Posts

South Belridge field by Sarah Leen, National Geographic

Trends in California’s Oil and Gas Development

By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator

Over 38,000 oil and gas wells have likely been hydraulically fractured in California. The last permitted hydraulic fracturing operation in CA was approved in June 2015. Additionally, new aquifer exemption proposals will make it easier for operators to obtain hydraulic fracturing permits. One of the most interesting and troubling issues we found when analyzing the data on violations is that operators with the highest number of new well permits are also responsible for the majority of violations. In this article, we provide a look at these and other the trends of unconventional drilling in CA.

Updated CA Shale Viewer

First of all, the CA Shale Viewer has been updated! New data has been uploaded into the map about unconventional drilling in California, and new data resources have been used to identify shale gas activity (Fig. 1). Recent reports in CA have exposed what many researchers expected – hydraulic fracturing has been occurring in the state without any oversight or documentation for a long time.

In this presentation of the Updated CA Shale Viewer we showcase an analysis of these new data sources that better describe unconventional drilling in CA. We then look to new well permitting data to see what current spatial trends may mean for future oil and gas development. We also look at a sample of operator violations issued by the state regulatory agency to tell us a bit about who the bad actors may be.

Figure 1. CA Shale Viewer – Location of well stimulation & other unconventional oil & gas activity


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Current Fracking Activity

Fracking in California has been put on hold at the moment as a result of low oil prices combined with the new permitting requirements for groundwater monitoring. In 2015, the CA Council on Science and Technology (CCST) released a report on hydraulic fracturing, as required by State Bill 4, proposed by Senator Pavley. The legislation required the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources to create regulations for hydraulic fracturing and other stimulation activities such as acidizing. The report highlighted the necessity of protecting California’s groundwater resources. As another requirement of SB4, the state water resources control board adopted Model Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring in areas of Oil and Gas Well Stimulation, which includes three main components:

  1. Area-specific required groundwater monitoring near stimulation wells by operators
  2. Requirements for designated contractor sampling and testing
  3. Regional scale groundwater monitoring to be implemented by the State Water Board

With these requirements in place to protect groundwater, using hydraulic fracturing and other “extreme” high energy input techniques to extract oil is not currently economical in California. Operators have not submitted a permit application for hydraulic fracturing in CA since June 2015.

This status may change in the near future, though, as DOGGR has proposed groundwater monitoring exemptions for 3 large aquifer systems in Kern and Arroyo Grande counties. Such a proposal would mean that operators would not have to monitor for groundwater contamination in these areas when using hydraulic fracturing or other stimulation technologies like acidizing.

Previous Fracking Activity

One outcome of the aforementioned CCST report on hydraulic fracturing was a review of stimulation activity that has occurred in CA but went undocumented. Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) screened thousands of oil and gas well logs and records to calculate the extent to which hydraulic fracturing was actually being used in California’s oil fields. LBNL derived “Well Stimulation Treatment” probabilities based on the number of well records that reported utilizing hydraulic fracturing.

Probabilities were then derived for each pool, which is a geographically isolated formation within an oil field. Using these probabilities, FracTracker calculated a conservative estimate for the number of stimulated wells in the state at over 38,000. There are 228,010 unique Well ID’s listed in the DOGGR database. This puts the proportion of hydraulically fractured wells in California at 16.7% of the total 228,090 wells known.

New Wells

Whereas many other states break down their oil and gas data to show in what phase of development a well may be, CA identifies all wells between the permitted and producing/injecting phase as “new.” In Figure 2 below you can see the wells identified in 2016 as “new.” The DOGGR dataset shows there are currently 6,561 new wells in California as of July 2016. Counts of new well permits were calculated for individual operators and are listed below in Table 1.

Table 1. Top 10 operators according to new well permit counts in California, along with the number of new well permits currently active, the percent those permits represent of total new well permits in the state, and the percentage of violations the operator is responsible in the DOGGR dataset provided to FracTracker Alliance.

Order Operator Permit Count Permit % Violations %
1 Aera Energy LLC 2012 30.67% 22.34%
2 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 968 14.75% 20.35%
3 California Resources Production Corporation 768 11.70% 5.89%
4 Linn Operating, Inc. 574 8.75% 12.04%
5 E & B Natural Resources Management Corporation 572 8.71% 1%
6 California Resources Elk Hills, LLC 374 5.70% 5.52%
7 Seneca Resources Corporation 185 2.82% 2.83%
8 Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC 164 2.50% 15.22%
9 Vaquero Energy, Inc. 154 2.35% 0.22%
10 Macpherson Oil Company 116 1.77% 2.09%

There are 68 fields in CA that have added new wells in the new DOGGR dataset published in July 2016. The top 10 fields are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Top 10 Oil Fields by Permit (New Well) Count

Order Oil Field Well Count
1 Belridge, South 1518
2 Midway-Sunset 903
3 Poso Creek 553
4 Lost Hills 488
5 Cymric 336
6 Kern River 294
7 Elk Hills 276
8 Kern Front 233
9 McKittrick 186
10 Belridge, North 174

In Figure 2 below, the counts of new wells in fields are shown in shades of yellow/red. The fields with the highest number of new wells are located in the Central Valley. The top 10 operators’ wells are also identified. The majority of new well permits are located in the South Belridge oil field, and the majority of those wells are operated by Aera Energy. As can be seen in the map, most new wells are located in fields in Kern county, but Santa Barbara and Fresno, and even Salinas counties have fields with 40 or more new well permits.

Figure 2. New Well Permitting Map of Unconventional Drilling in California


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Violations

Who collects violations data?

In most states with heavy oil and gas drilling, data on violations is collected by the state regulatory agency, aggregated in datasets and spreadsheets, and made available to the public. FracTracker has done analyses with such data in the past.

In Pennsylvania for instance, a 2011 look at the data showed us that as the number of inspectors on the ground in the Marcellus Shale fields increases, the number of violations/well actually decrease. This was important information that challenged the cynical hypothesis: that more inspectors mean additional eyes on the ground to identify more violations during inspections. In reality, more inspectors actually mean that operators are held to higher standards, and further best management practices (BMPs) are employed. This trend at least seemed to be the case in Pennsylvania. As a regulatory agency, such knowledge is incredibly important, and even validates increased spending and budgets for more personnel.

In California, the issue of publishing violations data is again met with a similar response from the Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), specifically the “Oh, is that my job?” question.

How is it shared?

At FracTracker, we spent time working with regulatory officials at DOGGR to get some data on violations. We were informed that at some point in the future, the data may be aggregated and available digitally. Until then, however, a request for the data would have to be made to each of the six district offices individually and would take approximately a year to pull together scanned copies of violations notices in PDF format. Unfortunately, we at FracTracker do not have the capacity to process such files. Instead we asked for anything DOGGR had digitally available, and we were provided with a sample subset of 2,825 violations dating mostly from 2013 and 2014 and only in District 2, the Los Angeles Basin.

What does CA violations data look like?

Looking at the sample of data in Table 2, we see that the majority of violations are caused by the operators that also have the most new well permits. Aera Energy, in particular, is responsible for over 1/5 of all violations in our sample set. Limiting factors and sampling bias of the sample set of violations may impact this analysis, though, as all violations are limited to Los Angeles County.  Operators that mostly operate in the Central Valley will be under represented in the violations count. When more violations data becomes available we will be sure to expand this analysis.

Bans and Regulations on Unconventional Drilling in California

Although every state regulatory agency lambasts that they have the most comprehensive and conservative set of oil and gas extraction regulations, California regulators may actually be right. That is, save for New York which has banned hydraulic fracturing outright.

Regardless of the policy decisions made at the state-level, multiple local municipalities in CA have attempted to or succeeded in passing local bans. Six counties have passed outright bans on unconventional drilling in California, as can be seen in the FracTracker Local Actions map below (Fig. 3). Most recently the county of Alameda, home to the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, has passed a ban. The county of Monterey is also considering a ban on all oil and gas extraction, which has been approved as a local ballot initiative for November 2016.

Figure 3. Local Actions, Bans and Regulations Map


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

As the price of oil rebounds closer to $100/barrel, there will be more interest by operators to increase unconventional drilling in California. The addition of new aquifer exemptions will make it all the more appealing. These local movements are therefore incredibly important to ensure that “extreme” extraction methods like fracking don’t expand in the future.

Feature Photo: South Belridge field by Sarah Leen, National Geographic

Air emissions from drilling rig

A Review of Oil and Gas Emissions Data in Pennsylvania

By Wendy Fan, 2016 Intern, FracTracker Alliance

From 2011-2013, the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required air emission data to be conducted and reported by oil and gas drillers in Pennsylvania. We have tried to look at this data in aggregate to give you a sense of the types and quantities of different pollutants. Corresponding to their degree of oil and gas drilling activity, Washington, Susquehanna, Bradford, Greene, and Lycoming counties are the highest emitters of overall pollutants between the specified years. Despite the department’s attempt to increase transparency, the data submitted by the operators severely underestimates the actual amount of pollutants released, especially with regard to methane emissions. Furthermore, gaps such as inconsistent monitoring systems, missing data, and a lack of a verification process of the self-reported data weaken the integrity and reliability of the submitted data. This article explores the data submitted and its implications in further detail.

