Posts

Staff Spotlight: Kyle Ferrar

As part of our staff spotlight series, learn more about Kyle Ferrar and why he works with FracTracker Alliance to conduct and communicate research on the public health impacts associated with the oil and gas / fossil fuel industry.  

Time with FracTracker: I’ve been working with FracTracker since its inception in 2010, and started as an official staff member in July, 2014.

Nickname: Ky

Education: BS from the University of Pittsburgh; and MPH from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, where I am currently a DrPH candidate.

Office Location: I have an office in downtown Oakland, CA.

Title: Western Program Coordinator

What do you actually do in that role?

My major role as the Western Program Coordinator consists of a variety of responsibilities of operating a FracTracker Alliance branch office. In addition to the contributions of analyses and research that is documented on FracTracker’s California (and other western states’) page, my activities include fundraising, community outreach, and acting as an expert adviser on public health impacts for policy makers, regulators, other research institutions, at conferences, and directly to the public.

Kyle Ferrar spotlight image

Kyle Ferrar (right) taking water samples

Previous Position and Organization

My previous research as a staff member with the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC) at the University of Pittsburgh focused on public health impacts from various sectors of the fossil fuel industry, including Marcellus Shale development. In the picture to the right, you can see a CHEC colleague and I collecting water samples from the Allegheny River, next to a coal fired power plant.

How did you first get involved working on oil and gas issues / fracking?

As a steward to my local environment in Southwestern Pennsylvania, I was alerted of the concerns many residents were feeling as a result of the rapid increase of industrial presence in rural Pennsylvania resulting from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction. The connections our CHEC had made in the past using community based participatory research methods to address and study other sources of environmental degradation were a vital resource for understanding what was really happening – on the ground.

What is one of the most impactful projects that you have been involved in with FracTracker?

The majority of my time is spent working on my computer, and cleaning and massaging datasets in spreadsheets. This is necessary and important, but incredibly tedious and far-removed. One project in 2015 that started this way, as most do, became much more personal. Working with a group called Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, we identified the fact that Hispanic students and other students of color are more likely to attend schools near active oil and gas wells than white students. This was also true for hydraulically fractured (stimulated) oil and gas wells. Now, no student should have to go to school near this type of activity, but California does not have minimum setback requirements for schools or any other sensitive sites.

Meeting and working with the families of the students – and the students themselves that attend schools in the midst of the oil and gas wastelands – drives me to continue working for a future free from the fossil-fuel industry. No child should have to go to school near oil and gas fields to get an education. And as is typically the case, non-white and Hispanic communities in California bear the heaviest burden.

Check back soon to read the analysis described above. It will be the focus of my next blog piece.

Feature Image: Kyle Ferrar (left) with colleagues from CRPE

Colorado Setbacks, One Step Forward?

By Sierra Shamer, Visiting Scholar, FracTracker Alliance

longmont

OurLongmont.org sign supporting the city’s ban on fracking

In 2012, citizens of Longmont, Colorado voted to increase setback distances of oil and gas infrastructure from occupied buildings. As well pads and storage facilities crept closer to homes, schools, and playgrounds, concerns of air, water, and noise pollution steadily grew. These regulations to protect public health and safety in Longmont culminated in an outright ban of hydraulic fracturing / directional drilling within their boundary. This prompted the state regulatory agency, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to sue the town, arguing that only the state has the power to regulate energy development. While the suit was dropped, the ban was overruled in 2014 in the Boulder District Court, determining that the city did not have the authority to prohibit what is permitted throughout the state. The city motioned for a Stay Pending Appeal and it was granted by the court – the ban on fracking in Longmont will stay in effect until the case is settled.

In response to these local challenges of oil and gas expansion, the COGCC passed new setback rules. However, with loopholes, exceptions, and an increasing awareness of public health and safety threats, Coloradans have continued to demand increased and enforced setback distances. This article highlights the issue of setback regulations in Colorado, featuring a map of Weld County that exemplifies the statewide expansion of fracking wells into communities.

