Posts

Comparing Unconventional Drilling in Southwestern PA

By Matt Unger, GIS Intern, FracTracker Alliance

We recently received a request  for unconventional (fracking) drilling data in Southwestern Pennsylvania counties and municipalities. Specifically, the resident wanted to know the following information:

  1. Number of drilled wells in Southwestern PA counties, and in each municipality,
  2. How many wells are producing natural gas in each municipality, and
  3. The number of well violations reported there.

The following counties in Southwestern PA were studied (based on available electronic data): Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland.

The well production data was compiled from a production report found on the Pennsylvania DEP Office of Oil and Gas website. This report detailed production values from unconventional gas wells statewide from January 2014 – June 2014. The well violation data was compiled using the Pennsylvania DEP Office of Oil and Gas’s interactive Oil and Gas Compliance report. From here, a compliance report was created using the following criteria: All PA regions, counties, and municipalities, all well operators, unconventional wells only, and wells inspected from 1/1/2000 – 9/9/2014.

Drilling Data Trends

Once all of the data was compiled, we created a spreadsheet that included a ratio of violations/wells for each municipality and county. Below are a few observations that stood out to us, followed by possible explanations for what has been reported.

  • Slightly less than 1/3 of all wells drilled in the 11 counties selected for this analysis have committed some sort of violation (.31).
  • The ratio of violations to wells drilled in Somerset County is 1.38, by far the largest ratio discovered. This means than more than one violation has been cited for every well drilled in that area, but that does not mean that every well carries with it a violation. The second largest ratio would be Cambria County at 1.00.
  • If you break down the numbers and look at municipality trends, the largest violation/wells ratio by municipality is found in Stewart Township, Fayette County (9.00). There have been 18 reported violations in association with the 2 wells drilled in the area.
  • Of the 60 municipalities that recorded no violations, South Buffalo Township in Armstrong County has the most wells drilled with 20.
  • Across the 11 counties studied, Allegheny County has the lowest ratio of violation/wells (.007).
  • Violations were reported in Somerset Township, Somerset County. No wells were drilled in this area, however.
  • Violations were reported in Wayne Township, Greene County, yet no wells were reported to be drilled in the municipality.

Explaining Some Data Caveats

Why is Allegheny County seeing such a low violation/well ratio?

Across the 11 counties studied, Allegheny County has the lowest ratio of violation/wells (.007).

Allegheny is the most populated county studied in Southwestern PA. Oil and gas drillers in the county, therefore, have the largest audience watching them. This may be encouraging the drillers to be more cautious or follow rules and regulations more strictly. Another possible explanation is that inspectors may be more lenient when reporting violations in in Allegheny County. Additionally, drillers operating primarily in Allegheny County may be are more likely to or are more capable of drilling according to the regulations. A final possibility is that Allegheny County is one of the last counties in this region to be heavily drilled, perhaps allowing for more best practices to be implemented on site compared to well pads established early on.

Violations With No Wells?

Violations were reported in Somerset Township, Somerset County. No wells were drilled in this area, however. These violations could have occurred when constructing the well pad. If construction has stopped at this site since the violation, there would not have been any wells drilled. Additionally, there may be an error in the dataset as to the actual location (e.g. county) of the well pad.

Violations were reported in Wayne Township, Greene County, yet no wells were reported to be drilled in the municipality. The PA DEP has informed FracTracker that these violations were actually reported for a well pad located in Center Township, Greene County. The entry for Wayne Township was a recording error on their part. Our data has been updated to reflect the proper number of violations reported in Center Township, as well as the removal of any activity in Wayne Township.

Download the Spreadsheet

The spreadsheet we supplied to this resident can be downloaded as a compliance report.

Updated PA Map

Explore our map of PA unconventional wells and violations by clicking on the map below:

Last updated: September 19, 2014

 

Here They Come Again! The Impacts of Oil and Gas Truck Traffic

Part of the FracTracker Truck Counts Project
By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

I was recently invited by a community member to visit his home. It sits in a valley that is surrounded by drilling pads, as well as compressors and processing stations. While walking down the road that passes directly in front of his home, several caravans of gas trucks roared past and continued far into the evening. Our discussion about the unexpected barrage of this new invasion of intense truck traffic was frequently interrupted by the noise of the diesel engines passing nearby. Along with the noise, truck headlights pierced through the windows of the home, and dust flew up from the nearby road onto his garden.

There are many stories like this about homes and families impacted by the increased truck traffic associated with fracking-related activities. FracTracker is currently working with some of these communities to document the intensity of gas and oil trucks travelling their roads. In response to these concerns we have a launched a pilot Truck Counts project to provide support, resources, and networking opportunities to communities struggling with high volume gas truck traffic.

Preliminary Results

Volunteers in PA, WV, OH and WI have already started to participate in the project, with some interesting results, photos, observations, and suggestions.

TruckCountsChart

To-date, truck counts have varied significantly, as to be expected. Some of the sites where we chose to count passing trucks were very close to drilling activity, and some were more remote. While developing the counting protocol, we often included large equipment and tanker trucks, as well as gas company personnel vehicles (as indicated by white pickup trucks and company logos on the side). While the data vary, the spikes in truck counts do tell the story of a bigger and broader issue – the influx of heavy equipment during certain stages of drilling can be a significant burden on the local community. In total, we counted 676 trucks over 13 sites The average number of trucks that passed by per hour was 44, with a high of 116 an hour, and a low of 5.

About the Project

FracTracker Truck Counts partners with communities to: help identify issues of concern related to high volume gas truck traffic; collect data, photos, videos and narratives related to gas truck traffic; and analyze and share results through shared database and mapping options.

What motivates volunteers to join us in our Truck Counts program? Community concerns include dust, diesel exhaust, spills, accidents, along with other health and safety issues, as well as the cost and inconvenience of deteriorating road conditions resulting from the increased weights and numbers of vehicles. So, what do we already know about the extent of the damages caused by heavy truck traffic?

Public Safety

Several studies have found that shale gas development is strongly linked to increased traffic accidents and that the increases cannot be attributed only to more trucks and people on the road.