Why Emissions Are Reported

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that U.S. natural gas production will increase from 23 trillion cubic feet in 2011 to over 33 trillion cubic feet in 2040. Pennsylvania, in particular, is one of the states with the highest amount of drilling activity at present. This statistic can be attributed to resource-rich geologic formations such as the Marcellus Shale, which extends throughout much of Appalachia. While New York has banned drilling using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), Pennsylvania continues to expand its operations with 9,775 active unconventional wells as of June 10, 2016.

Between 2000-2016, drillers in Pennsylvania incurred 5,773 violations and $47.2 million in fines. The PA DEP, which oversees drilling permits and citations, has undergone criticism for their lack of action with complaints related to oil and gas drilling, as well as poor communication to the public*. In order to increase transparency and to monitor air emissions from wells, the DEP now requires unconventional natural gas operators to submit air emission data each year. The data submitted by operators are intended to be publicly accessible and downloadable by county, emission, or well operator.

* Interestingly, PA scored the highest when we rated states on a variety of data transparency metrics in a study published in 2015.

Importance of Data Collected

PA’s continual growth in oil and gas drilling activity is concerning for the environment and public health. Pollutants such as methane, carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxides (NOx) are all major contributors to climate change, and these are among the more common emissions found near oil and gas activities. Long-term exposure to benzene, also commonly associated with drilling sites, can result in harmful effects on the bone marrow and the decrease in red blood cells. Vomiting, convulsions, dizziness, and even death can occur within minutes to several hours with high levels of benzene.

With such risks, it is crucial for residents to understand how many wells are within their vicinity, and the levels of these pollutants emitted.

Air Monitoring Data Findings & Gaps

Although the DEP collects emission data on other important pollutants such as sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and toluene, this article focuses only on a few select pollutants that have shown the highest emission levels from natural gas activity. The following graphs illustrate emissions of methane, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), benzene, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the top 10 counties with the highest amounts of natural gas activity. PA wells drilled data (often called SPUD data) will also be referenced throughout the article. Data source: PA SPUD Data.

CMC

PA DEP’s Calculation Methods Codes for Emissions

Well operators self-report an estimate of total emissions in tons per year through either an online or paper reporting system. They must also indicate the method they used to generate this estimate with the Calculation Methods Codes for Emissions (table shown right).

For more information on how the data is prepared and what are the reporting requirements, refer to PA DEP’s Instruction for Completing the Annual Emissions Statement Reporting Forms

Total Amount of Unconventional Wells 2000-2016

AmountofWells

Figure 1

Overall, Washington, Susquehanna, Bradford, Greene, and Lycoming counties were the main emitters of all selected pollutants (methane, CO2, CO, NOx, VOCs, and benzene) throughout Pennsylvania based on tons per year (Fig 1). This trend may be correlated to the amount of natural gas activity that exists within each state as shown in the graph above. The top three Pennsylvania counties with the highest amount of oil and gas activity since 2000 are Washington, Susquehanna, and Bradford with 1,347; 1,187; and 1,091 unconventional active wells, respectively.

Methane Emissions

PA_Methane

Figure 2

In 2012, Susquehanna, Bradford, and Lycoming counties reported the highest amount of methane released with levels at 36,607, 23,350, and 14,648 tons, respectively (Fig 2). In 2013, Bradford, Lycoming, and Greene counties reported the highest amount of methane released with levels at 17,805, 17,265, and 15,296 tons, respectively.

Although the overall trend of methane emission declines from 2012 to 2013, there is an unusual drop in Susquehanna County’s methane emissions from 2012 to 2013. Susquehanna’s levels went from 36,607 tons to 12,269 tons in that timeframe. However, the DEP SPUD data recorded an increase of 190 active wells to 214 active wells from 2012 to 2013 in that same county. Though the well operators did not provide details for this shift, possible reasons may be because of improved methods of preventing methane leaks over the year, well equipment may be less robust as it once was, operators may have had less of a reason to monitor for leaky wells, or operators themselves could have changed.

Lackawanna and Luzerne counties reported zero tons of methane released during the year of 2012 (not shown on graph). There are two possible reasons for this: both counties did not have any unconventional wells recorded in the 2012 SPUD data, which may explain why the two counties reported zero tons for methane emissions, or the levels submitted are a significant underestimation of the actual methane level in the counties. (While there were no new wells, there are existing wells in production in those counties.)

Considering that methane is the primary component of natural gas activity, the non-existent level of methane reported seem highly implausible even with inactive wells on site. Typically, an old or inactive gas well can either be abandoned, orphaned, or plugged. By definition, abandoned wells have been inactive for more than a year, and orphaned wells were abandoned prior to 1985. (Because of this distinction, however, no unconventional wells can be considered “orphaned.”) To plug a well, cement plugs are used to cover up wellbores in order to cease all flow of gas. The act of physically plugging up the wells paints an illusion that it is no longer functioning and has ceased all emissions.

Because of this flawed impression, systematic monitoring of air emissions is often not conducted and the wells are often ignored. Several studies have shown even abandoned and plugged wells are still spewing out small and at times large quantities of methane and CO2. One study published in 2014 in particular measured 19 abandoned wells throughout Pennsylvania, and concluded that abandoned wells were significant contributors to methane emissions – contributing 4-7% of total anthropogenic (man-made) methane emissions in PA.

View methane emissions map full screen: 2012-2013

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

PA_CO2

Figure 3

In 2012, Bradford County reported 682,302 tons of CO2 emitted; Washington County reported 680,979 tons; and Susquehanna reported 560,881 tons (Fig. 3). In 2013, Washington continued to lead with 730,674 tons, Bradford at 721,274 tons, and Lycoming with 537,585 tons of COemitted.

What’s intriguing is according to SPUD data, Armstrong, Westmoreland, and Fayette also had considerable natural gas activity between the two years as shown on the map. Yet, their levels of CO2 emission are significantly lower compared to Lycoming or Susquehanna Counties. Greene County, in particular, had lower levels of CO2 reported. Yet, they had 106 active wells in 2012 and 117 in 2013. What is even more unusual is that Bradford County had 9 more wells than Greene County in 2013, yet, Greene County still had significantly higher CO2 levels reported.

Reasons for this difference may be that Greene County lacked the staff or resources to accurately monitor for CO2, the county may have forgotten to record emissions from compressor stations or other fugitive emission sources, or the method of monitoring may have differed between counties. Whatever the reason is, it is evident that the levels reported by Greene County may not actually be an accurate depiction of the true level of COemitted.

View CO2 emissions map full screen: 2012-2013

Carbon Monoxide Emissions

Spudded wells in PA with reported CO emissions by county 2011-13

Spudded wells in PA with reported CO emissions by county 2011-13

PA_CO

Figure 4

According to the PA SPUD data, the number of new wells drilled in Bradford County dropped from 389 in 2011 to 163 in 2012 to 108 to 2013. The diminishing number of newly drilled wells in this particular county may explain the noticeable outlier in CO emission as seen on the graph (Fig 4).

View CO emissions map full screen: 2011-2013

NOx and VOCs

Compressor stations are also known to emit VOC, NOx, and various greenhouse gases; they run 24/7 and serve multiple wells. Compressor stations are necessary to move the natural gas along the pipelines, and thus, may still be required to function even after some wells have ceased operation. Furthermore, there can be multiple compressor stations in a region because they are installed at intervals of about 40 to 100 miles. This suggests that in addition to drilled wells, compressor stations provide additional avenues for NOx or VOC to leak into the air.

View NOx and VOC emissions maps full screen: VOC 2011-2013 | NOx 2011-2013

Benzene Emissions

Spudded wells in PA with reported benzene emissions by county 2011-13

Spudded wells in PA with reported benzene emissions by county 2011-13

Chart of PA benzene emissions data county to county

Figure 7

The levels of benzene emitted varied the most when compared to the other pollutants presented previously. Generally, the high levels of methane, CO2, and NOx emitted correlate with the high amount of natural gas activity recorded for each county’s number of drilled unconventional wells. However, it is interesting that both Westmoreland and Fayette counties had fewer active wells than Bradford County, yet, still reported higher levels of benzene (Fig 1, Fig 7).

An explanation for this may be the different monitoring techniques, the equipment used on each site which may vary by contractor or well access, or that there are other external sources of benzene captured in the monitoring process.

View benzene emissions map full screen: 2011-2013

Questions Remain

Although the collection and monitoring of air emission from wells is a step in the right direction, the data itself reveals several gaps that render the information questionable.

  • The DEP did not require operators to report methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide in 2011. Considering that all three components are potent greenhouse gases and that methane is the primary component in natural gas production, the data could have been more reliable and robust if the amount of the highest pollutants were provided from the start.
  • Systematic air monitoring around abandoned, orphaned, and plugged wells should still be conducted and data reported because of their significant impact to air quality. The DEP estimates there are approximately 200,000 wells that have been abandoned and unaccounted for. This figure includes older, abandoned wells that had outdated methods of plugging, such as wood plugs, wood well casings, or no plug at all. Without a consistent monitoring system for fugitive air emissions, the public’s true risk of the exposure to air pollutants will remain ambiguous.
  • All emissions submitted to the DEP are self-reported data from the operators. The DEP lacks a proper verification process to confirm whether the submitted data from operators are accurate.
  • The finalized data for 2014 has yet to be released despite the DEP’s April 2016 deadline. The DEP inadvertently posted the reports in March 2016, but quickly removed them without any notification or explanation as to why this information was removed. When we inquired about the release date, a DEP representative stated the data should be uploaded within the next couple of weeks. We will provide updates to this post when that data is posted but the DEP.