Colorado Setbacks Regulation

The COGCC passed new setback rules for oil and gas facilities in February of 2013 with a stated purpose of decreasing the “potential adverse health and safety risks to the public and the environment, including spills, odors, noise, dust, and lighting.” Prior rules permitted drilling within 150 feet of occupied buildings in a rural area and within 350 feet in an urban area. A COGCC report in October 2013 stated that 600 oil and gas locations were located within 500 feet of occupied buildings, 26% of the total. The new regulations increased the minimum setback distance to 500 feet, adding a 350-foot setback from outdoor recreational areas such as playgrounds or sports fields, and a 1,000-foot setback from high occupancy building such as schools or hospitals. It also included 1,000-foot buffer distances from these outdoor areas and buildings within which facilities are permitted but require increased on-site mitigation to prevent air, noise, and water pollution. These rules took effect on August 1, 2013.

Setback Success?

Colorado’s setback rules have been criticized by organizations, activists, landowners, and researchers who argue that the loopholes and exemptions allowed by the COGCC make the rules ineffective, and even if they were enforced, the modest increase in setback distance would not adequately protect citizens from negative impacts. Exceptions to the rules, shown in the table below, are included the regulations and are available for the majority of setback distances identified, allowing oil and gas facilities to continue development in close proximity to communities. The Western Resource Advocates, a conservation organization in Colorado, identifies two commonplace built-in exceptions to the 500-foot minimum setback rule: the “Beware Thy Neighbor” exception, allows surface landowners the ability to allow wells within setback distances, and the “Expansion Exception,” which allows active well pads the ability to expand even if they are within the new setback distances. If exceptions are granted, the facility must include additional mitigation measures to lessen air and noise pollution and safeguard against potential spills due to the proximity of communities.

Exceptions to Setback Rules CO

Source: COGCC

In 2015, the University of Denver and the Sierra Club conducted a review of compliance with these setback regulations, finding that 181 permits approved after the rules were enacted lacked legally required information. These permits will result in 951 wells, 1221 oil and condensate tanks, and 932 separators throughout the state, concentrated in counties like Garfield, La Plata, and Weld that have the most widespread oil and gas development. This review identified that in Weld County, permits for 798 wells, 1140 tanks, and 800 separators lacked critical information the COGCC required.

In February of this year, a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives evaluated the adequacy of setbacks in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado. The researchers concluded that the current s setbacks are insufficient to protect public health and safety, leaving communities vulnerable. Further, they claim while that there is no defined setback that will ensure the safety of a population, all three states should adopt larger setbacks distances and increased mitigation measures.

Continued Demands

Armed with health and safety information, evidence of COGCC lack of enforcement, and the lived experiences of Coloradans, communities and groups are organizing around ballot initiatives. These initiatives would become part of the state constitution, and would to increase setback distances and secure the ability of local governments to determine where development occurs within their boundaries. Unlike the internal rules and regulations determined by the COGCC, these additions to the state constitution would offer no exceptions.

The Western Colorado Congress (WCC) a group that organizes communities around threats to environmental and public health, advocated in 2013 for 1,000-foot setbacks from homes and 1,500-foot setbacks from schools. They continue to push for increased distances and support ballot initiatives that allow local governmental control of oil and gas development. Current ballot initiatives, created by Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development (CREED) demand local government control of oil and gas infrastructure and 2,500-foot setbacks from homes, schools, outdoor recreation areas, and sources of drinking water. This setback distance is based on a Colorado health study, concluding that people living with a half-mile of wells had an increased risk of illness than those further away.

Weld County: A Closer Look

Weld County has experienced dramatic oil and gas development, with increasing infrastructure permitted closer and closer to residents’ homes and communities. Currently, there are over 12,200 directional wells in Weld County and over 35,300 wells in total. The map below uses data accessed from the COGGC on April 7th, 2016 and address points data from Weld County. The address points are located within the center of homes, and while setbacks distances are measured from the center of the well pad to the nearest wall of the building, the address points still demonstrate the proximity and danger of encroaching infrastructure. The map identifies directional wells permitted within the designated setback of 500 feet and the buffer zone of 1,000 feet and pending directional wells within proposed 1,000 and 2,500-foot setbacks. Address points within these setbacks are identified, and if you select the Directional Lines layer, the underground directional well lines become visible.

Map of wells and setbacks in Weld County, CO

View map full screen | How FracTracker maps work

The state, the COGCC, and the industry oppose these initiatives, arguing that it will hinder the economic development of Colorado and threaten state control of regulation. Industry advocates have claimed that a 2,500-foot setback would eliminate 87% of new operations in Weld County. This strong opposition often results in such initiatives being dropped or voted out, a reality that occurred earlier this month when two of three initiatives relating to oil and gas were voted down the state house of representatives.