Unlike gas truck traffic issues from past oil and gas booms, this recent shale gas boom impacts traffic and public safety in many different ways. The hydraulic fracturing process requires 2,300 to 4,000 truck trips per well, where older drilling techniques needed one-third to one-half as many trips. Another difference is the speed of development that often far outpaces the capacity of communities to build better roads, bridges, install more traffic signals or hire extra traffic officers. Some experts explain increased truck traffic related accidents by pointing to regulatory loopholes such as federal rules that govern how long truckers can stay on the road being less stringent for drivers in the oil and gas industry. Others note that out of state drivers in charge of large heavy duty loads are not always accustomed to the regional weather patterns or the winding, narrow and hilly country roads that they travel.

An Associated Press analysis of traffic deaths in six drilling states shows that in some counties, fatalities have more than quadrupled since 2004 when most other American roads have become much safer in that period (even with growing populations). Marvin Odum, who runs Royal Dutch Shell’s exploration operations in the Americas, said that deadly crashes are “recognized as one of the key risk areas of the business”. Along with the community, gas truck drivers themselves are at risk. According to a study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, vehicle crashes are the single biggest cause of fatalities to oil and gas workers. The AP study finds that:

  •  In North Dakota drilling counties, the population has soared 43% over the last decade, while traffic fatalities increased 350%. Roads in those counties were nearly twice as deadly per mile driven than the rest of the state
  • From 2009-2013-
    • Traffic fatalities in West Virginia’s most heavily drilled counties…rose 42%. Traffic deaths in the rest of the state declined 8%.
    • In 21 Texas counties where drilling has recently expanded, deaths/100,000 people are up an average of 18 % while for the rest of Texas, they are down by 20%.
    • Traffic fatalities in Pennsylvania drilling counties rose 4%, while in the rest of the state they fell 19 %.
    • New Mexico’s traffic fatalities fell 29%, except in drilling counties, where they only fell 5%.

A separate analysis by Environment America using data from the Upper Great Plans Institute finds that – “While the expanding oil industry in North Dakota has produced many benefits, the expansion has also resulted in an increase in traffic, especially heavy truck traffic. This traffic has contributed to a number of crashes, some of which have resulted in serious injuries and fatalities.” In the Bakken Shale oil region of North Dakota, the number of highway crashes increased by 68% between 2006 and 2010, with the share of crashes involving heavy trucks also increasing over that period.”1

Truck accident and spill in WV. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.

Truck accident and spill in WV. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.

Public health concerns do not end with traffic accidents and fatalities. An additional cost of heavy gas truck traffic is the strain it places on emergency service personnel. A 2011 survey by State Impact Pennsylvania in eight counties found that:

Emergency services in heavily drilled counties face a troubling paradox: Even though their population has fallen in recent years, 911 call activity has spiked — by as high as 46 percent, in one case.” Along with the demands placed on emergency responders from the number of increased calls, it also takes extra time to locate the accidents since many calls are coming from transient drivers who “don’t know which road or township they are in.

In Bradford County, a heavily drilled area, increased traffic has delayed the response times of emergency vehicles. According to an article in The Daily Review, firefighters and emergency response teams are delayed due to the increased number of accidents, gas trucks breaking down, and gas trucks running out of fuel (some companies only allow refueling once a night).

Road Deterioration and Regional Costs

Roadway degradation from truck traffic. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.

Roadway degradation from truck traffic. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.

An additional cost often passed on to the impacted communities is infrastructure maintenance. In an article from Business Week, Lynne Irwin, director of Cornell University’s local roads program in Ithaca, New York, states, “Measures to ensure that roads are repaired don’t capture the full cost of damage, potentially leaving taxpayers with the bill.”

This Food and Water Watch Report calculated the financial burden imposed on rural counties by traffic accidents alone, estimating that if the heavy truck accident rate in fracked counties had matched those untouched by the boom, $28 million would have been saved.2

Garrett County is currently struggling with anticipating potential gas traffic and road costs. The Garrett County Shale Gas Advisory Committee uses recent studies from RESI ‘s New York and Pennsylvania data to project gas truck traffic for 6 wells/pad at 22,848 trips/pad and 91,392 total truck trips the first year with increasing numbers for the next 10 years. Like many counties, Garrett County also faces the issue that weights and road use are covered by State, not County code.  There is a possibility, however, that the County could determine best “routes” for the trucks. (This is a prime example of the need and benefit for truck counts.)

Although truck companies and contractors pay permit fees, often they are either insufficient to cover costs or are not accessible to impacted counties. The Texas Tribune reports, “The Senate unanimously passed a joint resolution which would ask voters to approve spending $5.7 billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund, including $2.9 billion for transportation debt. But little, if any, of that money is likely to go toward repairing roads in areas hit hardest by the drilling boom.”

Commenting on the argument that gas companies already pay their fair share for road damages they cause, George Neal posts calculations on the Damascus Citizens for Sustainability website that lead him to conclude that, although “the average truck pays around 27 times the fuel taxes an average car pays… according to the Texas Department of Transportation, they do 8,000 times the damage per mile driven and drive 8 times as far each year.”

The funds needed to fill the gap between the costs of road repairs and the amount actually paid by the oil and gas companies must come from somewhere. According to a draft report from the New York Department of Transportation looking at potential Marcellus Shale development costs, “The annual costs to undertake these transportation projects are estimated to range from $90 to $156 million for State roads and from $121-$222 million for local roads. There is no mechanism in place allowing State and local governments to absorb these additional transportation costs without major impacts to other programs and other municipalities in the State.”

Poor Air Quality

Caravan of trucks. Photo by Savanna Lenker, 2014.

Caravan of trucks. Photo by Savanna Lenker, 2014.

Along with public safety and infrastructure costs, increased truck traffic associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction is found to be a major contributor to public health costs due to elevated ozone and particulate matter levels from increased emissions of heavy truck traffic and the refining and processing activities required.

In addition to ozone and particulate matter in the air, chemicals used for extraction and development also pose a serious risk. A recent study in the journal of Human and Ecological Health Assessment found that 37% of the chemicals used in drilling operations are volatile and could become airborne. Of those chemicals, more than 89% can cause damage to the eyes, skin, sensory, organs, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, or the liver, and 81% can cause harm to the brain and nervous system. Because these chemicals can vaporize, they can enter the body not only through inhalation, but also absorption through the skin.