Overall, PA DEP’s valiant attempt to collect air data from operators and to increase transparency is constrained by the inconsistency and inaccuracy of the dataset. The gaps in the data strongly suggest that the department’s collection process and/or the industry’s reporting protocol still require major improvements in order to better monitor and communicate this information to the public.

Defining Environmental Justice in Pennsylvania

By Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community-Based
Research & Engagement, FracTracker Alliance

Missing the Mark in Oil & Gas Communities

Conventional oil and gas drilling for commercial purposes has existed in Pennsylvania for over 150 years. In the past decade, drilling operations have turned to extract these resources from unconventional reservoirs, such as the deep underground Marcellus Shale formation. Proponents of the oil and gas industry’s expansion promise jobs and tax revenue for regions seeking economic revitalization. However, a growing body of research suggests that these processes also negatively impact the environment and pose significant public health risks.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. How this definition applies to residents of Pennsylvania has become a hotly contested issue as regulatory agencies have begun to investigate whether or not the oil and gas industry targets marginalized communities.

PA Environmental Justice Map

The following interactive article and map illustrates how race and poverty, the two key indicators for determining environmental justice eligibility, fail to capture the nature of the industry. It also suggests that there are other ways we might assess unfair development practices. In doing so, the goal of the article is to shed light on the complexity of environmental justice issues and to offer guidance as PA’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) assesses its policies in coming days.

environmental justice map

Feature image photo credit: Drilling rig and farm in PA by Schmerling (photodocmark@gmail.com)

Richmond, CA crude by rail protest

CA Refineries: Sources of Oil and Crude-by-Rail Terminals

CA Crude by Rail, from the Bakken Shale and Canada’s Tar Sands to California Refineries
By
Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator &
Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement

Refineries in California plan to increase capacity and refine more Bakken Shale crude oil and Canadian tar sands bitumen. However, CA’s refinery communities that already bear a disparate amount of the burden (the refinery corridor along the north shore of the East Bay) will be more impacted than they were previously. New crude-by-rail terminals will put additional Californians at risk of accidents such as spills, derailments, and explosions. Additionally, air quality in refinery communities will be further degraded as refineries change to lower quality sources of crude oil. Below we discuss where the raw crude oil originates, why people are concerned about crude-by-rail projects, and what CA communities are doing to protect themselves. We also discuss our GIS analysis, showing the number of Californians living within the half-mile blast zones of the rail lines that currently are or will be supported by the new and existing crude by rail terminal projects.

Sources of Raw Crude Oil

Sources of Refinery HAPs

Figure 1. Sources of crude oil feedstock refined in California over time (CA Energy Commission, 2015)

California’s once plentiful oil reserves of locally extracted crude are dwindling and nearing depletion. Since 1985, crude extraction in CA has dropped by half. Production from Alaska has dropped even more, from 2 million B/D (barrels per day) to around 500,000 B/D. The 1.9 million B/D refining capacity in CA is looking for new sources of fuels. Refineries continue to supplement crude feedstock with oil from other sources, and the majority has been coming from overseas, specifically Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This trend is shown in figure 1.

Predictions project that sources of raw crude oil are shifting to the energy intensive Bakken formation and Canadian Tar Sands. The Borealis Centre estimates an 800% increase of tar sands oil in CA refineries over the next 25 years (NRDC, 2015). The increase in raw material from these isolated locations means new routes are necessary to transport the crude to refineries. New pipelines and crude-by-rail facilities would be necessary, specifically in locations where there are not marine terminals such as the Central Valley and Central Coast of CA. The cheapest way for operators in the Canadian Tar Sands and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale to get their raw crude to CA’s refinery markets is by railroad (30% less than shipping by marine routes from ports in Oregon and Washington), but this process also presents several issues.

CA Crude by Rail

More than 1 million children — 250,000 in the East Bay — attend school within one mile of a current or proposed oil train line (CBD, 2015). Using this “oil train blast zone” map developed by ForestEthics (now called Stand) you can explore the various areas at risk in the US if there was an oil train explosion along a rail line. Unfortunately, there are environmental injustices that exist for communities living along the rail lines that would be transporting the crude according to another ForestEthics report.

To better understand this issue, last year we published an analysis of rail lines known to be used for transporting crude along with the locations of oil train incidents and accidents in California. This year we have updated the rail lines in the map below to focus on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific (UP) railroad lines, which will be the predominant lines used for crude-by-rail transport and are also the focus of the CA Emergency Management Agency’s Oil by Rail hazard map.

The specific focus of the map in Figure 2 is the five proposed and eight existing crude-by-rail terminals that allow oil rail cars to unload at the refineries. The eight existing rail terminals have a combined capacity of 496,000 barrels. Combined, the 15 terminals would increase CA’s crude imports to over 1 million B/D by rail. The currently active terminals are shown with red markers. Proposed terminals are shown with orange markers, and inactive terminals with yellow markers. Much of the data on terminals was taken from the Oil Change International Crude by Rail Map, which covers the entire U.S.

Figure 2. Map of CA Crude by Rail Terminals

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work | Download Rail Terminal Map Data

Additional Proposals

The same type of facility is currently operating in the East Bay’s refinery corridor in Richmond, CA. The Kinder Morgan Richmond terminal was repurposed from handling ethanol to crude oil, but with no public notice. The terminal began operating without conducting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or public review of the permit. Unfortunately, this anti-transparent process was similar to a tactic used by another facility in Kern County. The relatively new (November 2014) terminal in Taft, CA operated by Plains All American Pipeline LLC also did not conduct an EIR, and the permit is being challenged on the grounds of not following the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

EIRs are an important component of the permitting process for any hydrocarbon-related facility. In April 2015 in Pittsburg, for example, a proposed 50,000 B/D terminal at the WesPac Midstream LLC’s railyard was abandoned due to community resistance and criticism over the EIR from the State Attorney General, along with the larger proposal of a 192,000 B/D marine terminal.

Still, many other proposals are in the works for this region. Targa Resources, a midstream logistics company, has a proposed a 70,000 B/D facility in the Port of Stockton, CA. Alon USA has a permitted project for revitalizing an idle Bakersfield refinery because of poor economics and have a permit to construct a two-unit train/day (150,000 B/D) offloading facility on the refinery property. Valero dropped previous plans for a rail oil terminal at its Wilmington refinery in the Los Angeles/Long Beach port area, and Questar Pipeline has preliminary plans for a  rail oil terminal in the desert east of the Palm Springs area for a unit-train/day.

Air Quality Impacts of Refining Tar Sands Oil

Crude-by-rail terminals bring with them not only the threat of derailments and the risk of other such accidents, but the terminals are also a source of air emissions. Terminals – both rail and marine – are major sources of PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). The Sacramento Valley Railroad (SAV) Patriot rail oil terminal at a business park on the former McClellan Air Force Base property actually had its operating permit withdrawn by Sacramento air quality regulators due to this issue (read more). The terminal was unloading and reloading oil tanker cars.

FracTracker’s recent report, Emissions in the Refinery Corridor, shows that the refineries in this region are the major point source for emissions of both cancer and non-cancer risk drivers in the region. These air pollution sources get worse, however. According to the report by NRDC, changing the source of crude feedstock to increased amounts of Canadian Tar Sands oil and Bakken Shale oil would:

… increase the levels of highly toxic fugitive emissions; heavy emissions of particulate, metals, and benzene; result in a higher risk of refinery accidents; and the accumulation of petroleum coke* (a coal-like, dusty byproduct of heavy oil refining linked to severe respiratory impacts). This possibility would exacerbate the harmful health effects faced by the thousands of low-income families that currently live around the edges of California’s refineries. These effects are likely to include harmful impacts to eyes, skin, and the nervous and respiratory systems. Read NRDC Report

Petroleum coke (petcoke) is a waste product of refining tar sands bitumen (oil), and will burden the communities near the refineries that process tar sands oil. Petcoke has recently been identified as a major source of exposures to carcinogenic PAH’s in Alberta Canada (Zhang et al., 2016). For more information about the contributions of petcoke to poor air quality and climate change, read this report by Oil Change International.

The contribution to climate change from accessing the tar sands also needs to be considered. Extracting tar sands is estimated to release on average 17% average more green-house gas (GHG) emissions than conventional oil extraction operations in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of State. (Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change on a global scale.) The refining process, too, has a larger environmental / public health footprint; refining the tar sands to produce gasoline or diesel generates an average of 81% more GHGs (U.S. Dept of State. Appendix W. 2015). In total this results in a much larger climate impact (NRDC, NextGen Climate, Forest Ethics. 2015).

Local Fights

People opposed to CA crude by rail have been fighting the railway terminal proposals on several fronts. In Benicia, Valero’s proposal for a rail terminal was denied by the city’s Planning Commission, and the project’s environmental impact report was denied, as well. The city of Benicia, however, hired lawyers to ensure that the railway projects are built. The legality of railway development is protected regardless of the impacts of what the rails may be used to ship. This legal principle is referred to as “preemption,” which means the federal permitting prevents state or local actions from trying to limit or block development. In this case, community and environmental advocacy groups such as Communities for a Better Environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Stanford-Mills Law Project all agree the “preemption” doctrine doesn’t apply here. They believe preemption does not disallow the city or other local governments from blocking land use permits for the refinery expansion and crude terminals that unload the train cars at the refinery.  The Planning Commission’s decision is being appealed by Valero, and another meeting is scheduled for September, 2016.

