- Shale gas
- CBM
- Tight gas
- Deep geothermal 
Energy (HDR)

14

30 June 2015

13

30 June 2015

Temporal effects of risks

Outline

Risks for 
groundwater

Con‐
struction
well pad

Drilling

Fracking

Production

Deconstruction

Aboveground 
risks

Impact

(cid:110)(cid:111)

(cid:99)(cid:111)

Subsurface 
technical
risks

Subsurface 
geological
risks 
(migration)

Impact

Impact

Surveillance of well 
integrity, 
Limitation of
impacts

1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONCEPT  FOR  HYDRAULIC 

FRACTURING, IN PARTICULAR SHALE GAS

1.1 Context and objective of WP1 - groundwater monitoring concept
1.2 Assessment of potential impacts
1.3 Recommendations for further procedures – monitoring concept

2 SITUATION IN GERMANY

2.1 Current status of implementing new regulation on fracking
2.2 Foreseen monitoring activities

(cid:112)(cid:113)

Early detection, 
R&D, 
transparancy

3

Not for exploration

Source: RiskCom, 2014 

30 June 2015

16

3

FULL REPORTS 

Exploration stage:

1. US Environmental Protection Agency  

(June 2015 draft); http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

2. Polish Report of General Directorate for Environmental 

Protection (2015) (Polish Geological Institute/AGH University
of Sci. & Tech./Gdańsk University of Tech.); 
http://www.gdos.gov.pl/shale-gas-reports

Polish Geological Institute
National Research Institute

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Monika Konieczyńska
Małgorzata Woźnicka

Production stage:

1. US Environmental Protection Agency  

(June 2015 draft);
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Research done by governmental 
agencies (in real conditions)

Test site locations in Poland

Baltic Basin

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

12

13
14

Water acquisition 
Water composition (background)
Flowback chemistry
Seismicity & earthquakes
Acoustic climate
Wellbore integrity
Soil protection
Drilling cuts managment
Wastewater reuse
Surface water protection
Drinking water aquifers protection 
(methane pollution?)
Drinking water aquifers protection 
(chemical pollution) 
Methane (e.g. co2) emission
Direct impact on human health

USA 
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x

x

x
x

Poland*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x

x

x

x
x

1 - Lubocino
2 - Stare Miasto
3 - Syczyn
4 - Wysin
5 - Zawada
6 - Łebień
7 - Gapowo

Lublin region

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

* Only for exploration

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

4

The aim of the project

The full cycle of research

Environmental impact on: 
1.air 
2.ground surface
3.soil
4.surface water 
5.groundwater

NOISE

GASES & DUSTS

PRESSURE

RESPONSE

WASTE

LANDSCAPE

SOIL

WATER

1.

Identification of the local conditions and field work planning.

2. Examination of the baseline status of the environment prior to the 

commencement of exploration.

3. Measurements while drilling vertical/directional wells.

4. Studies during hydraulic fracture stimulation and gas flow testing.

5. Examination of the status of the environment on completion of drill 

site operations.

6. Monitoring of the status of the environment after the completion of 

downhole operations.

identification pf 
potential impacts

tests and 
measurements

determination 
of actual 
impacts

development 
of long-term 
monitoring 
programme

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Geological conditions

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

1

The survey of water 

The scope of research

Surface and groundwater resources assessment, sampling and 
analysis on several technological stages starting from 
well pad commencement, via drilling, HF and gas testing.

Water contamination risk:

• detailed natural confinement study

• possible migration pathways

• water quality assessment

Water needs:

• definition

• possible water supply sources

Quantitative status
water balance

Chemical status
assessment of water status

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Research methodology 

Hydrogeological mapping and modeling

Assessment of hydrogeological conditions
Assessment of hydrogeological conditions

Hydrogeological mapping

Hydrodynamic modeling

Assessment of chemical water status
Assessment of chemical water status

Natural resistance to contamination

Sampling and laboratory tests

Assessment of quantitative water status
Assessment of quantitative water status

Analyzing of available water resources 

Water balance

Long-term research monitoring
Long-term research monitoring

Sampling of control monitoring sites

Additional studies

Surveyed area -

Test site

estimated size

Lubocino

Stare Miasto

Syczyn

Wysin

Zawada

Łebień

Gapowo

in km² 

12.5

78.5

78.5

28.0

78.5

12.5

28.0

Number of 
groundwater 
monitoring sites 

Number of
surface water 
monitoring sites

14

17

28

16

15

-

16

5

4

-

2

2

-

1

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Sampling

Test rounds:
I.Initial status (before drill site construction) or as-found status (drill site in 
operation)
II.Prior to hydraulic fracture stimulation
III.During hydraulic fracturing
IV.On completion of Operator's activity
V.1-2 years after well stimulation and gas tests

Groundwater reserves versus water 
consumption for fracturing purposes

Available
groundwater
resources

Reserve
groundwater
resources

Test site

(as of 2012)

Fracturing 
water 
withdrawal

%
of available
groundwater
resources used 
for fracturing 
purposes

%
of reserve
groundwater
resources used 
for fracturing 
purposes 

Monitoring sites sampled

Lubocino

110 650

56 161

Lubocino Stare Miasto

Syczyn

Wysin

Zawada

Łebień Gapowo

Stare Miasto

111 930

103 737

103 m3/year

103 m3/year

103 m3

Test 
round

I

II

III

IV

V

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

19

10

10

-

-

15

8

9

12

12

13

3

2

13

4

12

-

-

-

-

13

2

15

2

-

-

9

-

9

5

12

12

-

12

-

7.967

3.212

37.849

1.284

17.322

25.360

Syczyn

Wysin

Zawada

Łebień

Gapowo

79 034

119 951

256 792

208 828

110 650

66 476

107 375

213 472

190 539

56 161

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

%

0.007

0.003

0.05

No fracturing

0.0005

0.008

0.023

%

0.014

0.00319

0.057

0.0006

0.009

0.045

2

Groundwater management in Poland

Recommendations for water management 

River Basin Management Plans

Documentation
of groundwater
resources

Conditions of water use (for
water region and for catchment)

Water
balance
units

Available
groundwater
resources

Water permit (for wells)

Hydrogeological
documentation

Action plans for
groundwater
protection

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Water management recommendations address the following shale gas exploration 
and/or appraisal issues:

• to minimize the risk of top aquifer and surface water contamination by ground 

surface operations,

• to minimize the risk of deeper aquifer contamination by underground drilling 

operations (the vertical well),

• to minimize impacts on the quantitative status of waters (protection of surface 

and groundwater resources),

• to monitor water resources 

in terms of q & q. 

Rational use 
Rational use 
of water 
of water 
resources
resources

Preventing 
Preventing 
potential 
potential 
water 
water 
pollution
pollution

Monitoring 
Monitoring 
(quantity and 
(quantity and 
quality)
quality)

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Conclusions

Conclusions (cont)

• The study showed no negative impact of exploration on the surface 

and groundwater chemistry in the observed period of time. 

• There was no contamination of the groundwater as a result of well 
stimulation, neither any significant changes in test site impact 
indices were found in two years after hydraulic fracture stimulation

• No indirect impact on water-dependent ecosystems was detected.

• Due to the scale of operations, in terms of water requirements, the 
stage of shale gas production will differ significantly from the 
current exploration stage in Poland.

• Further exploratory/production operations should be preceded by:
– site specific water supply study (incl. alternative water sources)
– baseline status of surface and groundwater (quality and quantity), 
– background concentrations of methane in groundwater, 
– baseline concentrations of methane in soil gas. 

• Special concern should be put on waste management, as high 

quantities of drilling wastes, flowback and produced water might pose 
hazards to natural environment on site and elsewhere. 

• Ensuring safety of the environment and sufficient public perception 
and safety in production areas will require an adequate control of 
technical operations and the establishment of uniform monitoring 
system, with special regard to water supply reservoirs q & q.

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

mkon@pgi.gov.pl

mwoz@pgi.gov.pl

Polish Geological Institute
National Research Institute

Polish Geological  Institute 
National Research Institute

www.pgi.gov.pl

3

21/01/2016

Potential hazards of shale gas operations 

Professor Peter Styles
Keele University
United Kingdom

http://www.sheerproject.eu

Fracking in  the UK: as decided by Lancashire 
Planning Authority Yesterday!

Work Packages

✪

Council Rejects Both 
Proposed Sites on 
Traffic and Noise
(not on geological 
grounds!)

DESCRIPTION 

SHEER DISTINCTIVE FEATURES 

The objective of SHEER is to develop best practices for assessing and mitigating

the environmental footprint of shale gas exploration and exploitation.

SHEER will develop a probabilistic procedure for assessing short and long-term risks
associated with:

o To develop procedures to assess time-dependent

vulnerability of infrastructures, life-lines, and socio-
economic assets to different possible hazards, to
perform a multi-risk analysis.

– Groundwater contamination

By chemicals contained in the flow back, formation, produced and waste waters;

– Air pollution

By migration of fugitive methane through induced and natural fractures and mobilization of
radioactive particles and gases from the underground

– Induced seismicity

From fracking and injection of waste water

o To implement the developed framework for one

of the case-studies.

o To carry out a comparative analysis between the
impacts of shale gas operations and impacts
related to exploitation of alternative energy
sources.

1

21/01/2016

DESCRIPTION 

The severity of each hazard depends  strongly on the

DESCRIPTION 

unexpected enhanced permeability pattern

(cid:190) An important part of SHEER will be devoted to

which may develop as an unwanted 
by-product of the fracking 
processes and may become 
pathways for gas and fluid 
migration towards underground 
water reservoirs or the surface.

monitoring and understanding how far this enhanced

permeability pattern can develop in space and time as a

consequence of shale gas exploitation.

(cid:190) The hazards may be at least partially inter-related as they

all depend on this enhanced permeability pattern.

Therefore they will be approached from a

(cid:190) multi-hazard and multi risk perspective.

SHEER DISTINCTIVE FEATURES 

MULTI-RISK ANALYSIS

Probabilistic methodology for assessing short and long-term risks

To implement an effective mechanism to identify and structure scenarios of 

risk interactions and cascading effects, taking into account the phase of 

development of the project:

o Drilling, Hydraulic stimulation, Production, Abandonment

o To develop and implement physically-based, probabilistic tools for the 

assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of interrelated risk scenarios 

with  regard to:

o Induced seismicity

o Ground water pollution

o Air pollution

SHEER

SHale gas Exploration and Exploitation 
induced Risks

WP 3.3. 
Monitoring of groundwater condition

WP5
Assessment of Groundwater Chemistry

Andrew Gunning 
RSK W Ltd

SHEER - Developing guidelines for risk management of shale gas  060515 

Groundwater  Research work programme

• TASK 3.3  - Onsite monitoring

IGF PAS,RSKW

• TASK 5.1  - Develop Generic Settings:

RSKW, UGL

• TASK 5.2   - Detailed Hydrogeological modelling:

RSKW, UGL

• TASK 5.3  - Recommendations for best practice:

UGL, RSKW

Impact on drinking water aquifers is a
key issue in shale oil and gas

An assessment of potential impacts of shale gas/tight oil exploration and 
development on groundwater resources, in terms of possible pollution or resource 
impairment,  requires an investigation of three possible scenarios, as shown in 
Figure 1, in which groundwater could be impacted:

• At surface : spills of pollutants &/or 
contaminants; disposal of flowback;

• Around the well‐bore as a result of a failure 
in well integrity in which drilling fluids or 
flow back is allowed to escape into 
surrounding strata;

• Through groundwater flow arising from

fracture stimulation

Risks associated with the transfer of contaminants through surface activity such 
as spills of contaminants are not included within the research proposal. 

2

21/01/2016

Research Objectives

Research Objectives

WP5 - Assessment Of Groundwater Chemistry [Months: 1-36]
RSK W Ltd, IGF PAS, KeU, UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

WP3.3 - Assessment Of Groundwater Chemistry [Months: 1-36]
RSK W Ltd, IGF PAS, KeU

WP5 will characterise baseline conditions and potential impacts on drinking water 
supplies in  shale gas plays within  Europe. Assessment of potential impacts of shale 
gas exploration and development on groundwater resources, in terms of possible 
pollution or resource impairment, requires  investigation of three  scenarios  in which 
groundwater could be impacted:

•

•

•

Well integrity

Abandoned well legacies.

Fracture simulation eg changes in ground water flow and the potential for 
enhanced gas or fluid migration through high permeability pathways.

Task 5.1 . Develop Generic Settings (Task Leader: Andrew Gunning – RSK; UGL

Task 5.2. Detailed Hydrogeological modelling  (Task Leader: Andrew Gunning –

RSK; UGL

A groundwater flow and chemistry monitoring will consist of at least one deep test well during a 
fracture stimulation to establish hydrogeological baseline condition and design a groundwater 
monitoring regime to sample specific zones. 

This information will then be used to assess the impact of:

• Anthropogenic influences – existing/abandoned wells for surface spill of pollutants
• Well integrity failure;
•Groundwater flow arising from fracture stimulation.

Long–term hydro-chemical sampling will include the analysis of methane within groundwater. 

•Piezometric data testing modifications in groundwater flow caused by fracture stimulation .

•Basic hydrogeological data using hand held field equipment

•Pump tests  will be carried out to determine of hydrogeological parameters of the test zone.

Task 5.3. Recommendation for best practice (Task Leader: Paul Younger – UGL; 

RSK)

•Equipment will be installed once the well is case with intensive sampling following installation 
and fracture stimulation but at other at intervals sufficient to identify trends.

SHEER DISTINCTIVE FEATURES 

GW Monitoring Plan 

DATA GATHERING

At a site in Poland:  

Opportunity to monitor the site and collect whole-

•1 hydrometric network – objective recharge

life-cycle data from the site preparation phase to

the production phase

Polish shale gas site
Municipality: Gmina Liniewo

•4 boreholes to collect and analyse  samples for a range of 
determinants including CH4 with piezo’s installed to monitor 
groundwater pressures.

Geology

(cid:131)Quaternary glacial and fluvio-glacial deposits, silts, sands, peat, 

overlying eroded Tertiary (Miocene) – very eroded, buried valleys 

(cid:131)Mesozoic bedrock at depth.

Wysin

The
groundwater
monitoring wells consist of at
least 4 wells >200mm diameter,
drilled to c 75 metres (mbgl).

The well locations are as follows:

•GW1 – Upstream of
groundwater
drilling pad

direction of
flow relative to the main

•GW2 – Midway (800m) above lateral of
Wysin 2H

•GW3 - Midway (800m) above lateral from
Wysin 3H

•GW4 - Downstream of direction of
groundwater
flow relative to the main
drilling pad

•GW5 – if required.

3

Thanks
Any questions

21/01/2016

4

Introducing NGS FACTS:
public disclosure of 
hydraulic fracturing 
chemicals

Alessandro Torello, IOGP
June 30, 2015

www.ngsfacts.org responds to a 
transparency need

• EU may have

significant shale
potential

•

Industry benefits from
knowledge sharing

• Public is concerned

by chemicals

IOGP: Producing Half of the World’s 
Oil, a Third of the Natural Gas

Our main objective: promote safe, responsible and sustainable operations

North America

Anadarko
API
Baker Hughes
CAPP
Chevron
CNR International
ConocoPhillips
Devon Energy
ExxonMobil
Hess Corporation
Husky Energy

IADC
IAGC
Kosmos Energy
Marathon Oil
Nexen Inc.
Noble Energy
Pemex
Schlumberger
Suncor
Talisman Energy

36 members active  in region

South America

ARPEL
IBP
Pan American

Petrobras
PLUSPETROL

31 members active  in region

Europe

Afren plc
ASSOMMINERARIA
BG Group
BP
Cairn Energy
DONG Energy
E.ON Ruhrgas AS
Energy Institute

Eni
Fairfield  Energy
GALP Energia
GdF Suez
IOOA
IPIECA
Maersk Oil
MOL Group plc

NOGEPA
Norwegian Oil & Gas
Oil Gas Denmark
Oil & Gas UK
OMV
Perenco Holdings
Premier  Oil
Repsol

RWE Dea AG

Shell
Statoil
Total
Tullow Oil
WEG
Wintershall

43 members active  in region

Africa

Sasol

Sonangol

41 members active  in region

Middle East

ADNOC
Dolphin Energy
Dragon Oil
Kuwait Oil

Qatar Petroleum
RasGas
Yemen LNG

33 members active  in region

Russia & Caspian region

JSOC Bashneft

NCOC

21 members active  in region

Asia & Australia

APPEA
BHPBilliton
Cairn India
CNOOC
INPEX

Origin Energy
Papuan Oil Search
Petronas
PTTEP
Woodside

32 members active  in region

(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:4)

Chemicals disclosure for the public

• Energy Community
since 1st Jan 2011

• By country, well on a

map

• <5% of chemicals

listed as trade secrets

• IOGP hosts the data

Public

IOGP

Uploads/hosts the data

Operator

Verifies the data

Service provider

Provides the data

All well data have been submitted by the relevant well operator and whilst IOGP has taken care to publish these accurately on the website 
neither IOGP nor the well operator shall be liable for any use of or reliance on such data by any third party or member of the public.

www.ngsfacts.org is… a website!
Natural Gas from Shale Fluid and Additive Component Transparency Service

Accessing the information

3.

1.

2.

• Voluntary

disclosure of HF
components

• Open to all
operators

• Complement to
other initiatives
(OPPPW*)

Fracturing fluids are typically composed of: >90% water, 9% sand, <1% chemicals

* See: http://www.opppw.pl/en/fracturing_fluid_composition/23

1

In conclusion, www.ngsfacts.org is 
about…

Shale fluids

Transparency

Thank you!

For more information please contact:

Alessandro Torello
Communications Manager
at@iogp.org 

www.iogp.org

Registered Office
Level 5
209-215 Blackfriars Rd
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 3763 9700
F +44 (0)20 3763 9701
reception@iogp.org

Brussels Office
Bd du Souverain,165
4th Floor
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium
T +32 (0)2 566 9150
F +32 (0)2 566 9159

8

2

IPCheM
The European Commission
Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring 

Improving comparability

Understanding complexity 

Enhancing access

Sharing data

Smarter regulation

Identifying threats

Reusing interoperable 

components

17.11.2014

EU Monitoring programmes

MATRICES

Food and Feed
monitoring

Environmental
monitoring

Human
bio‐monitoring

Product & indoor 
air
monitoring

REASONS

EU legislation/initiatives
WFD,  MSFD, Air quality directive, Drinking 
water directive, MRLs in food/feed, 
REACH, Market surveillance regulation, 
etc.

DATA PROVIDERS

MSs Authorities

Research Institutes

International obligations/initiatives
OSPAR, HELCOM, Stockholm 
Convention, EMEP, AMAP, WHO, 
UNEP, etc.

National legislation/initiatives
Surveys, etc.

Universities

JRC

Industry

Scientific curiosity

Why IPCheM?
The lack of information on the chemical exposure and burden on the humans 
and the environment is a major gap in knowledge base for the European chemical 
policies. 

(cid:206) It is not possible to assess the real impact of chemicals and their mixtures 

(cid:206) It is difficult to assess effectiveness of policies

(cid:206) Ad‐hoc collections are very time demanding and inefficient

IPCheM requested by:
COM/2012/0252 final: The combination effects of chemicals – Chemical mixtures

7th Environment Action Programme. Priority objective 5: to improve the knowledge 
and evidence base for Union environment policy

Data collection, management & assessment

Food and Feed
monitoring

Environmental
monitoring

Human
bio‐monitoring

Collection of data well established (EFSA)
Specific calls for data
RASFF (SANCO)

No systematic collection exists
Good initiatives but limited – WISE, AIRBASE (EEA)

No systematic collection exists
COPHES, DEMOCOPHES – EU projects 

Product & indoor 
air
monitoring

No systematic collection exists
Some data in RAPEX (SANCO)

s
e
g
a
k
n

i
l
‐
r
e
t
n

i

o
N

Background

Scope statement for IPCheM

Definition and background

COM/2012/0252 final: The combination effects of chemicals – Chemical mixtures

“Support improved understanding of the chemical mixtures to which human populations and the natural 
environment are actually exposed”… “through the creation of a platform for chemical monitoring data. 
This would help identify links between exposure and epidemiological data in order to explore potential 

biological effects and lead to improved health outcomes.” 

7th Environment Action Programme

Priority objective 5: to improve the knowledge and evidence base for Union environment 
policy

This requires “developing a comprehensive chemical exposure and toxicity knowledge base which draws 
on data generated without animal testing where possible. Continuing the Union's coordinated approach to 

human and environmental biomonitoring including, where appropriate, standardisation of research 
protocols and assessment criteria

IPCheM is a single access point for discovering and retrieving chemical monitoring data

IPCheM is design as 
(cid:131) a distributed infrastructure
(cid:131) avoiding data duplication and information systems replication
(cid:131) respecting any condition of data access and use defined by Data Providers

Objectives
(cid:131) Facilitate access to chemical monitoring data
(cid:131) Provide hosting facilities for data currently not properly stored
(cid:131) Promote and improve data quality and comparability
(cid:131) Facilitate assessment

1

 
Scope statement for IPCheM

Scientific challenge(cid:198) climb the “data comparability” ladder

Project approach

(cid:132) It covers only chemical monitoring data; other data (e.g. hazard, emissions,

physicochemical properties) are not integrated to IPCheM but can be linked to
it

(cid:132) Data providers: Commission Services, EU Agencies, EU Member States, 

international and national organisations, researchers

“IPCheM should further strive to improve comparability of 
the data by promoting standardisation of data and 
metadata and improvement of quality assurance standards” 
(IPCheM Scoping Paper)

(cid:132) Users: Commission Services, EU Agencies, MSs, international and national 
organisations, researchers and public, respecting existing access and use 
conditions

Benefits in  chemical monitoring domain:
(cid:131) evaluate multi‐media and multi ‐ pathway exposure for human risk assessment 

(cid:131) evaluate  time trends in the levels of chemicals in the environment and in humans 

(cid:131) evaluate the  efficacy of policy measures for reducing exposures in the environment and in humans 

(cid:131) prioritise further research, monitoring and policy measured for protecting the environment and  human

health from chemical exposure threaths

Structure

Project management and governance

Environmental monitoring data

Human Biomonitoring

Food and feed

EEA

EEA

EFSA

Indoor air and products

IHCP JRC

PROJECT GOVERNANCE

4 thematic modules

Approach

1ST level: metadata page 
Information about data collection, e.g.: 
• Spatial and temporal coverage
• media
• Chemicals and related UoM
• Conditions of data access and use
• Responsible Body and PoC
• Links (home page, db app.) 

Chemical name
CAS   number

Unique search interface
•
•
• Module 
• Media
•
•

Spatial coverage
Temporal coverage (V2)

2ND level: page of results
• Visualisation of data values 

(concentrations) into the Master Table
• Additional specific filters based on data 

structure

• Sample  site/station info
• Temporal  trends
• Spatial search and query refinement
• Possibility to save the results into the

Basket

The Master table was originally based on the simple 
identification of the minimum set of information domain‐
related and common to all data collections to be integrated 
in IPCheM:
•
• with declared UoMs
•
•
•

collected in different matrices/media
in a certain “period”
in a certain “location”

concentration measurements of 1‐n substances

Information provided by DP or
automatically extracted from the DBs

Scientific challenge(cid:198) handle heterogeneity in a transparent way

Status of development

Status of Development

AIRBASE

AIRMEX

WFD priority substances

RAPEX

IPCheM is a de‐centralised system 
establishing remote access to existing 
data collections

• Current version: First release open to European Commission and European Agencies

Feb.  2013Start of IPCheM development – 3 year project

June 2013

June 2015 IPCheM Internet 
public version

December 2014

Dec. 2013

2

IPCheM is an initiative involving the active participation of a large number of partners.

Vision for the future

H01
Scientific 
support 

European 
Media 
Monitor for 
IPCheM

JRC
IES

JRC
IPSC

H06
Design and 
Development

Module 
Coordinator
Products and 
Indoor Air

External partners

6 DGs, 3 EU Agencies, Member 
States, Research Consortia

JRC
IHCP

direct links 
to 
ChemAgora

feedback

Contact and 
collaboration 
OECD activities

(cid:198) Fitting  IPCheM into the  International knowledge framework  (e.g. OECD)

(cid:198) IPCheM the official repository of the outcomes of relevant research projects (already in 
line with RDA principles)

(cid:198) IPCheM a 'two‐way alert' system between environmental and food monitoring (to flag 
up contamination)

(cid:198) IPCheM a support system for knowledge on exposure‐dose‐response relationships 
(correlation of health with exposure threats)

Next step of the project
Enhancement of interoperability with information systems of the same domain to enlarge 
the knowledge framework of effects on chemicals and mixtures

IPCheM in eChemPortal

http://rdsi-portal-dev.jrc.it/RDSIdiscovery/ipchem/index.html#discovery/35065-28-2

IPCheM link

Next steps of development

•

•

IPCheM Internet public Version (for the IPCheM Conference, 19th June 2015) 

Implementation of the authentication  and authorization tool  to allow different 
levels of data accessibility to different groups of  user

• Upgraded version for download options (formats, metadata info, quality flag)

• Map‐viewer version 2

•

•

Statistic tool ‐ advanced version 1

Feasibility  and pilot version for sub‐structure search

3

L
B
-
N
A
-
2
7
7
4
9
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s 
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing 
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation 
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2788/922935 

ISBN 978-92-79-55329-5 

2