The Union of Concerned Scientists note that air pollution from traffic may be worsened in North Dakota by the use of unpaved roads that incorporate gravel containing a fibrous mineral called erionite, which has properties similar to asbestos. Trucks driving over such gravel roads can release harmful dust plumes into the air, which could present health risks for workers and area residents

To address and solve these problems associated with heavy truck traffic, information is needed to assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the scope of the increased truck traffic and its impacts on communities. Collection and analysis of data, as well as community input, are needed to both understand the scope of the problem and to inform effective solutions.

Joining FracTracker’s Truck Counts

In response to community concerns about the impacts of increased truck traffic in their community, FracTracker has developed the Truck Count project to document the intensity of oil and gas traffic in your region, map heavy traffic locations, and offer networking opportunities for impacted communities.

Participation in FracTracker’s Truck Counts can provide grassroots organizations with a valuable opportunity to collect local data, engage volunteers, and educate stakeholders and the public. The data, pictures and narratives collected can be used to support concerned citizens’ efforts to reroute traffic from schools, playgrounds and other sensitive areas; to inform decision makers, public health researchers, and transportation agencies; to serve as a potential launching point for more detailed, targeted studies on public health and safety along with economic development analyses; to compare costs and benefits of oil and gas energy sources to the cost and benefits of energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.

Also, by sharing your community’s counts and stories on FracTracker.org, you serve other communities by increasing the awareness of the impacts of oil and gas truck traffic nationwide.

FracTracker’s Truck Counts provides the following resources to conduct the counts:

  • information and education on gas and oil truck identification,
  • data sheets for easy counting, and
  • tips for selecting safe and accessible counting locations in your community.

We look forward to working with you and supporting your community. If you are interested in working on this important crowdsourcing project with us, please contact:

Mary Ellen Cassidy
Community Outreach Coordinator
Cassidy@Fractracker.org
304-312-2063


Endnotes and References

  1. In addition, a 2013 study from Resources for the Future found that shale gas development is linked to traffic accidents in Pennsylvania with a significant increase in the number of total accidents and accidents involving a heavy truck in counties with a relatively large degree of shale gas development as compared to counties with less (or no) development.
    The 2013 Food and Water Watch Report finds similar correlations. Shale gas drilling was associated with higher incidents of traffic accidents in Pennsylvania. This trend was strongest in counties with the highest density of fracking wells. The decrease in the average annual number of total vehicle crashes was 39% larger in unfracked rural counties than in heavily fracked counties. (analysis based on data from US Census Bureau, PA DEP and PennDOT).
    In a recent Karnes County, Texas analysis “Traffic accidents and fatalities have skyrocketed in the shale boom areas….with an increases of 1,000% in commercial motor vehicle accidents from 2008-2011.
    According to a 2013 Texas Public Threat Safety Report, “In the three Eagle Ford Shale counties where drilling is most active, the number of crashes involving commercial vehicles rose 470 percent between 2009 and 2011. In the 17 counties that make up the Permian Basin, fatal car crashes involving commercial vehicles have nearly tripled from 14 in 2010 to 41 in 2012.
    As a result of heavily using of publicly available infrastructure and services, fracking imposes both immediate and long-term costs on taxpayers. An Environment Texas study reveals that, “Trucks required to deliver water to a single fracking well cause as much damage to roads as 3.5 million car journeys, putting massive stress on roadways and bridges not constructed to handle such volumes of heavy traffic. Pennsylvania estimates that repairing roads affected by Marcellus Shale drilling would cost $265 million”.
  2. Researchers from the RAND Corporation and Carnegie Mellon University looked at the design life and reconstruction cost of roadways in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania. Their findings in Estimating the Consumptive Use Costs of Shale Natural Gas Extraction on Pennsylvania Roadways, note that local roads are generally designed to support passenger vehicles, not heavy trucks, and that “the useful life of a roadway is directly related to the frequency and weight of truck traffic using the roadway.” The study’s findings include:
    1. “The estimated road-reconstruction costs associated with a single horizontal well range from $13,000 to $23,000. However, Pennsylvania often negotiates with drilling companies to rebuild smaller roads that are visibly damaged, so the researchers’ conservative estimate of uncompensated roadway damage is $5,000 and $10,000 per well.
    2. While the per-well figure of $5,000-$10,000 appears small, the increasingly large number of wells being drilled means that substantial costs fall on the state: “Because there were more than 1,700 horizontal wells drilled [in Pennsylvania] in 2011, the statewide range of consumptive road costs for that year was between $8.5 and $39 million,” costs paid by state transportation authorities, and thus taxpayers.”
  3. The feature photo at the top of the page was taken by Savanna Lenker, 2014.

Florida Citizens Seek Drilling Industry Transparency

By Maria Rose, Communications Intern, FracTracker Alliance

Pamela Duran waited impatiently in front of a Hampton Inn in Naples, Florida on Wednesday, June 25, 2014, with her husband Jaime, and several of their community members.  They had to wait several days for a press conference with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding natural gas drilling in their home town of Collier County.  The original meeting had been postponed and rescheduled from the day before.

Seeking Transparency

Pamela, Jaime, and community members intended to ask the DEP, headed by Secretary Herschel T. Vinyard, about future gas drilling plans in Collier County.  However, when the Durans and other community members asked to speak with the DEP at the Hampton Inn, they were asked to leave.  In an attempt to seek answers to their questions, they then invited the DEP to meet with them outside the Hampton Inn.  The DEP refused, and instead held a closed meeting 20 miles away in Rookery Bay.  Only a select few members of the press were allowed to attend, forcing the Durans and the rest of the concerned community members to return home without answers to any of their questions.  Jamie said:

We were told to move out to the curb—kind of literally being kicked to the curb—and weren’t able to meet with the DEP… There hasn’t been an exchange of ideas;  there’s no back and forth.  They only had a few people from the media which is not a press conference.  The DEP said they’re committed to transparency, but it seems more like they’re committed to invisibility. We get nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Adding Confusion to the Mix

Drilling in Florida. Photo: WeArePowerShift.org

The frustration over transparency and communication with the DEP and Collier County’s Board of Commissioners stemmed from the lack of information and confusion surrounding the recent surge of nearby drilling activity.  Natural gas drilling in Florida has occurred on and offshore since the 1940s, but concerns related to the more intense impacts of  unconventional oil and gas drilling and its associated activities  have only recently surfaced.  Currently, drilling issues are contained to southwest Florida, where seismic testing is being conducted around the Collier and Hendry counties, and outside of Naples.  These areas overlay the Sunniland basin. The fossil fuel rich layer of shale found here makes companies like Dan A. Hughes eager to invest in the area.