The fight for local communities along the rail-lines is more complicated when the refinery is far way, under the jurisdiction of other municipalities. Such is the case for the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery, located on California State Highway 1 on the Nipomo Mesa. The Santa Maria refinery is requesting land use permits to extend track to the Union Pacific Railway that transits CA’s central coast. The extension is necessary to bring the rail cars to the proposed rail terminal. This project would not just increase traffic within San Luis Obispo, but for the entirety of the rail line, which passes directly through the East Bay. The project would mean an 80-car train carrying 2 million gallons of Bakken Crude would travel through the East Bay from Richmond through Berekely and Emeryville to Jack London Square and then south through Oakland and the South Bay.  This would occur 3 to 5 times per week. In San Luis Obispo county 88,377 people live within the half-mile blast zone of the railroad tracks.

In January, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department proposed to deny Phillips 66 the permits necessary for the rail spur and terminals. This decision was not easy, as Phillips 66, a corporation ranked Number 7 on the Fortune 500 list, has fought the decision. The discussion remained open with many days of meetings, but the majority of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission spoke in favor of the proposal at a meeting Monday, May 16. There is overwhelming opposition to the rail spur project coming from 250 miles away in Berkeley, CA. In 2014, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted to oppose all transport of crude oil through the East Bay. Without the rail spur approval, Phillips 66 declared the Santa Maria refinery would otherwise transport oil from Kern County via 100 trucks per day. Learn more about this project.

GIS Analysis

GIS techniques were used to estimate the number of Californians living in the half mile “at risk” blast zone in the communities hosting the crude-by-rail lines. First, we estimated the total population of Californians living a half mile from the BNSF and UP rail lines that could potentially transport crude trains. Next, we limited our study area to just the East Bay refinery corridor, which included Contra Costa and the city of Benicia in Solano County. Then, we estimated the number of Californians that would be living near rail lines if the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery crude by rail project is approved and becomes operational. The results are shown below:

  1. Population living within a half mile of rail lines throughout all of California: 6,900,000
  2. Population living within a half mile of rail lines in CA’s East Bay refinery communities: 198,000
  3. Population living within a half mile of rail lines along the UP lines connecting Richmond, CA to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery: 930,000

CA Crude by Rail References

  1. NRDC. 2015. Next Frontier for Dangerous Tar Sands Cargo:California. Accessed 4/15/16.
  2. Oil Change International. 2015. Rail Map.
  3. Global Community Monitor. 2014. Community Protest Against Crude Oil by Rail Blocks Entrance to Kinder Morgan Rail Yard in Richmond
  4. CEC. 2015. Sources of Oil to California Refineries. California Energy Commission. Accessed 4/15/16.
  5. Zhang Y, Shotyk W, Zaccone C, Noernberg T, Pelletier R, Bicalho B, Froese DG, Davies L, and Martin JW. 2016. Airborne Petcoke Dust is a Major Source of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Environmental Science and Technology. 50 (4), pp 1711–1720.
  6. U.S. Dept of State. 2015. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL Pipeline. Accessed 5/15/16.
  7. U.S. Dept of State. 2015. Appendix W Environmental Impact Statement for Keystone XL Pipeline Appendix W. Accessed 5/15/16.
  8. NRDC, NextGen Climate, Forest Ethics. 2015. West Coast Tar Sands Invasion. NRDC 2015. Accessed 4/15/16.

** Feature image of the protest at the Richmond Chevron Refinery courtesy of Global Community Monitor.

Air Pollution in the Bay Area’s Refinery Corridor

Emissions from Refineries and other Sources
By
Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator &
Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement

Key Takeaways

  • Refineries and petrochemical industry in the Bay Area’s refinery corridor are responsible for the majority of the risk-driving point source emissions in this region.
  • The Chevron Richmond refinery has the largest refining capacity and emits the most hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
  • The Tesoro refinery in Martinez and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most HAPs per barrel of oil (based on refining capacity).
  • The Valero refinery in Benicia, the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most criteria air pollutants (CAPs).
  • If refineries increase their capacity and process more crude, the emissions of these various pollutants will invariably increase.
  • New emissions rules need to prioritize ambient air quality and hold the Air District and elected officials accountable for policies that increase risk.

Overview of the Bay Area’s Refinery Corridor

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is revising the rules for facilities that emit a variety of hazardous pollutants into the air. The current draft of the new rules could actually increase the amount polluters are allowed to emit. The communities at risk are speaking out to support policies that would reduce the amount of air pollutants rather than increase the limits. In support of these communities, the FracTracker Alliance has focused on analyzing the sources of air pollutants in the region. The East Bay Oil Refinery Corridor is located along the North Shore of the East Bay, stretching from Richmond, CA east to Antioch, CA. The region has been named a “sacrifice zone” for the heavy concentration of petrochemical industrial sites. In addition to the five refineries along the north coast, these communities host a variety of other heavy industries and waste sites. The locations of these facilities have been mapped previously by the FracTracker Alliance, here. In the report we found that people of color, specifically African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the community demographics. Novel results indicate that Hispanic students may be disproportionately impacted by the presence of the petrochemical industry. In this post, we continue the analysis of risk in the region by providing an analysis of the contributions to air pollution from these facilities.

Regulations

Refineries and other sources of air pollution are regulated by the U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA regulates two classes of pollutants:

  1. Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) – including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter; and
  2. Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which includes a list of 594 carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals that pose a risk to those exposed.

In addition, California regulates green-house-gas (GHG) emissions, and refineries are the second largest industrial source of GHGs. These regulations get applied when facilities need to obtain a permit for a new source of air pollution, or if a facility is making a structural change that could significantly affect emissions. Facilities are required to use “Maximum Available Control Technology” as it relates to industry best practices to control emissions. With these existing engineering controls, refinery emissions are released into the air from the multiple sources/processes shown below in Figure 1. Notice that a large amount of emissions are simply from “Leaks.”

Sources of Refinery HAPs

Figure 1. Breakdown of emissions from petroleum refineries (US EPA, 2011)

The new rules drafted by the BAAQMD to regulate emissions from the East Bay Oil Refinery Corridor would not cap emissions at any level. The current proposal outlines limits on emissions per barrel, promoting efficiency rather than focusing on emissions reductions. Air quality in the refinery corridor could be improved only if this approach was proposed in conjunction with emission limits or reductions. But as the currently proposed rules stand, emissions could actually increase. Enforcement procedures for infractions are also limited. If a refinery’s emissions violate the per barrel standards, the refinery has a whole 3 years to address the violation. Also, these new rules come at a time when refineries are moving to increase the volume of crude coming in from other regions, such as Canada’s tar sands and the Bakken Shale. These regions produce much lower “quality” crude oil, with much higher emissions. This all amounts to more air pollution rather than less.

Community and environmental activist groups such as the Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition have raised specific issues with the proposed rules as they stand. First, they allow for increase emissions when Air District data forecasts increasing refinery emissions, despite declining local and domestic fuels demand. Refining the lower quality crude is more energy intensive, which also results in increased emissions. In order to offset the increased emissions, CBE reports that refineries can just increase total refining production to decrease per barrel averages. This would in affect increase emissions to meet regulatory requirements. In addition, transporting the crude via new shipping routes would put additional communities at elevated risk of railway accidents (CBE, 2015).

Ambient Air Quality

Air quality in the Bay Area has been continuously improving over the last few decades, but these refinery communities are still at a significantly higher risk of dying from heart disease and strokes. The largest disparity is felt by the African-American populations. Data for Richmond, CA shows they are 1.5 times more likely to die from these diseases than the Contra Costa county average (Casanova, Diemoz, Lifshay, McKetney, 2010). Emissions reductions not only favor the local communities such as the refinery corridor that are most impacted, but also all of the downwind communities, specifically the Central Valley. The Air District’s 2012 report of PM provides a summary of these trends. PM is an important because it is “the air pollutant that causes by far the greatest harm to public health in the bay area. It is a useful indices because there is a linear correlation between increasing ambient concentrations and mortality. Figure 2 shows the progress the Bay Area has made, overall. This graph is based on regional monitors and not those in the refinery communities, where improvements have not been as drastic. In Figure 3 below, the graph shows major pollutant drivers of seven health risks and how health impacts have been reduced over this time period. What we see from the bar graph, is that non-diesel anthropogenic point sources of PM contribute the most to risk for the majority of health endpoints considered. Across the entire bay area, refineries account for 6% of all PM (BAAQMD, 2012).

An overview of other chemicals associated with the petrochemical industry in ambient air and their resulting health effects are outlined in tables 1-3 below. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but these are chemicals of primary concern, specific to petroleum refinery emissions, and are known risk drivers for the region.

Fig 2 PM

Figure 2. Measurements of PM, averaged across the entire bay area, over time – showing an overall improvement in air quality.

Fig 3 health impacts

Figure 3. Contribution of different species of air pollution to health impacts. The analysis is specific to the bay area and compares health risks estimates from the past (1980s) to estimates in 2012.

Table 1. Health impacts from criteria air pollutants

Criteria Air Pollutants
Compound Health Effect
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Array of adverse respiratory effects, airway inflammation in healthy people, increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Harmful health effects associated with the reduction of oxygen delivery to the body’s organs (heart and brain) and tissues
Particulate Matter Increased respiratory symptoms, irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease

Table 2. Health impacts from hazardous air pollutants known to be emitted from petroleum refineries

Hazardous Air Pollutants
Compound Acute Chronic
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes Neurological effects, Irritation of the eye, skin and respiratory tract Blood disorders (reduced number of red blood cells and aplastic anemia), cancer.
1,3-Butadiene Irritation of the eyes, throat and respiratory tract Cardiovascular effects, leukemia, cancer
Naphthalene Hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, neurological effects Cataracts, damage to the retina, hemolytic anemia, cancer
PAHs Skin disorders, depression of the immune system Skin disorders (dermatitis, photosensitization), depression of the immune system, damage to the respiratory tract, cataracts, cancer

Table 3. Health impacts from other pollutants emitted from petroleum refineries

Other Pollutants
Compound Mechanism Health Effect
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Combine with NOx in sunlight to create ozone Significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal. Healthy people during periods of moderate exercise, symptoms include chest pain, coughing, nausea, and pulmonary congestion
Greenhouse Gases (GHG), including Methane (CH4), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Compounds with high global warming potential contribute to climate change Increase in average temperatures, higher levels of ground-level ozone, increased drought, harm to water resources, ecosystems and wildlife, health risk to sensitive populations

North Coast Emissions

With these gains in ambient air quality it is hard to fathom why regulators would consider allowing refineries to increase emissions inventories. For this analysis, the focus was to map and compare emissions inventories from numerous industrial sites, with a particular focus on the petroleum refineries.

Current refinery capacities as of 2014 are shown in Figure 4, below. The Richmond Chevron has the largest refining capacity in the region, by far. Refining capacity is the maximum amount of crude oil the refinery is allowed to refine, according to their permit. Refining capacity numbers are used in place of actual refined crude volumes for this analysis, because actual crude volumes are considered proprietary information and are not published by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

The Richmond refinery has a raw crude (atmospheric crude is the technical term) refinement capacity over twice as large as the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery, and almost 40% larger than the Tesoro (Golden Eagle) refinery, which is the second largest in the region. According to the newly proposed rules, this would allow the Richmond refinery to emit the most pollutants.

The raw total emissions data is shown in Figure 5. The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo contributes the least to ambient air quality degradation. The Chevron Richmond refinery processes 40 – 100% more than the four other refineries, and emits 10 – 570% more than the other refiners. This large difference in capacity and emissions means that Chevron Richmond is more efficient than some, but much less efficient than others. To understand the efficiency differences between the refineries, the total HAPs emissions were adjusted by the refining capacity, shown below in Figure 6. With this data we can rank the refining efficiency specifically for HAPs emissions, based on facility capacity. The Tesoro refinery in Martinez and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most HAPs per barrel oil (based on refining capacity). From highest emitter to lowest emitter per barrel of crude, the facilities can be ranked:

  1. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co LLC (Golden Eagle Refinery in Martinez)
  2. Shell Oil Products (Martinez Refinery)
  3. Chevron Products Co Richmond Refinery
  4. Valero Refining Co – California Benicia Refinery
  5. Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery (Rodeo Refinery)
fig 4 capacity

Figure 4. Operating capacity of refineries. The bars show the maximum amount of crude the refineries are allowed to process daily, in barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons).

fig 5 total

Figure 5. Total amount of HAPs emissions from East Bay refineries

These refineries along with the other industrial sites in the region have been mapped below in Figure 7. The data has been displayed to show the HAPs emissions from these facilities. The amounts of emissions are shown with graduated circles. The larger the circle, the higher the emissions. The cumulative summation of HAPs is a good value for comparing between facilities with diverse emission inventories (the list of all species of emitted pollutants), but different HAP chemicals have very different effects, both in magnitude and in health impacts. Different chemicals will affect different body systems, as described above in Tables 1-3 above. We have therefore incorporated individual chemical data into the map as well (Figure 7, below). The data displayed shows the total sum of HAPs emitted (in lbs/year) from petrochemical industrial facilities in the region. Explore the map to see emission sources for a selection of important pollutants. Smaller industrial sites/sources have been left out of the map.

Figure 7. Map of the East Bay’s Refinery Corridor with emissions data

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work
If you open the map into its own page, you can toggle between individual chemical emissions from these facilities. Use the layers tab to change the chemicals displayed. For more information on the individual chemicals, continue reading below.

This unique selection of pollutants was chosen by identifying the highest health risk drivers in the region. They are known to increase both cancer and non-cancer risk for residents in the bay area. The graphs that follow show the emissions inventories reported by each refinery. The refineries are organized on the X –axis according to increasing refining capacity, as they are in Figure 4, above.

Analysis of the graphs show that the Richmond Chevron facility is a largely responsible for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, naphthalene, hydrogen cyanide, PAH’s, vanadium, lead and nickel compounds. The Tesoro refinery is mostly responsible for almost all of the 1,3-butadiene, and most responsible for hydrogen sulfide and VOCs. Shell is mostly responsible for the ethylbenzene, much of the mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions, and the most VOCs. Valero in Benicia is responsible for much of the 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, all BTEX compounds, the most nickel compounds, and the most oxides of nitrogen. And finally, the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo with the lowest operating capacity also had the lowest emissions in almost every case except lead, which was very large compared to all refineries except Chevron Richmond. The Valero refinery in Benicia, the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most criteria air pollutants (CAPs), including PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 um), sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen.

Figure 8 – 22. Emissions totals of various air pollutants from East Bay refineries

Marine Terminals

Emissions from marine terminals are also a significant source of HAPs and particulate matter. In the map in Figure 7, the marine terminals are shown with yellow markers. Their relative contributions of total hazardous pollutants are much less than the refineries and other sources, but when we look at specific risk drivers, such as 1,3-butadiene and benzene, we find that their contributions are quite sizable. Marine terminals are also a key component for the refineries looking to access more low-grade crude. Increasing the refining capacity of the refinery will also increase the emissions from the terminals.

The Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery in Martinez, CA was recently approved for a 30-year lease on a new marine terminal. The new terminal will allow Tesoro to switch to processing lower-cost, lower-quality crude oil from California, Bakken crude, and Canadian tar sands. When crude is transported via ocean liner, besides the issue of air pollution there is the additional risk of an ocean spill. Tom Griffith, Martinez resident and co-founder of the Martinez Environmental Group and founding member of the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition recently summed up the threat, saying:

When you take a close look at what is going on in the marine oil terminals along the refinery corridor from Richmond to Stockton, it’s chilling to imagine what could happen if a huge oil tanker carrying tar sands crude crashed in the Bay! (Earthjustice, 2015)

Incidents

Chevron Fire 2012

Figure 23. Fires at Chevron Richmond Refinery 2012. Photo by John Sebastian Russo for the SF Chronicle

Like oil spills from tankers, there are other risks of industrial accidents for refineries that need to be considered. Accidents or incidents may occur that result in a sudden, large release of air pollution. Looking at the emissions data, the Richmond Chevron refinery with the largest production capacity may seem to be an efficient station compared to the other refineries. However, an explosion and large fire in 2012 there sent 15,000 community members to local hospitals with respiratory distress. The SF Chronicle’s coverage of the story can be found here. (Fire shown in photo right.) The incident resulted from pipes corroding and failing, and the facility failing to make the decision to shut down the process. The resulting plume of smoke is shown in the cover photo of this article. Other major explosions and fires have occurred in the recent past, as well, including a flaring incident in 2014, a fire in 2007, and two other explosion and fire events in 1999 and 1989.

Of course these events are not unique to the Chevron refinery. The Tesoro Golden Eagle refinery has a reputation of being the most dangerous refinery in the country for occupational hazards, and has one of the worst track records of violations.

Conclusions

If refineries increase their capacity and process more crude, the emissions of these various pollutants will invariably increase. Increased emissions elevate risk for surrounding communities, and in the bay area these communities already bare a disparate burden. Additionally, many of the pollutants will be transported with the prevailing wind that blows from the coast up the river delta and into the central valley. In FracTracker’s recent analysis of impacted communities in the refinery corridor, maps of air quality showed that the refinery communities are some of the most impacted in the entire bay area.

In addition, California’s Central Valley has some of the worst air quality in the U.S. Click here to view maps of state air quality of disproportionate impacts by us using CalEnviroScreen 2.0. While many of the HAPs have a greater local impact, others such as ozone have regional impacts, while others like mercury are transported globally.

What we find in this report is that the refineries and petrochemical industry in the refinery corridor are responsible for the majority of the risk-driving emissions in this region. When the risk and total emissions are averaged for the entire Bay Area, the risk outcomes are much less than for those living in the communities hosting the industries. New emissions rules should prioritize contributions of emissions to ambient air pollution loads. The biggest issue with using a “per barrel” emissions limit is that it prioritizes the refining capacity rather than mitigating the existing health impacts. These types of policy decisions deal directly with risk management. The Air Management District must decide what amount of cancer and disease are acceptable to keep the refineries in the communities. An upper limit on emissions makes it easier to set a risk limit, an upper bound for health impacts. The upper limit also holds the Air Management District and elected officials accountable for their policy decisions.

References

  1. U.S.EPA. 2011. Addressing Air Emissions from the Petroleum Refinery Sector U.S. EPA. Accessed 3/15/16.
  2. CBE. 2015. Playing It Safe: Supplemental comment on air district staff proposal, rules 12-15 and 12-16; Evidence of increasing bay area refinery GHG and pm2.5 emissions.. Communities for a Better Environment
  3. Casanova, D. Diemoz, L. Lifshay, J. McKetney, C. 2010. Community Heath Indicators for Contra Costa County. Community Health Assessment, Planning and Evaluation (CHAPE) Unit of Contra Costa Health Services’ Public Health division. Accessed 4/15/16.
  4. BAAQMD. 2012. Summary of PM Report. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Accessed 4/15/16.

** Feature image of the Richmond Chevron Refinery courtesy of D.H. Parks

** Feature image of the Richmond Chevron Refinery courtesy of Paul Chinn | The Chronicle

Petrochemical Industry Presence in East Bay CA’s North Coast Refinery Corridor

Who Lives Near the Refineries?
By

Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator &
Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community-Based Research & Engagement

Key Takeaways

  • Communities living along the North Coast of the East Bay region in California are the most impacted by the presence of the petrochemical industry in their communities.
  • Emissions from these facilities disproportionately degrade air quality in this corridor region putting residents at an elevated risk of cancer and other health impacts.
  • People of color are more likely to live near the refineries and are therefore disproportionately affected.

Refinery Corridor Introduction

The North Coast of California’s East Bay region hosts a variety of heavy industries, including petroleum refineries, multiple power plants and stations, chemical manufacturing plants, and hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities. Nationwide, the majority of petroleum refineries are located in heavily industrialized areas or near crude oil sources. The north coast region is unique. Access to shipping channels and the location being central to the raw crude product from North Dakota and Canada to the North, and California’s central valley oil fields to the south has resulted in the development of a concentrated petrochemical infrastructure within the largely residential Bay Area. The region’s petrochemical development includes seven fossil fuel utility power stations that produce a total of 4,283 MW, five major oil refineries operated by Chevron, Phillips 66, Shell Martinez, Tesoro, and Valero, and 4 major chemical manufacturers operated by Shell, General Chemical, DOW, and Hasa Inc. This unequal presence has earned the region the title, “refinery corridor” as well as “sacrifice zone” as described by the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition.

The hazardous emissions from refineries and other industrial sites are known to degrade local air quality. It is therefore important to identify and characterize the communities that are affected, as well as identify where sensitive populations are located. The communities living near these facilities are therefore at an elevated risk of exposure to a variety of chemical emissions. In this particular North Coast region, the high density of these industrial point sources of air pollution drives the risk of resultant health impacts. According to the U.S.EPA, people of color are twice as likely to live near refineries throughout the U.S. This analysis by FracTracker will consider the community demographics and other sensitive receptors near refineries along the north coast corridor.

In the map below (Figure 1) U.S. EPA risk data in CalEnviroscreen is mapped for the region of concern. The map shows the risk resulting specifically from industrial point sources. Risk along the North Coast is elevated significantly. Risk factors calculated for the region show that these communities are elevated above the average. The locations of industrial sites are also mapped, with specific focus on the boundaries or fencelines of petrochemical sites. Additional hazardous sites that represent the industrial footprint in the region have been added to the map including sites registered with Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) permits as well as Superfund and other Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. The Toxmap TRI sites are facilities that require a permit to emit hazardous air pollutants. The superfund and other CERCLA sites are locations where a historical footprint of industry has resulted in contamination. The sites are typically abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that are part of register for tax-funded clean-ups.

Figure 1. Interactive map of risk in the East Bay’s North Coast refinery corridor

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work

Oil refineries in particular are unique sources of air emissions. There are 150 large domestic refineries throughout the United States. They are shown in the map in Figure 2 below. The majority (90%) of the refined products from these refineries are fuels; motor vehicle gasoline accounts for 40%. The refinery sites have hundreds of stacks, or point sources, and they emit a wide variety of pollutants, as outlined by the U.S. EPA:

  • Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs)
    • Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
    • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
    • Carbon Monoxide (CO)
    • Particulate Matter (PM)
  • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
  • Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
    • Carcinogens, including benzene, naphthalene, 1,3-butadiene, PAH
    • Non-carcinogenic HAP, including HF and HCN
    • Persistent bioaccumulative HAP, including mercury and nickel
  • Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
  • Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

Figure 2. Map of North American Petroleum Refineries


View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work

BAAQMD Emissions Index

Figure 3. BAAQMD emissions index visualization

Disparate health impacts are therefore a known burden for these Bay Area communities. The region includes the cities of Richmond, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett, Port Costa, Benicia, Martinez, Mt. View, Pacheco, Vine Hill, Clyde, Concord, Bay Point, Antioch, and Oakley. In addition to preserving the ecological system health of this intercostal region is also important for both the ecological biodiversity of the marsh as well as commercial and recreational purposes. These wetlands provide a buffer, able to absorb rising waters and abate flooding.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Cumulative Impacts report identified areas where air pollution’s health impacts are relatively high in the San Francisco Bay Area. The report is does not limit their analysis to the North Coast, but shows that these regions with the most impacts are also the most vulnerable due to income, education level, and race and ethnicity. The report shows that there is a clear correlation between socio-economic disadvantages and racial minorities and the impacted communities. Figure 3 shows the regions identified by the BAAQMD as having the highest pollution indices.

Analysis

This analysis by FracTracker focuses specifically on the north shore of the East Bay region. Like the BAAQMD report, National Air toxic Assessment (NATA) data to identify census tracts with elevated risk. Specifically, elevated cancer and non-cancer risk from point sources emitting hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) as regulated by the U.S. EPA were used. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 data layers were also incorporated, specifically the U.S. EPA’s Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) data. RSEI uses toxic release inventory (TRI) data, emission locations and weather to model how chemicals spread in the air (in 810m-square grid units), and combines air concentrations with toxicity factors.

The census tracts that were identified as disproportionately impacted by air quality are shown in the map below (Figure 4). The demographics data for these census tracts are presented in the tables below. Demographics were taken from the U.S. census bureau’s 2010 Census Summary File 1 Demographic Profile (DP1). The census tracts shapefiles were downloaded from here.

Figure 4. Interactive Map of Petrochemical Sites and Neighboring Communities in the East Bays North Coast Industrial Corridor

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work

Buffers were created at 1,000 ft; 2,000 ft; and 3,000 ft buffers from petrochemical sites. These distances were developed as part of a hazard screening protocol by researchers at the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to assess environmental justice impacts. The distances are based on environmental justice literature, ARB land use guidelines, and state data on environmental disamenities (Sadd et al. 2011). A demographical profile was summarized for the population living within a distance of 3,000 feet, and for the census tracts identified as impacted by local point sources in this region. The analysis is summarized in Table 1 below. Additional data on the socioeconomic status of the census tracts is found in Table 2.

Based on the increased percentage of minorities and indicators of economic hardship shows that the region within the buffers and the impacted census tracts host a disproportionate percentage of vulnerable populations. Of particular note is 30% increase in Non-white individuals compared to the rest of the state. We see in Table 2 that this is disparity is specifically for Black or African American communities, with an over 150% increase compared to the total state population. The number of households reported to be in poverty in the last 12 months of 2014 and those households receiving economic support via EBT are also elevated in this region. Additional GIS analysis shows that 7 healthcare facilities, 7 residential elderly care facilities, 32 licensed daycares, and 17 schools where a total of 10,474 students attended class in 2014. Of those students, 54.5% were Hispanic and over 84% identified as “Non-white.”

Table 1. Demographic Summaries of Race. Data within the 3,000 ft buffer of petrochemical sites was aggregated at the census block level.

Total Population Non-White Non-White (%ile)  Hispanic or Latino  Hispanic or Latino (%ile)
Impacted Census Tracts 387,446 212,307 0.548 138,660 0.358
3,000 ft. Buffer 77,345 41,696 0.539 30,335 0.392
State Total 37,253,956 0.424 0.376

Table 2. Additional Status Indicators taken from the 2010 census at the census tract level

Indicators (Census Tract data) Impacted Count Impacted Percentile State Percentile
Children, Age under 5 27,854 0.072 0.068
Black or African American 60,624 0.156 0.062
Food Stamps (households) 0.1103 0.0874
Poverty (households) 0.1523 0.1453

Conclusion

The results of the refinery corridor analysis show that the communities living along the North Coast of the East Bay region are the most impacted by the presence of the petrochemical industry in their communities. Emissions from these facilities disproportionately degrade air quality in this corridor region putting residents at an elevated risk of cancer and other health impacts. The communities in this region are a mix of urban and single family homes with residential land zoning bordering directly on heavy industry zoning and land use. The concentration of industry in this regions places an unfair burden on these communities. While all of California benefits from the use of fossil fuels for transportation and hydrocarbon products such as plastics, the residents in this region bear the burden of elevated cancer and non-cancer health impacts.