Currently, 48% of addresses (around 53,700) in Weld County are within 2,500 feet of at least one directional well, and 9% are within 1,000 feet. Since August 2013, 16 directional wells have been permitted within 500 feet of buildings, and 207 have been permitted within 1,000 feet. Regarding new operations in Weld County, of the 379 pending directional wells, 319 of them are within 2,500 feet of homes – around 84% – slightly less than the industry claimed, but close. However, is important to note that many pending wells are planned on existing well pads, constructed prior to the new rules, and can be given exceptions. Additionally, the technology of directional drilling allows greater flexibility. When viewing the directional lines on the map, it is clear that wells can be drilled in any direction from a well pad, suggesting that companies could place surface wells further away from homes and still access the underground resource.

Moving Forward With Setbacks

Demands for protection from oil and gas encroachment are steadily increasing. The group, Coloradans Against Fracking, a large coalition of organizations, has endorsed the 2016 ballot initiatives put forward by CREED. It is clear that the state can accept continuous challenges to oil and gas development, particularly if rules and regulations are neglected at the expense of public health and safety.

Feature image by Western Colorado Congress (WCC).

Flooded well and toppled oil storage tanks in Weld County, Colorado 2013. Rick Wilking/Reuters

Oil and Gas Flood Contamination Risk Incalculable on CO Front Range

By Sierra Shamer, Visiting Scholar, FracTracker Alliance

Historic 2013 flooding in the Colorado Front Range damaged homes, bridges, roads, and other infrastructure — including hundreds of oil and gas facilities. Companies shut down wells and scrambled to contain spills in their attempts to prevent extensive water contamination. Colorado has since adopted new regulations that require oil and gas companies to identify and secure all infrastructures located within floodplains. However, FEMA’s Flood Hazard maps, which the state uses to calculate flood risk, are largely incomplete, leaving only the industry accountable for reporting facilities that may be at risk in future flooding events. This article highlights the unknown flood contamination risk threatening the Front Range by oil and gas, and the featured map identifies known floodplain infrastructure.

Front Range Realities

CO Front Range counties re: flood contamination risk

Counties of the Colorado Front Range

The Colorado Front Range is the most populated region of the state, covering 17 counties and 7 cities including Boulder, Denver, and Colorado Springs. This region has experienced devastating flash flooding events throughout history, most notably the Big Thompson flood of 1976, which dumped 12-14 inches of rain along the Front Range in only 4-6 hours. The 2013 Colorado Front Range Flood brought almost 15 inches to the region, 9 of which falling within a period of 24 hours. A state of emergency was declared in the region and recovery projects continue to this day.

The Front Range region is not only one of the most populated in Colorado, it is also home to 40% of Colorado’s oil and gas wells. Oil and gas development occurs so rapidly that data reports on pending permits, active permits, and well locations are updated daily by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). The damage to oil and gas facilities due to the 2013 floods prompted the COGCC to adopt Rule 603.h, requiring companies to identify proposed and current infrastructure within the floodplain and to create flood mitigation and response plans. On April 1st of this year, all companies with existing infrastructure must comply with Rule 603.h. With over 109,000 wells in the state, an incomplete FEMA database, and only 22 field inspectors, the COGCC has limited capacity to ensure these reports identify all infrastructure within the floodplain.

FEMA Floodplain Gaps

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains a national map of the 100-year floodplain for insurance determinations that are in the process of being digitized. These maps show the extent of flooding expected from rain events with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. They are determined by a combination of topography, satellite imagery, and maps from local jurisdictions. However, in many portions of the western US, these mapped areas are incomplete, including large regions of Colorado. FEMA maps are also the primary floodplain data source used by industry and the by the COGCC. The map below shows the oil and gas infrastructure that is located within the known digital 100-year floodplain as of early February 2016. This map underrepresents the actual number of facilities within the floodplains due to incomplete FEMA data, but provides a clear visual of a widespread problem.

Known Floodplain Infrastructure Map

View full screen map | How to work with our maps | Download map data

Although FEMA is routinely working to update their dataset, large regions with widespread extraction remain digitally unmapped. While there is accessible floodplain info for the companies to use to determine their status and for the COGCC to verify what the industry reports, the incomplete digitized FEMA data means there is no accessible or efficient way for the COGCC to know if there is infrastructure within a floodplain that hasn’t been reported. This means that more is at risk here than we can calculate. Weld County, a Front Range county and recipient of severe flooding in 2013, starkly exemplifies this reality. In the aftermath of the 2013 flood, Weld County became a disaster zone when 1,900 oil and gas wells were shut down, submerged completely by the rushing water, as thousands of gallons of oil drained out. Until January 2016, Weld County lacked digitally mapped floodplains, and currently only 16% of the river and stream network is available.