In April of 2013, the Durans received a letter from a company called Total Safety.  Total Safety was conducting a contingency plan for the drilling company, Dan A. Hughes.  The letter contained limited information.  The Durans were only told that they were in an evacuation zone and had to provide information to Total Safety for safety precautions.  According to Pamela notes, “We were one of the first homes to get a letter… They didn’t even tell us then, that Dan A. Hughes was a drilling company.  We didn’t know what kind of evacuation zone it even was. We thought it was hurricanes at first. The commissioners didn’t even know.”

Pamela was so surprised that she called the police, and discovered that they were unable to provide sufficient information. It wasn’t until speaking with Jennifer Jones, a representative from Total Safety, that she learned that her family and 45 others were within a one mile-radius evacuation zone around a planned well pad.  The risks of hydrogen sulfide leaks, fires, and explosions, among other things, made it necessary to have an evacuation plan for these families.  At this point, Dan A. Hughes had not yet applied for a drilling permit, but would most likely be drilling by October of 2013.  Pamela noted that,  “This was the first time we’d heard of any drilling. And I was totally overwhelmed by the problems we thought might occur.”   If approved, Dan A. Hughes would be drilling within 1,000 feet from the Durans’ home.

The Durans and several of the neighbors who received similar letters met with the Colliers in late May of 2013 . The Colliers were a family that owned the surrounding land for several generations, including the mineral rights.  The concerned residents expected to have an open dialogue and had two requests:

  1. They wanted the well to be moved so that none of the neighborhood residents would be in an evacuation zone, and
  2. They wanted the drilling company to use farm roads instead of the residential roads to avoid traffic and noise.

The Colliers denied their request, but attention had been brought to the issue, and citizens began to resist drilling in the area.  Pamela commented, “The disregard for human life out here is atrocious. This has become such a big issue because we the citizens decided we’re not just going to sit and take it.”

As the drilling became more and more prominent in the area, the Durans noticed a change in the atmosphere around the neighborhood. Pamela reports that some intimidating activities have occurred, such as workers in Dan A. Hughes’ trucks video-taping certain houses, or cars parked outside of houses for excessive amounts of time.  All of this behavior is new for the area.  Pamela asks, “There are people here in the neighborhood with cars parked in the front or side of their property, and after they call the police, they find out it’s a private investigator. Who hires private investigators?”

Cease and Desist?

The biggest issue arose at the end of 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Dan A. Hughes company began to use acid fracturing to stimulate the Collier Hogan well. In Florida, there is no special permission required to begin fracking.  However, the company had assured a very concerned public and the county commissioners that there would be no fracking.   As a result of this violation, the DEP issued a cease and desist order on January 1 of 2014.   Dan A. Hughes, however, continued to frack until the process was finished.  It wasn’t until April 8, 2014 that the DEP issued a consent order to Dan A. Hughes along with a fine of $25,000 for unauthorized fracking.  All of these details were not released to the public until the consent order was issued in April.  Dr. Karen Dwyer, a resident of Collier County, notes that there have been many opportunities since January to share such information; between January and April.  There was an EPA hearing, a Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee meeting, various Collier county commissioner meetings, and several Administrative Judge hearings where the information could have been released to the public.  According to Dr. Dwyer:

The DEP just sat on this information while everyone else was looking closely at other aspects of the Dan A. Hughes drilling.  We’ve had all these meetings looking at how reliable they are and what their training has been, but the DEP never said that Dan A. Hughes had been under this investigation.  That was wrong of the DEP.  Decisions were being made to allow [drilling] while this serious issue was going on, and we didn’t know.

Triggering Resistance

Since then, Collier County’s resistance to gas drilling has taken off.  On April 22nd, the county commissioners voted unanimously to challenge the DEP’s consent order for Dan A. Hughes to drill, which is the first challenge of gas drilling in the area.  Senator Bill Nelson called for a federal review of Dan A. Hughes on May 1st.  The next day, the state called for Dan A. Hughes to cease all of their new operations in Florida.  Two weeks later on May 13th, the county commissioners voted to challenge the Collier-Hogan well, targeting a much more specific project. The commissioners began the legal process of challenging Dan A. Hughes’ consent order on June 10th, insisting on public meetings.

Even though they have seen progress, citizens like Dwyer and the Durans do not feel that change is happening rapidly enough. For example, the state has ordered all of Dan A. Hughes’ new operations stopped, but there are still old wells that can keep producing since their inception occurred prior to this new order. Also, once the commissioners filed their challenge on Dan A. Hughes, they were unable to talk about it publicly. Because of this development, issues surrounding a lack of transparency and communication have resurfaced.

Environmental and Social Justice Concerns

At times, Pamela said she feels like the combination of the Collier County’s geography and demographics have made it an easy target for resource extraction companies.  She describes the area as a multicultural town with many immigrants—Jamaican, Mexican, Hatian, Peruvian, Columbian, and more—and a community comprised of older retirees and very young families building up savings.  These demographics, she feels, may give off the impression that the residents will not come together and fight for their rights.  Speaking to the comments directed at Colliers from the more populous Naples community, Pamela responded by saying, “This is the first time I’ve felt people think we’re poor.  It’s not like we’re an urban location with super poor people surviving on welfare, but yes, lots of people here are foreign, and we don’t have much material wealth.”

According to the Durans, the surge of gas drilling activity in Collier County has drastically altered the day-to-day lifestyle of many of its residents.  Pamela and Jaime have dedicated much of their time to fighting the companies and following discussions surrounding the issue, which takes up a significant amount of their time. Pamela notes:

For the past 14 months, our lives have been on hold, dedicating the past months to stopping drilling.  We wanted to do certain things to our house, but we’ve put it on hold.   Why invest in a home if we might have to leave it for health reasons later? I’m not going to stay and watch us get sick.