Additionally, the community profile is such that residents have a slightly elevated sensitivity when compared to the rest of the state. The proportion of the population that is made up of more sensitive receptors is slightly increased. The region has suburban population densities and more children under the age of 5 than average. The number of people of color living in these communities is elevated compared to background (all of California). The largest disparity is for Black or African American residents. There are also a large number of schools located within 3,000 ft of at least one petrochemical site, where over half the students are Hispanic and the vast majority are students of color. Overall, people of color are disproportionately affected by the presence of the petrochemical industry in this region. Continued operation and any increases in production of the refineries in the East Bay disproportionately impact the disadvantaged and disenfranchised.

With this information, FracTracker will be elaborating on the work within these communities with additional analyses. Future work includes a more in depth look at emissions and drivers of risk on the region, mapping crude by rail terminals, and working with the community to investigate specific health endpoints. Check back soon.

References

  1. U.S.EPA. 2011. Addressing Air Emissions from the Petroleum REfinery Sector U.S. EPA. Accessed 3/15/16.
  2. Sadd et al. 2011. Playing It Safe: Assessing Cumulative Impact and Social Vulnerability through an Environmental Justice Screening Method in the South Coast Air Basin, California. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2011;8(5):1441-1459. doi:10.3390/ijerph8051441.

** Feature image of the Richmond Chevron Refinery courtesy of Paul Chinn | The Chronicle

Photo courtesy of Brian van der Brug | LA Times

More Oil Field Wastewater Pits Found in California!

Who’s in charge here?
By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator

FracTracker Alliance recently worked with Clean Water Action to map an update to last year’s report* on the use of unlined, above ground oil and gas waste disposal pits, also known as sumps.

The new report identifies additional oil field wastewater pits and details how California regulators continue to allow these facilities to degrade groundwater, surface waters, and air quality. Other oil and gas production states do not permit or allow these type of operations due to the many documented cases of water contamination. A report published in 2011 identified unlined pits and other surface spills as the largest threat to groundwater quality. The sites are ultimately sacrifice zones, where the contamination from produced water and drilling mud solid wastes leaves a lasting fingerprint.

Central Coast & New Central Valley Pit Data

Ca Central Coast oil field wastewater pits

Figure 1. Central Coast wastewater pits

New data has been released by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, identifying the locations of 44 active wastewater facilities and 5 inactive facilities in the California counties of Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. The number of pits at each facility is not disclosed, but satellite imagery shows multiple pits at some facilities. The locations of the majority of central coast pits are shown in the map in Figure 1, to the right.

In the web map below (Figure 2), the most updated data shows the number of pits at “active” facilities (those currently operating), shown in red and green, and inactive pits, shown in yellow and orange. The number of pits at each facility in the central valley are shown by the size of the graduated circles. Pit count data for the central coast facilities was not reported, therefore all facilities are shown with a small marker.

Figure 2. Interactive map of California oil field wastewater pits

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work | Download Map Data (Zip File)

Exploring the new central coast data shows that the operators with the most facilities include Greka Oil & Gas Inc. (14), E & B Natural Resources (10), ERG Operating Company, LLC (6), and Chevron (5). As shown in the table below, the majority of central coast pits are located in Santa Barbara County.

Table 1. Summaries by County

Site Counts by Activity and County
Facility Counts Pit Counts
County Active Inactive Active Inactive
Santa Barbara 35 2 Unknown Unknown
Monterey 9 0 Unknown 0
San Luis Obispo 0 3 0 Unknown
Kern 161 191 673 347
Fresno 8 5 31 14
Tulare 6 1 28 1
Kings 5 0 14 0
San Benito 0 4 0 5
Grand Total 224 206 746 367

Wastewater Pit Regulations

Way back in 1988, the U.S. EPA recognized that the federal regulations governing disposal practices of wastewater are inadequate to protect public health, but has yet to take action (NRDC 2015). There is little chance the U.S. EPA will enact regulations focused on pits. In certain cases, if wastewaters spill or are discharged to surface waters the operations will fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Since the objective of the pit is to contain the wastewater to keep it away from surface waters, pits and the wastewater facilities in California that manage them do not require federal oversight. For now the responsibility to protect health and environment has been left to the states.

Most states have responded and have strict regulations for wastewater management. For the few states that allow unlined pits, the main use is storage of wastewater rather than as an dedicated method of disposal. The majority of high production states have banned or ended the use of unlined pits, including Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Mexico, Texas (Heberger & Donnelly 2015). An effective liner will prevent percolation of wastewaters into groundwater. The goal of California oil field wastewater pits is quite the opposite.

For California, percolation is the goal and a viable disposal option.

Therefore other regulations that require monitoring of liquid levels in the pits are moot. In fact there is no evidence of regulation requiring spill reporting in California whatsoever (Kuwayama et al. 2015).

Numerous other extraction states throughout the country have phased out the use of open pits entirely, including those with liners due to the common occurrence of liner failures. The list includes those new players in the shale boom using hydraulic fracturing techniques such as North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Colorado. Rather than using the pits as storage, these states’ regulatory agencies favor instead the protections of closed systems of liquid storage. Wastewaters are stored in large tanks, often the same tanks used to store the fresh water used in the hydraulic fracturing process.

Because hydraulic fracturing in California uses much less water, it should be much easier to manage the flowback fluids and other wastewaters. According to the CCST report, 60% of the produced water from hydraulic fracturing operations was disposed to these unlined pits. Regardless of extraction technique, oil extraction in California produces 15 times the amount of wastewater. In total, an estimated 40% of all produced water was discharged to unlined “percolation” pits. As the 3rd largest oil producing state in the country, this equates to a massive waste stream of about 130 billion gallons/year (Grinberg 2014).

Regulatory Action

The facilities’ permits identify waste discharge requirements (WDRs) that allow for the discharge of oil field wastewater to the “ground surface, into natural drainage channels, or into unlined surface impoundments.” Using the Race Track Hill and Fee 34 Facilities as an example, the WDRS place criteria limits on total dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides, and boron. If you disregard all the other toxic constituents not monitored, the allowable concentration limits set for these three wastewater constituents would be reasonable for a discharge permit on the east coast, where a receiving body of water could provide the volume necessary for dilution. When the wastewater is applied directly to the ground or into a pit, the evaporative loss of water results in elevated concentrations of these contaminants.

Even with these very lax regulations, a number of facilities are in violation of the few restrictions required in their permits. Cease and desist orders have been several operators, most notably to Valley Water Management’s Race Track Hill and Fee 34 Facilities. According to the Regional Water Board documents, the Fee 34 disregarded salinity limitations and other regulations. As a result the Regional Water Board found soil and groundwater contamination that “threatens or creates a condition of pollution in surface and groundwater, and may result in the degradation of water quality.” Reports show that 6 domestic supply and 12 agricultural supply wells are located within 1 mile of the Fee 34 facility. At the Race Track Hill Facility the wastewater is continuously sprayed over several acre fields in a small watershed of the Cottonwood Creek. During a rain, the salt and boron loadings that have accumulated in the soil over the past 60 years of spraying can create increased salt and boron loading in the Kern River and groundwater. This would be a violation of the Clean Water Act (CVRWQCB 2015).

As shown in Table 2, below, the majority of facilities are currently operating without a permit whatsoever (61.2%). Of the 72 facilities that bothered to get permits, 32 (44.4%) received the permit prior to 1975, before the Tulare Basin Plan was implemented to preserve water quality. Of the 183 active facilities in the Central Valley, only 15 facilities have received Cease and Desist (11% of permitted) or Cleanup and Abatement Orders (6% of unpermitted). Only 3 of the 41 active Central Coast facilities operate with a permit (7.3%).

These types of WDR permits that allow pollutants to concentrate in the soil and the groundwater and degrade air quality. Chemicals that pose a public health risk are not being monitored. But at this point, these facilities are not only sites of legacy contamination, but growing threats to groundwater security. Operators say that closing the pits will mean certain doom for oil extraction in California, and recent letters from operators make pleas to DOGGR, that their very livelihood depends on using the pits as dumping grounds. The pits are the cheapest and least regulated mode of disposal.

Table 2. Facility Status Summaries

Facility Status
Activity Permitted Permitted; Cease & Desist Order Unpermitted Unpermitted; Cleanup & Abatement Order Grand Total
Active 75 9 137 6 227
Inactive 20 2 184 3 209
Grand Total 92 11 321 9 433

New Mexico Case Study

Much like the groundwater impacts documented by California’s Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, other states have been forced to deal with this issue. The difference is that other states have actually shut down the polluting facilities. In California, cease and desist orders have been met with criticism and pleas by operators, stating that the very livelihood of the oil and gas industry in California depends on wastewater disposal in pits. The same was said in other states such as New Mexico when these crude and antiquated practices were ended. Figure 3 below shows the locations of wastewater pits in New Mexico and the areas where groundwater was contaminated as a result of the pits.
The New Mexico oil and gas industry predicted in August 2008 that fewer drillers would sink wells in New Mexico, at least in part because of the new pit rule. Pro-industry (oil and gas) state representatives were concerned that new drilling techniques coupled with the pit rules could lead to an industry exodus from New Mexico, hoping that the Governor “would step in to help protect an important state revenue source.” But the state’s average rig count from June — when the pit rule took effect — through December 2008 was 7% higher than it was over the same period in the previous year. Development of oil and gas reserves is independent of such regulation. Read the FracTracker coverage of groundwater contamination in New Mexico, here!