The table below lists the percentages of oil and gas infrastructure that exist in Weld County alone that can be calculated using this limited dataset. As of February of this year, 3,475 wells of 35,009 are within the known floodplain in Weld County. Of greater concern, 74% of pending permits statewide are in Weld County – 5% of those in the known floodplain – indicating either an underestimation of flood risk, a blatant disregard of it, or both.

table_v2

Flooding in the Future

According to the CO Climate Change Vulnerability Study, the state expects a 2.5–5 degree Fahrenheit annual temperature increase by 2050. While this increase is likely to cause earlier spring runoff, more rain at lower elevations, and higher evaporation rates, it is unclear if annual precipitation will increase or decrease with rising temperatures. This uncertainty makes it difficult to know if increased flood risk is in the future. Current flood risk, however, is a known threat. The CO Department of Public Safety’s Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan calculates, based on historical events, that Colorado experiences a flood disaster once every five years. This means that each year, there is a 20% chance a major flood will occur. With incomplete data, limited oversight, and uncertain future trends, oil and gas flood contamination risk is incalculable – and on the Front Range, the majority of Colorado’s population, extractive industry, and environment are in danger.

Dealing with the Unknown

The unknown risks of climate change and known risks of historical flood trends emphasize that identifying oil and gas infrastructure in floodplains must be a high priority for the COGCC. These realities also put into question whether or not future infrastructures should be permitted within floodplains at all. In April, floodplain infrastructure will be identified by the industry and when these data are made available, a more accurate analysis of risk will me made.

Feature photo shows a flooded well and toppled oil storage tanks in Weld County, Colorado 2013 – by Rick Wilking/Reuters.

FracTracker map of the density of wells by U.S. state as of 2015

1.7 Million Wells in the U.S. – A 2015 Update


 

Updated National Well Data

By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data & Technology

In February 2014, the FracTracker Alliance produced our first version of a national well data file and map, showing over 1.1 million active oil and gas wells in the United States. We have now updated that data, with the total of wells up to 1,666,715 active wells accounted for.

Density by state of active oil and gas wells in the United States. Click here to access the legend, details, and full map controls. Zoom in to see summaries by county, and zoom in further to see individual well data. Texas contains state and county totals only, and North Carolina is not included in this map. 

While 1.7 million wells is a substantial increase over last year’s total of 1.1 million, it is mostly attributable to differences in how we counted wells this time around, and should not be interpreted as a huge increase in activity over the past 15 months or so. Last year, we attempted to capture those wells that seemed to be producing oil and gas, or about ready to produce. This year, we took a more inclusive definition. Primarily, the additional half-million wells can be accounted for by including wells listed as dry holes, and the inclusion of more types of injection wells. Basically anything with an API number that was not described as permanently plugged was included this time around.

Data for North Carolina are not included, because they did not respond to three email inquiries about their oil and gas data. However, in last year’s national map aggregation, we were told that there were only two active wells in the state. Similarly, we do not have individual well data for Texas, and we use a published list of well counts by county in its place. Last year, we assumed that because there was a charge for the dataset, we would be unable to republish well data. In discussions with the Railroad Commission, we have learned that the data can in fact be republished. However, technical difficulties with their datasets persist, and data that we have purchased lacked location values, despite metadata suggesting that it would be included. So in short, we still don’t have Texas well data, even though it is technically available.

Wells by Type and Status

Each state is responsible for what their oil and gas data looks like, so a simple analysis of something as ostensibly straightforward as what type of well has been drilled can be surprisingly complicated when looking across state lines. Additionally, some states combine the well type and well status into a single data field, making comparisons even more opaque.

Top 10 of 371 published well types for wells in the United States.

Top 10 of 371 published well types for wells in the United States.

Among all of the oil producing states, there are 371 different published well types. This data is “raw,” meaning that no effort has been made to combine similar entries, so “gas, oil” is counted separately from “GAS OIL,” and “Bad Data” has not been combined with “N/A,” either. Conforming data from different sources is an exercise that gets out of hand rather quickly, and utility over using the original published data is questionable, as well. We share this information, primarily to demonstrate the messy state of the data. Many states combine their well type and well status data into a single column, while others keep them separate. Unfortunately, the most frequent well type was blank, either because states did not publish well types, or they did not publish them for all of their wells.