Dwyer has similar feelings on the issue.  He is concerned about the human rights aspect of the problem, such as equal access to clean water and air, as well as the difficulty of communicating with large corporations.  Dwyer would like to see the state and federal government buy the mineral rights from Collier Resources and set that land aside as a reserve, which is what it was prior to drilling. Feeling that the drilling will most likely be permitted, Dwyer believes that companies should concentrate on improving procedures and communication.

Dwyer recognizes that even though resisting the industry has proved to be frustrating, she now knows about the issues surrounding gas and is determined to continue informing as many people as possible and is continuing an open dialogue with the county commissioners.  She feels that progress towards stopping gas companies can be made when more people know about the problems that are occurring.

Learn more about the unique aspects of drilling in Florida.

The interviews that served as the basis for this article were conducted in the summer 2014. This article is an update to an article we wrote in 2013. Read more.

Photo by Lara Marie Rauschert-Mcfarland

Florida’s Geographic and Geologic Challenges

By Maria Rose, Communications Intern, FracTracker Alliance

FracTracker has received numerous emails and phones calls wondering about unconventional drilling activity in Florida. Part of the concern related to fracking in the Sunshine State stems from Florida’s unique geographic and geologic characteristics, including a variety of environmental, geologic, and social issues that make drilling a very different challenge from other states. This article provides a brief compilation and explanation of those issues.

Everglades & Big Cypress National Preserve

Everglades

FL Everglades. Photo: Lara Marie Rauschert-Mcfarland, 2013.

Florida is home to the Everglades and the Big Cypress National Preserve, two locations that have a unique climate, assortment of wildlife, and diversity of fauna. Drilling has occurred in Southwest Florida since the 1940s,2 but it has been contained to traditional vertical drilling, until recently. The transition to more extreme methods of extraction, such as acid or hydraulic fracturing, may have more severe consequences on the fragile environment. The current rules and regulations in place are specific to vertical drilling, not focused on the distinct risks of fracking.2

Citizens have expressed concern that more drilling, and more extreme drilling, may contaminate regional groundwater and disrupt the habitat of the animals in the area. The endangered Florida panther is one species of particular concern; there are plans to drill close to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge on the western edge of the Everglades. Drilling requires a host of preparation and set up, including clearing out areas, building roads, and seismic testing for underground reserves. Both animals and the environment can be disturbed or destroyed by these processes, whether it is from accidental spills from drilling, clearing out forested areas, or road traffic.3

Currently, there are 350,000 acres in southwest Florida leased for seismic testing to determine what areas underground have the most promising oil reserves: 115,00 acres in the greater Everglades by the company Tocala for dynamite blasting, and 234,510 acres in the Big Cypress National Park by Burnett Oil Co., for testing with “thumper trucks”.3 Thumper trucks drop heavy weights on the ground and use the vibrations to estimate oil reserves there. These weights have the potential to fracture the crust over porous limestone formations that hold aquifers, where people get their drinking water.4

 References and Resources

  1. Senator Nelson on Drilling 
  2. Florida Halts Fracking Near Everglades 
  3. Concern Over Plans to Drill for Oil in the Everglades 
  4. Senator Nelson Prevents Oil Drilling in Southwest Florida 

Water

The natural gas drilling industry requires large amounts of water to frack wells, using approximately four million gallons of fresh water per well.4 The water becomes extremely saline from the elements that mix with the water and earth underground. This fluid will also contain frac fluid chemicals added by the industry – some of which are toxic.3 After the drilling process is complete, the resulting waste must then be treated and disposed of properly either via deep well injection sites, limited reuse, recycling, and/or landfills. The potential for contamination of underground aquifers or aboveground mixing with freshwater sources is an important risk to consider.2

Florida has an already sensitive relationship with water. Being so close to the ocean, Florida often bears the brunt of natural disasters such as hurricanes and heavy storms, which all pose threats to freshwater sources above ground. There is also a high water table in Florida that lies directly under and very close to the Sunniland Basin, a layer of fossil fuel rich rock that is of interest to drillers. Drilling in the area, if done hastily, could contaminate a very important fresh water source.1

References and Resources

  1. Legislators Prepare for Potential Fracking in Florida 
  2. Drilling for Natural Gas Jeopardizes Clean Water 
  3. Environment America-Fracking By the Numbers
  4. Oil and Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing
  5. EPA Oil and Gas Production Wastes

Tourism

For Dr. Karen Dwyer, a concerned citizen of Collier County, the issue of parks and water also ties in to one of Florida’s most important industries: tourism. As Dwyer sees it, if what draws crowds to the state is diminished — the natural beauty of the Everglades and beaches and water — then tourism will falter. The communities impacted by the 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill can attest to this fact. Small Florida towns near drilling activity  that rely on the income generated by tourism could fall into obscurity.

“People rely on touristy things here,” Dwyer said. “If people aren’t going to come here, we’re going to be a ghost town. If we have a huge accident, we’re not going to have [tourism anymore].”1

Reference:

  1. Interview with Dr. Karen Dwyer, Wednesday June 11th.

Karst Formations

Karst geologic formations visible near a spring. Photo: Richard Gant

Karst geologic formations visible near spring. Photo: Richard Gant

In addition to the unique environmental landscape, need for water, and dependence on tourism, Florida also has a vulnerable geology. The majority of the rock formation underground is made up of sand and limestone, which erodes and dissolves easily both above and below ground from exposure to rainwater. This feature causes karst formations in the rock, leading to sinkholes and fractures in the ground. There is some concern that the drilling processes required to access the gas might disturb the already sensitive environment and cause more stress or damage in areas already affected by sinkholes. Karst geology also has potential for increased aquifer contamination; if the ground is extremely porous, then water — and therefore, other chemicals and radioactive materials — may move through the ground more easily than in other geologies and contaminate water sources.

 References and Resources:

  1. Florida Development and Legislation
  2. USGS – The Science of Sinkholes
  3. Florida Hydraulic Fracturing

Demographics

Environmental justice can be a challenge that accompanies oil and gas drilling at times, defined as the inequitable distributions of environmental burdens. In Florida, we see a potential example of environmental justice, as the drilling completed thus far has dominantly affected low-income communities such as Collier County. Collier County has a large proportion of older, retired families, as well as younger families that may hold multiple jobs and relatively low incomes. In these communities, people are less resistant to the introduction of large, new industries that promise economic growth, since opportunities for such economic stimulation are rare. Similarly, people are less resistant to these issues simply because they may not have enough influence or understanding to reject such risky industries. It is clear then, that impoverished or under-stimulated communities often have to deal with the repercussions – environmentally, economically, and socially – of industry presence more than in places where people can afford and know how to repel industries that may pose environmental risks.

 References and Resources

  1. Florida Census 
  2. Florida County Profile
  3. Environmental Racism

Demographics content originated from interview with Pamela Duran, Monday June 30th.

Photo by the NY Times

In Solidarity With Argentina

Update: The Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign for this initiative ended on August 20, 2014

An International Expedition to Address the Perils of Oil & Gas Extraction

Photo by the NY Times

Signs point to exploration areas in the Vaca Muerta, or Dead Cow, a field in the Patagonian desert where Chevron is currently drilling fracking exploratory wells. (Photo by NY Times)

People in Argentina are concerned about fracking increasing in their country. They are aware of the impacts to people’s health and the environment that oil and gas fracking has caused – spills, leaks and explosions; air and water pollution; nausea, headaches and other health problems from toxic exposure; destruction of forests and parklands; increased earthquake risks.

They want to know the truth from those who have lived and worked near oil and gas operations in the U.S. Argentina sin Fracking has invited Earthworks, FracTracker Alliance and Ecologic Institute to come to Argentina to tell the real story.

To help fund this initiative, we have launched an Indiegogo campaign. Your contributions will make it possible for experts from these 3 American organizations to travel to Argentina, and share their experiences from the U.S. with fracking. We’ll hold several workshops in Buenos Aires and other affected communities, such as the Vaca Muerta region, where fracking is already occurring, and visit others who face the potential dangers of fracking.

With your help, we can help Argentina avoid making the mistakes that we’ve made in the U.S., and we can connect Argentinians to a new international network of environmental groups fighting fossil fuel development worldwide.

Fracturing wells and land cover in California

By Andrew Donakowski, Northeastern Illinois University

Land cover data can play an important role in spatial analysis; satellite or aerial imagery can effectively demonstrate the extent and make-up of land cover characteristics for large areas of land. For fracking analysis, this can be used to explore important spatial relationships between fracking infrastructure and the area and/or ecosystems surrounding them. Working with FracTracker, I have compiled data concerning land cover classifications and geologic rock areas to examine areas that may be particularly vulnerable to unconventional drilling – e.g. fracking.  After computing the makeup of land cover type for each geologic area, I then mapped locations of known fracking wells for further analysis. This is part of FracTracker’s ongoing interest in understanding changes in ecosystem services and plant/soil productivity associated with well pads, pipelines, retention ponds, etc.

Developed

First, by looking at the Developed areas (below), we can see that, for the most part, hydraulic fracturing is occurring relatively far from large population areas. (That is to say, on this map we can see that these types of wells are not found as often in areas where population density is high (<20 people per square mile) or a Developed land cover classification is predominate as they are in areas with a lower Develop land cover percentage).  However, we can also see that there is quite a large cluster of fracking wells in the southern portion of the state, and many cities fall within 5 or 10 mi of some wells.  While there may not be an immediate danger to cities that fall within this radius, we can see that some areas of the state may be more likely to encounter the effects of fracking and its associated infrastructure than others.

Forested

Next, the map depicting Forested land cover areas is, in my opinion, the most aesthetically groovy of the land cover maps; the variations in forested areas throughout the state provide a cool image.  By looking at this data, we can see that much of California’s forested land lies in the northern part of the state, while most fracking wells are located in the south and central parts of the state.

Cultivated

To me, the most interesting map is the one below showing the location of fracking wells in relation to Cultivated lands (which includes pasture areas and cropland).  What is interesting to note is the fertile Central Valley, where a high percentage of land is covered with agriculture and pasture lands (Note: The Central Valley accounts for 1% of US farmland but 25% of all production by value).  Notably, it is also where many fracking wells are concentrated.  When one stops to think about this, it makes sense: Farmers and rural landowners are often approached with proposals to allow drilling and other non-farming activities on their land.  Yet, it also raises a potential area for concern: A lot of crops grown in this area are shipped across the country to feed a significant number of people.  When we consider the uncertainties of fracking on surrounding areas, we must also consider what effects fracking could have beyond the immediate area and think about how fracking could affect what is produced in that area (in this case, it is something as important as our food supply.)

The Usefulness of Maps

Finally, as previously mentioned, mapping the extent of these land coverage can be useful for future analysis.  Knowing now the areas of relatively large concentrations of forested, herbaceous, and wetland (which can be highly sensitive to ecological intrusions) areas can be good to know down the line to see if those areas are retreating or if the overall coverage is diminishing.  Additionally, by allowing individuals to visualize spatial relationships between fracking areas and land coverage, we can make connections and begin to more closely examine areas that may be problematic. The next step will be: a) parsing forest cover into as many of the six major North American forest types and hopefully stand age, b) wetland type, and c) crop and/or pasture species. All of this will allow us to better quantify the inherent ecosystem services and CO2 capture/storage potential at risk in California and elsewhere with the expansion of the fracking industry. As an example of the importance of the intersection between forest cover and the fracking industry we recently conducted an analysis of frac sand mining polygons in Western Wisconsin and found that 45.8% of Trempealeau County acreage is in agriculture while only 1.8% of producing frac sand mine polygons were in agriculture prior to mining with the remaining acreage forested prior to mining which buttresses our anecdotal evidence that the frac sand mining industry is picking off forested bluffs and slopes throughout the northern extent of the St. Peter Sandstone formation.

A Quick Note on the Data

Datasets for this project were obtained from a few different sources.  First, land cover data were downloaded from the National Land cover Classification Database (NLCD) from the Multi-Resolution Land Character Consortium.  Geologic data were taken from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and their Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. Lastly, locations of fracking wells were taken from the FracTracker data portal, which, in turn, were taken from SkyTruth’s database.  Once the datasets were obtained, values from the NLCD data were reclassified to highlight land-coverage types-of-interest using the Raster Calculator tool in ArcMap 10.2.1.  Then, shapefiles from the USGS were overlaid on top of the reclassified raster image, and ArcMaps’s Tabulate Area tool was used to determine the extent of land coverage within each geologic rock classification area.  Known fracking wells downloaded from FracTracker.org were added to the map for comparative analysis.

About the Author

Andrew Donakowski is currently studying Geography & Environmental Studies, with a focus on Geographic Information Systems (GIS), at Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU) in Chicago, Ill. These maps were created in conjunction with FracTracker’s Ted Auch and NEIU’s Caleb Gallemore as part of a service-learning project conducted during the spring of 2014 aimed at addressing real-world issues beyond the classroom.

Water Use in WV and PA

Water Resource Reporting and Water Footprint from Marcellus Shale Development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania

Report and summary by Meghan Betcher and Evan Hansen, Downstream Strategies; and Dustin Mulvaney, San Jose State University

GasWellWaterWithdrawals The use of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction has greatly increased in recent years in the Marcellus Shale. Since the beginning of this shale gas boom, water resources have been a key concern; however, many questions have yet to be answered with a comprehensive analysis. Some of these questions include:

  • What are sources of water?
  • How much water is used?
  • What happens to this water following injection into wells?

With so many unanswered questions, we took on the task of using publically available data to perform a life cycle analysis of water used for hydraulic fracturing in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Summary of Findings

Some of our interesting findings are summarized below:

  • In West Virginia, approximately 5 million gallons of fluid are injected per fractured well, and in Pennsylvania approximately 4.3 million gallons of fluid are injected per fractured well.
  • Surface water taken directly from rivers and streams makes up over 80% of the water used in hydraulic fracturing in West Virginia, which is by far the largest source of water for operators. Because most water used in Marcellus operations is withdrawn from surface waters, withdrawals can result in dewatering and severe impacts on small streams and aquatic life.
  • Most of the water pumped underground—92% in West Virginia and 94% in Pennsylvania—remains there, lost from the hydrologic cycle.
  • Reused flowback fluid accounts for approximately 8% of water used in West Virginia wells.
  • Approximately one-third of waste generated in Pennsylvania is reused at other wells.
  • As Marcellus development has expanded, waste generation has increased. In Pennsylvania, operators reported a total of 613 million gallons of waste, which is approximately a 70% increase in waste generated between 2010 and 2011.
  • Currently, the three-state region—West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—is tightly connected in terms of waste disposal. Almost one-half of flowback fluid recovered in West Virginia is transported out of state. Between 2010 and 2012, 22% of recovered flowback fluid from West Virginia was sent to Pennsylvania, primarily to be reused in other Marcellus operations, and 21% was sent to Ohio, primarily for disposal via underground injection control (UIC) wells. From 2009 through 2011, approximately 5% of total Pennsylvania Marcellus waste was sent to UIC wells in Ohio.
  • The blue water footprint for hydraulic fracturing represents the volume of water required to produce a given unit of energy—in this case one thousand cubic feet of gas. To produce one thousand cubic feet of gas, West Virginia wells require 1-3 million gallons of water and Pennsylvania wells required 3-4 million gallons of water.

Table 1. Reported water withdrawals for Marcellus wells in West Virginia (million gallons, % of total withdrawals, 2010-2012)

WV Water Withdrawals

Source: WVDEP (2013a). Note: Surface water includes lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers. The dataset does not specify whether purchased water originates from surface or groundwater. As of August 14, 2013, the Frac Water Reporting Database did not contain any well sites with a withdrawal “begin date” later than October 17, 2012. Given that operators have one year to report to this database, the 2012 data are likely very incomplete.

As expected, we found that the volumes of water used to fracture Marcellus Shale gas wells are substantial, and the quantities of waste generated are significant. While a considerable amount of flowback fluid is now being reused and recycled, the data suggest that it displaces only a small percentage of freshwater withdrawals. West Virginia and Pennsylvania are generally water-rich states, but these findings indicate that extensive hydraulic fracturing operations could have significant impacts on water resources in more arid areas of the country.

While West Virginia and Pennsylvania have recently taken steps to improve data collection and reporting related to gas development, critical gaps persist that prevent researchers, policymakers, and the public from attaining a detailed picture of trends. Given this, it can be assumed that much more water is being withdrawn and more waste is being generated than is reported to state regulatory agencies.

Data Gaps Identified

We encountered numerous data gaps and challenges during our analysis:

  • All data are self-reported by well operators, and quality assurance and quality control measures by the regulatory agencies are not always thorough.
  • In West Virginia, operators are only required to report flowback fluid waste volumes. In Pennsylvania, operators are required to report all waste fluid that returns to the surface. Therefore in Pennsylvania, flowback fluid comprises only 38% of the total waste which means that in West Virginia, approximately 62% of their waste is not reported, leaving its fate a mystery.
  • The Pennsylvania waste disposal database indicates waste volumes that were reused, but it is not possible to determine exactly the origin of this reused fluid.
  • In West Virginia, withdrawal volumes are reported by well site rather than by the individual well, which makes tracking water from withdrawal location, to well, to waste disposal site very difficult.
  • Much of the data reported is not publically available in a format that allows researchers to search and compare results across the database. Many operators report injection volumes to FracFocus; however, searching in FracFocus is cumbersome – as it only allows a user to view records for one well at a time in PDF format. Completion reports, required by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), contain information on water withdrawals but are only available in hard copy at PADEP offices.

In short, the true scale of water impacts can still only be estimated. There needs to be considerable improvements in industry reporting, data collection and sharing, and regulatory enforcement to ensure the data are accurate. The challenge of appropriately handling a growing volume of waste to avoid environmental harm will continue to loom large unless such steps are taken.

Report Resources

Complete Report  |  Webinar

This report was written on behalf of Earthworks and was funded by a Network Innovation Grant from the Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation.

This FracTracker article is part of the Water Use Series

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

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

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

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

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

Active CA Faults

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


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

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

Shaking Assessments

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


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

Landslide Hazards

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


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

Press Contacts

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

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

References

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

 

North American Pipeline Proposal Map

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

With all the focus on the existing TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline – as well as the primary expansion proposal recently rejected by Lancaster County, NB Judge Stephanie Stacy and more recently the Canadian National Energy Board’s approval of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline – we thought it would be good to generate a map that displays related proposals in the US and Canada.