Figure 3. Legacy map of cases where pits contaminated groundwater in New Mexico

View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work

References & Resources

* In case you missed it, the 2014 report on wastewater pits can be found here (Grinberg, A. 2014). FracTracker’s previous coverage of the issue can be found here.

** Feature image of Central Valley oil field wastewater pits courtesy of Brian van der Brug | LA Times

  1. Grindberg, A. 2016. UPDATE ON OIL AND GAS WASTEWATER DISPOSAL IN CALIFORNIA: California Still Allowing Illegal Oil Industry Wastewater Dumping Clean Water Action. Accessed 2/15/16.
  2. Grinberg, A. 2014. In the Pits, Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal into Open Unlined Pits and the Threat to California’s Water and Air. Clean Water Action. Accessed 12/5/14.
  3. NRDC. 2015. Groups File Notice of Intent to Sue EPA Over Dangerous Drilling and Fracking Waste. NRDC. Accessed 10/1/15.
  4. Heberger, M. Donnelly, K. 2015. Oil, Food, and Water: Challenges and Opportunities for California Agriculture. Pacific Institute. Accessed 2/1/16.
  5. Kuwayama et al. 2015. Pits versus Tanks: Risks and Mitigation Options for On-site Storage of Wastewater from Shale Gas and Tight Oil Development. Resources for the Future. Accessed 2/1/16.
  6. CVRWQCB. 2015. Cease and Desist Order R5-2015-0093. CVRWQCB. Accessed 2/1/16.
Florida resolutions against oil drilling

Florida resolutions opposing unconventional oil drilling

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator

Florida, where there has long been an interest in drilling for oil, has recently come into the cross-hairs for unconventional extraction several miles beneath the state. Oil drilling has had spotty and elusive success in the Sunshine State, but new technologies like hydraulic fracturing – fracking – could potentially provide access to those energy resources. Currently, Florida is in a gray zone, however, with no clear regulatory authority over unconventional drilling, but no clear mandate to prevent it either.

History

Florida well. Source: www.naplesnews.com

Dan Hughes well adjacent to Florida Panther Wildlife Refuge Source: www.naplesnews.com

In 2014, fracking came to the forefront when the Florida Department of Environmental Protection disclosed that in 2013, the Dan A. Hughes Company filed for a permit to use unconventional drilling techniques to rework an existing conventional well in Naples without a thorough review of the plans by regulators, and fracked the well later that year. As a result, the permit was revoked. Hughes had leases on 115,000 acres of land for additional wells, much of which was in environmentally sensitive areas of the Florida Everglades, bordering the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve. After legal pressure from the State of Florida, as well as environmental groups Preserve our Paradise, the Stone Crab Alliance, and South Florida Wildlands Association, the company abandoned their plans for drilling in the area. FracTracker covered this story in a previous blog entry.

A plan to regulate fracking in Florida was unveiled in November 2014. A slate of regulations was drafted by the Orange County League of Women Voters and students in the Environmental and Earth Clinic at Barry Law School, and drew upon examples from 14 states that had already grappled with the issue. While this plan specifies how, when, and where fracking may occur in Florida, it also leaves open the option for communities to ban the practice within its bounds altogether. Democratic Senators Darren DeSoto and Dwight Bulland introduced a bill (SB 166) in the 2015 legislative session that would ban fracking entirely, but they also emphasized the need for rules to be in place governing the practice, were that ban to be overturned. That bill did not advance beyond the Senate’s Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee, but was reintroduced in August 2015, with additional components that would also prohibit well stimulation.

In April 2015, two bills were presented on the floor of the State Senate and House of representatives: one to create regulations on the practice of fracking (SB 1468), and another that would permit non-disclosure of fracking chemicals by industry (SB 1582). Both bills passed in committee in April 2015, and are set to move on to further consideration by the full House and Senate.

In late April 2015, a bill (HB 1205) passed in the Florida House that would allow fracking to continue, but would put a moratorium on the practice until a study and regulations were in place. HB 1209, would also have exempted industry from disclosure of fracking chemicals. Because the Senate did not take up discussion on either bill and due to an early adjournment of the House, however, neither the Senate nor the House moved ahead on either bill during the 2015 Legislative session.

Using a similar strategy to New York State, which successfully banned high volume hydraulic fracturing for gas in June 2015, dozens of communities across Florida have taken to passing resolutions against unconventional drilling within their municipal bounds. The resolutions cite concerns about water quality, habitat protection, and impacts on endangered species that may result from this technology that aims to extra oil from rock layers more than 14,000 feet below the surface.

In July 2015, the Bonita Springs, Florida (Lee County) took their resolution one step further; the city council unanimously approved a ban on fracking within the city limits. Collier Resources, owner of thousands of acres of land within Bonita Springs, vigorously objected, and threatened lawsuits against the city’s decision. The company is predicting that the ban will be overturned by statewide legislation that permits fracking to occur. Meanwhile, Estero Village, also in Lee County, plans to take up legislation for a similar ban this month, with a vote expected on December 16th, 2015.

On the cusp of this vote, the concerns of dozens of communities across Florida have been registered in local resolutions opposing hydraulic fracturing within their municipal boundaries. Meanwhile, bills that would remove the rights of local municipalities to regulate fracking (HB 191 and SB 318) are also proceeding through legislative channels and will be taken up by the Florida State Legislature when it reconvenes in January 2016.

Florida Resolutions Map

This map shows the locations of those communities, most recently updated November 2016. Click here for a full-screen view with map legend.

Community activists in Estero Village are in a race against time to pass this ban; opposing legislation is before the Florida State Legislature that would make it so that only the state, not municipalities, can exercise authority over oil exploration.

The 2016 legislative session will present many important debates and votes on this important issue.

Sources

Nearly 2 Million Pennsylvanians Live Within a Kilometer of Oil & Gas Wells

By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data & Technology

In October 2014, the FracTracker Alliance performed an analysis showing an estimated 1.2 million people lived within a half mile of oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. We have now updated the analysis, but this time, the unit of measure is one kilometer (0.62 miles).

PA Population Within 1km of Active Oil and Gas Wells


This map shows the estimated population within one kilometer of active oil and gas wells in PA – a total of nearly 2 million Pennsylvanians. To access the full set of tools and details about how the map was made, click here for the full screen version of the map.

Methods

To get as complete a picture as possible of the oil and gas industry in PA, we queried the spud date report to show all wells that were listed as being spudded between January 1, 1800 and November 12, 2015. We used the former date because it appears to be a default for unknown spud dates, and the latter being the date that the data were downloaded for the analysis. Altogether, this yielded 203,887 oil and gas wells throughout the state, but 74,900 (37%) of these lacked location coordinates. All of those missing latitude and longitude data were classified as conventional wells, and many of them were fairly old. We then filtered out wells that were reported as not being drilled, as well as those that were permanently plugged, either by the operator, or by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The resulting set, which we refer to as “active” oil and gas wells, included 106,970 wells, of which 9,042 (8%) are defined as unconventional wells by the state.

To obtain an estimated population, we used the Census Tract level of detail, using official 2010 population figures. We calculated the area within 1 kilometer of active wells in three categories – conventional, unconventional, and all oil and gas wells. The population was then estimated by comparing the area inside the 1 km zone to the entire Census Tract, multiplying that ratio to the population of that tract, and repeating the process for each of the three datasets.

This area calculation was performed in Albers Equal Area projection optimized for the Great Lakes Basin area.  Every method of flattening an area of a globe on the map will lead to some type of distortion, but this projection prioritizes area over other factors, and is therefore appropriate for this type of analysis.

Results

An additional year of drilling activity, a more comprehensive date range, and the slight increase of the radius distance has had a significant effect on the estimated population near wells. The 2014 analysis yielded an estimated 1,264,576 within a half-mile of wells, while the current analysis has the figure at 1,965,837, an increase of 55%. Below is a table showing differences between the two analyses:

PA_PopWells_2015

This chart shows summaries of the current analysis of population within 1 km of wells in PA and an October 2014 version, showing population within a half-mile of wells.

One thing you will notice in this figure is that simply adding up the number of people who live in areas near unconventional and conventional drilling will not get you to the 1,965,837 figure we’ve presented. This is because some people live within the specified distance of both types of wells.

Additionally, it is impossible to say how many people live near the oil and gas wells that lack location data, as we obviously can’t map these wells. The majority of these wells may be in the areas that are already represented in the buffer zones, or they may extend that distance significantly.

Time Sequence Map of PA Drilling Available

Pennsylvania’s Drake Well is known for sparking the first oil boom in the United States in 1859. In more recent history, the industry has resurrected hydrocarbon extraction in the Commonwealth through unconventional oil and gas drilling – or fracking. Between 2002 and October 28, 2015, at least 16,826 of these high-impact wells have been approved statewide, and 9,508 drilled.

While standard maps can be useful to show the reach of the industry in aggregate, they aren’t the best way to show how drilling activity has changed over time. Luckily, we have other tools in the toolbox to show the trend. See drilling by year in this time sequence map below.

PA Unconventional Drilling Time Sequence Map

This representation starts slowly, just as the industry did in the state. Activity begins to pick up around 2008. In later years, watch exploration expand throughout the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. Eventually the activity concentrates in the northeastern and southwestern portions in the state.