There are no national standards for publishing oil and gas data – a serious barrier to data transparency and the most important takeaway from this exercise… 

Wells by Location

Active oil and gas wells in 2015 by state. Except for Texas, all data were aggregated published well coordinates.

Active oil and gas wells in 2015 by state. Except for Texas, all data were aggregated published well coordinates.

There are oil and gas wells in 35 of the 50 states (70%) in the United States, and 1,673 out of 3,144 (53%) of all county and county equivalent areas. The number of wells per state ranges from 57 in Maryland to 291,996 in Texas. There are 135 counties with a single well, while the highest count is in Kern County, California, host to 77,497 active wells.

With the exception of Texas, where the data are based on published lists of well county by county, the state and county well counts were determined by the location of the well coordinates. Because of this, any errors in the original well’s location data could lead to mistakes in the state and county summary files. Any wells that are offshore are not included, either. Altogether, there are about 6,000 wells (0.4%) are missing from the state and county files.

Wells by Operator

There are a staggering number of oil and gas operators in the United States. In a recent project with the National Resources Defense Council, we looked at violations across the few states that publish such data, and only for the 68 operators that were identified previously as having the largest lease acreage nationwide. Even for this task, we had to follow a spreadsheet of which companies were subsidiaries of others, and sometimes the inclusion of an entity like “Williams” on the list came down to a judgement call as to whether we had the correct company or not.

No such effort was undertaken for this analysis. So in Pennsylvania, wells drilled by the operator Exco Resources PA, Inc. are not included with those drilled by Exco Resources PA, Llc., even though they are presumably the same entity. It just isn’t feasible to systematically go through thousands of operators to determine which operators are owned by whom, so we left the data as is. Results, therefore, should be taken with a brine truck’s worth of salt.

Top 10 wells by operator in the US, excluding Texas. Unknown operators are highlighted in red.

Top 10 wells by operator in the US, excluding Texas. Unknown operators are highlighted in red.

Texas does publish wells by operator, but as with so much of their data, it’s just not worth the effort that it takes to process it. First, they process it into thirteen different files, then publish it in PDF format, requiring special software to convert the data to spreadsheet format. Suffice to say, there are thousands of operators of active oil and gas wells in the Lone Star State.

Not counting Texas, there are 39,693 different operators listed in the United States. However, many of those listed are some version of “we don’t know whose well this is.” Sorting the operators by the number of wells that they are listed as having, we see four of the top ten operators are in fact unknown, including the top three positions.

Summary

The state of oil and gas data in the United States is clearly in shambles. As long as there are no national standards for data transparency, we can expect this trend to continue. The data that we looked for in this file is what we consider to be bare bones: well name, well type, well status, slant (directional, vertical, or horizontal), operator, and location. In none of these categories can we say that we have a satisfactory sense of what is going on nationally.

Click on the above button to download the three sets of data we used to make the dynamic map (once you are zoomed in to a state level). The full dataset was broken into three parts due to the large file sizes.

Over 1.1 Million Active Oil and Gas Wells in the US

Many people ask us how many wells have been hydraulically fractured in the United States.  It is an excellent question, but not one that is easily answered; most states don’t release data on well stimulation activities.  Also, since the data are released by state regulatory agencies, it is necessary to obtain data from each state that has oil and gas data to even begin the conversation.  We’ve finally had a chance to complete that task, and have been able to aggregate the following totals:

Oil and gas summary data of drilled wells in the United States.

Oil and gas summary data of drilled wells in the United States.