North American Proposed Pipelines and Current Pipelines


To view the fullscreen version of this map along with a legend and more details, click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map.

The map was last updated in October 2014.

Pipeline Incidents

The frequency and intensity of proposals and/or expansions of existing pipelines has increased in recent years to accompany the expansion of the shale gas boom in the Great Plains, Midwest, and the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta. This expansion of existing pipeline infrastructure and increased transport volume pressures has resulted in significant leakages in places like Marshall, MI along the Kalamazoo River and Mayflower, AR. Additionally, the demand for pipelines is rapidly outstripping supply – as can be seen from recent political pressure and headline-grabbing rail explosions in Lac-Mégantic, QC, Casselton, ND, Demopolis, AL, and Philadelphia.1 According to rail transport consultant Anthony Hatch, “Quebec shocked the industry…the consequences of any accident are rising.” This sentiment is ubiquitous in the US and north of the border, especially in Quebec where the sites, sounds, and casualties of Lac-Mégantic will not soon be forgotten.

Improving Safety Through Transparency

It is imperative that we begin to make pipeline data available to all manner of parties ex ante for planning purposes. The only source of pipeline data historically has been the EIA’s Pipeline Network. However, the last significant update to this data was 7/28/2011 – meaning much of the recent activity has been undocumented and/or mapped in any meaningful way. The EIA (and others) claims national security is a primary reason for the lack of data updates, but it could be argued that citizens’ right-to-know with respect to pending proposals outweighs such concerns – at least at the county or community level. There is no doubt that pipelines are magnets for attention, stretching from the nefarious to the curious. Our interest lies in filling a crucial and much requested data gap.

Metadata

Pipelines in the map above range from the larger Keystone and Bluegrass across PA, OH, and KY to smaller ones like the Rex Energy Seneca Extension in Southeast Ohio or the Addison Natural Gas Project in Vermont. In total the pipeline proposals presented herein are equivalent to 46% of EIA’s 34,133 pipeline segment inventory (Table 1).

Table 1. Pipeline segments (#), min/max length, total length, and mean length (miles).

Section

#

Min

Max

Mean

Sum

Bakken

34

18

560

140

4,774

MW East-West

68

5

1,056

300

20,398

Midwest to OK/TX

13

13

1,346

307

3,997

Great Lakes

5

32

1,515

707

3,535

TransCanada

3

612

2,626

1,341

4,021

Liquids Ventures

2

433

590

512

1,023

Alliance et al

3

439

584

527

1,580

Rocky Express

2

247

2,124

1,186

2,371

Overland Pass

6

66

1,685

639

3,839

TX Eastern

15

53

1,755

397

5,958

Keystone Laterals

4

32

917

505

2,020

Gulf Stream

2

541

621

581

1,162

Arbuckle ECHO

25

27

668

217

5,427

Sterling

9

42

793

313

2,817

West TX Gateway

13

1

759

142

1,852

SXL in PA and NY

15

48

461

191

2,864

New England

70

2

855

65

4,581

Spectra BC

9

11

699

302

2,714

Alliance et al

4

69

4,358

2,186

4,358

MarkWest

63

2

113

19

1,196

Mackenzie

46

3

2,551

190

8,745

Total

411

128

1,268

512

89,232

This is equivalent to 46% of the current hydrocarbon pipeline inventory in the US across the EIA’s inventory of 34,133 pipeline segments with a total length of 195,990 miles

The map depicts all of the following (Note: Updated quarterly or when notified of proposals by concerned citizens):

  1. All known North American pipeline proposals
  2. Those pipelines that have yet to be documented by the EIA’s Natural Gas Pipeline Network mapping team
  3. EIA documented pipelines more accurately mapped to the county level (i.e., select northeastern pipelines)
  4. The current Keystone XL pipeline and the Keystone XL expansion proposal rectified to the county level in Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas

We generated this map by importing JPEGs into ArcMAP 10.2, we then “Fit To Display”. Once this was accomplished we anchored the image (i.e., georeferenced) in place using a minimum of 10 control points (Note: All Root Mean Square (RMS) error reports are available upon request) and as many as 30-40. When JPEGs were overly distorted we then converted or sought out Portable Network Graphic (PNG) imagery to facilitate more accurate anchoring of imagery.

We will be updating this map periodically, and it should be noted that all layers are a priori aggregations of regional pipelines across the 4 categories above.

Imagery sources:

  1. Northeast – Long Island Sound, Montreal to Portland, Westchester, Spectra Energy Northeast, Maritime Northeast-Algonquin-Texas Eastern, Delaware River Watershed, Northeastern accuracy of existing EIA data, New England Kinder Morgan, Spectra Energy-Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP)-Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS)
  2. Duluth to The Dakotas, NYMarc Pipeline, Mariner East, Millenium Pipeline Company, WBI Energy’s Bakken,
  3. British Columbia – Enbridge, Spectra/BG, Coastal, Tanker Route
  4. Midwest – ATEX and Bluegrass, BlueGrass, BlueGrass Pipeline,
  5. TransCanada/New England – Portland, Financial Post,
  6. Alaska Pipelines Historically
  7. Rail projects and primary transport
  8. Keystone Tar Sands – Canada (website no longer active), United States, Texas-Oklahoma
  9. Gulf Coast – Florida
  10. MarkWest Houston, Liberty, Liberty, Houston and Majorsville,
  11. Texas Oklahoma – Granite Wash Extension,
  12. Ohio – Spectra Energy, Enterprise Products, Kinder Morgan, Buckeye-Kinder Morgan-El Paso, Chesapeake Energy and AEP
  13. The Rockies Express Pipeline (REX)

Reference

1. Krauss, C, & Mouawad, J. (2014, January 25). Accidents Surge as Oil Industry Takes the Train, The New York Times.

 

Ohio Production and Injection Well Firms Map

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

Layer Descriptions

1. UNIVERSAL WELL SERVICES

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

2. LLC & MLP’s

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

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

3. DRILLING FIRMS

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

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

4. ADDITIONAL DRILLERS

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

5. CANADIAN FIRMS

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

6. AMERICAN SUPPORTING CO.

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

7. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING CO.

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

8. CANADIAN SUPPORTING CO.

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

9. BRINE HAULERS

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