 

While data on hydraulically fractured wells is rarely made available, the slant of the wells are often made accessible.  The well types are as follows:

  • Directional:  Directional wells are those where the top and the bottom of the holes do not line up vertically.  In some cases, the deviation is fairly slight.  These are also known as deviated or slant wells.
  • Horizontal:  Horizontal wells are directional wells, where the well bore makes something of an “L” shape.  States may have their own definition for horizontal wells.  In Alaska, these wells are defined as those deviating at least 80° from vertical.  Currently, operators are able to drill horizontally for several miles.
  • Directional or Horizontal:  These wells are known to be directional, but whether they are classified as horizontal or not could not be determined from the available data.  In many cases, the directionality was determined by the presence of directional sidetrack codes in the well’s API number.
  • Vertical:  Wells in which the top hole and bottom hole locations are in alignment.  States may have differing tolerances for what constitutes a vertical well, as opposed to directional.
  • Hydraulically Fractured:  As each state releases data differently, it wasn’t always possible to get consistent data.  These wells are known to be hydraulically fractured, but the slant of the well is unknown.
  • Not Fractured:  These wells have not been hydraulically fractured, and the slant of the well is unknown.
  • Unknown:  Nothing is known about the slant, stimulation, or target formation of the well in question.
  • Unknown (Shale Formation):  Nothing is known about the slant or stimulation of the wells in question; however, it is known that the target formation is a major shale play.  Therefore, it is probable that the well has been hydraulically fractured, with a strong possibility of being drilled horizontally.

Wells that have been hydraulically fractured might appear in any of the eight categories, with the obvious exception of “Not Fractured.”  Categories that are very likely to be fractured include, “Horizontal”, “Hydraulically Fractured”, and “Unknown (Shale Formation),” the total of which is about 32,000 wells.  However, that number doesn’t include any wells from Texas or Colorado, where we know thousands wells have been drilled into major shale formations, but the data had to be placed into categories that were more vague.

Oil and gas wells in the United States, as of February 2014. Location data were not available for Maryland (n=104), North Carolina (n=2), and Texas (n=303,909).  To access the legend and other map tools, click the expanding arrows icon in the top-right corner.

The standard that we attempted to reach for all of the well totals was for wells that have been drilled but have not yet been plugged, which is a broad spectrum of the well’s life-cycle.  In some cases, decisions had to be made in terms of which wells to include, due to imperfect metadata.

No location data were available for Maryland, North Carolina, or Texas.  The first two have very few wells, and officials in Maryland said that they expect to have the data available within about a month.  Texas location data is available for purchase, however such data cannot be redistributed, so it was not included on the map.

It should not be assumed that all of the wells that are shown in  the map above the shale plays and shale basin layers are actually drilled into shale.  In many cases, however, shale is considered a source rock, where hydrocarbons are developed, before the oil and gas products migrate upward into shallower, more conventional formations.

The raw data oil and gas data is available for download on our site in shapefile format.

 

USGS Stream Gages Helpful in Monitoring Risks in Shale-gas Extraction Regions

Weld County, CO - 9-14-13: A floating tank leaks an unknown fluid on flooded farm. (Photo By Andy Cross/The Denver Post)

Weld County, CO – 9-14-13: A floating tank leaks an unknown fluid on flooded farm (Photo By Andy Cross/The Denver Post)

By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

We’re now in the aftermath of September’s catastrophic floods in Colorado that hit Boulder and Weld counties notably hard, damaging or destroying 18,000 homes and killing at least 10 people. The gas industry has asserted that relatively little damage occurred; only 37,000 gallons of fluid escaped into the rural landscape, including over 5,200 gallons of crude oil that seeped directly into the South Platte River. According to Conoly Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, “In the context of hundreds of billions of gallons of rain, and millions of gallons of raw sewage, 37,000 gallons is pretty small.”

Environmentalists, however, say that the long-term impacts of the flooding cannot yet be determined. They also point out how the dangers of placing oil and gas rigs in flood-plain areas are a recipe for disaster. Amy Mall, policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted the sheer luck that most of the flooding occurred in areas where active fracking operations were not actually happening; most of these wells were already in production. About 1,900 wells were “shut in” in preparation for the predicted flooding, but storage tanks and other production-related equipment experienced the impacts of the flood waters.

FracTracker Alliance created the following map of United States Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gage stations across the Lower 48, in areas of mapped shale plays. Each of the USGS points is interactive. Pop-up bubbles allow the user to link directly to the USGS websites for that particular stream gage. Note that not all of the stream gages are currently active; some show only historic USGS data. Many sites, however, show a wealth of real-time information on stream discharge and allow the user to customize time parameters. USGS also includes stream gage height and contributing drainage area. Zooming into an area, users will also see wetlands delineated as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands may also be endangered by floods that pick up waste material from oil and gas extraction sites.

Click here to view the full-screen version of this map.

To view gas wells in a particular state, visit FracTracker’s state-by-state map gallery.

Links to more on the Colorado floods of September 2013: