Disproportionate Drilling and Stimulations in California

New Report from FracTracker and the Natural Resources Defense Council
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

The FracTracker Alliance recently contributed to a report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), titled Drilling in California: Who’s at Risk?. In the report, we find that many communities disproportionally burdened by environmental and public health degradation also live in the areas most impacted by oil and gas (O&G) development, including hydraulic fracturing and acidizing. Additionally, the communities most impacted by such oil and gas activity are disproportionately non-white. Key points of the report are listed below, as outlined by the NRDC:

Key Points of “Drilling in California” Report

  • Expanding oil production in California, in areas already heavily drilled or in new areas, can threaten the health of communities.
  • New analysis shows that, already, approximately 5.4 million Californians live within a mile of one, or more, of the more than 84,000 existing oil and gas wells.
  • More than a third of the communities living with oil and gas wells are also burdened with the worst environmental pollution, as measured by CalEPA’s CalEnviroScreen 2.0. These communities, with heightened risks, are 92 percent people of color.
  • To prevent further environmental damage and public health threats, major improvements are required before hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and other stimulation techniques are allowed to continue in California.

Read more>

The Analysis

The analysis used the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Health Hazard and Assessment’s (OEHHA) impact screening tool CalEnviroScreen 2.0, which ranks all the census tracts in CA based on various indicators of environmental and public health degradation due to pollution sources. Stimulated and non-stimulated O&G well-site data came from multiple sources including the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources; the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and FracFocus.

Visualizing the Data

The interactive web map below (Figure 1) provides a visual understanding of how these areas may be additionally burdened by California’s industrial oil and gas extraction activities. The CalEnviroscreen 2.0 dataset of census tract scores was mapped spatially to show the areas in CA disproportionately burdened by existing environmental stressors and health impacts. The locations of CA’s O&G production wells were overlaid on these maps since the CalEnviroscreen ranks did not specifically take into account the role of O&G extraction activity in communities. The top 20th percentile of total scores are shown in the map’s default view, and more CalEnviroscreen scores are displayable under the “Layers” tab (top right).

Figure 1. The top 20th percentile of highest CalEnviroscreen 2.0 total scores are shown in the map above along with well counts by census tract.  Increasing well counts are portrayed with orange circles that increase in size with the number of wells. Click here to explore.

Figures 2-7 below are provide printable examples of several of CalEnviroscreen’s 2.0’s most important rankings when considering O&G extraction activity.

Figure 2. CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the most pollution burden from various sources. The census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells.

Figure 2. CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the most pollution burden from various sources in all of California. The census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas (O&G) wells.

Figure 3. Focuses on the Greater Los Angeles Basin, and shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the most pollution burden from various sources.  The census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells. The map shows that many of the areas most impacted by existing pollution also host much of the oil and gas extraction activity.

Figure 3. Focus on the Greater Los Angeles Basin. Shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the most pollution burden from various sources. Census tract scores are overlaid with active O&G wells. Many of the areas most impacted by existing pollution also host much of the O&G extraction activity.

Figure 4. Focus on Los Angeles County, with some of the highest ranking scores for Ozone pollution.  As shown in the map, these areas also host and are surrounded by many oil/gas wells.

Figure 4. Focus on Los Angeles County, with some of the highest ranking scores for Ozone pollution. These areas also host and are surrounded by many oil/gas wells.

Figure 5. Focus on the Greater Los Angeles Basin. Shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution.  The census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells.  The map shows that many of the areas most impacted by PM2.5 also host much of the oil and gas extraction activity.

Figure 5. Focus on the Greater Los Angeles Basin. Shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. Census tract scores are overlaid with active O&G wells. Many of the areas most impacted by PM2.5 also host much of the O&G extraction activity.

Figure 6. Focus on Kern County in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution.  The census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells.  The map shows that many of the areas most impacted by PM2.5 also host much of the oil and gas extraction activity.

Figure 6. Focus on Kern County in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Shows the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. Census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells. Many of the areas most impacted by PM2.5 also host much of the O&G extraction activity.

Figure 7. Focuses on the areas of Kern County with the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from ambient ozone pollution. Census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells.  The map shows that many of the areas most impacted by ozone also host much of the oil and gas extraction activity.

Figure 7. Focuses on the areas of Kern County with the CalEnviroscreen 2.0 highest 20th percentile of census tracts with the worst air quality impacts resulting from ambient ozone pollution. Census tract scores are overlaid with active oil and gas wells. Many of the areas most impacted by ozone also host much of the O&G extraction activity.

Conventional and unconventional wells in PA

Over 1.2 Million Pennsylvanians Within 1/2 Mile of a Well

Aging well in McKean County, PA. Source: saveourstreamspa.org

One of the potentially troubling aspects of oil and gas development is that there are usually people who live in the vicinity of the wells. Pennsylvania now has over 8,000 active unconventional wells; there are any number of issues that can occur with these modern, industrial-scale sites, including road degradation, contaminated water, and health impacts, among others. In addition, there are over 93,000 of the smaller, conventional wells in operation throughout the Commonwealth. While these garner far less attention than their unconventional counterparts, they are also prone to producing similar impacts, not to mention that since many of them are older wells, they not only have potentially been subject to deterioration and occasional neglect, but were constructed during a period with less stringent requirements than are currently expected.

Petroleum engineers are now capable of drilling horizontally for tens of thousands of feet. For the most part, however, this technology is employed to maximize production, rather than to ameliorate impacts on people who live near the product. But who are these people? To help to answer this question, the FracTracker Alliance calculated the number of people living in a half-mile radius around active wells in the state.

More than 1.2 million Pennsylvanians live within the impact area.

Of the 93,754 wells that have been drilled in the state since 1950 that have not yet been plugged, the Pennsylvania DEP only has location data for 79,118 of them. All but one of the 14,636 missing locations are for wells that are categorized as Conventional. While one must presume that there is some overlap in coverage within the half-mile zone, the extent of this region – and therefore the population that lives within it – cannot be determined.

Fig. 1. PA Populations Near Oil and Gas Wells. Click here to access written description and additional map tools.

To maximize the reliability of our calculations, this map was created using a custom Albers equal-area projection centered on Pennsylvania. A half-mile buffer around each well type was created, and the resulting layer was clipped to Census tract data. The ratio of the smaller clipped area to the full Census tract area was calculated, and that ratio was then multiplied by the population totals from the 2010 Census to obtain our population estimates of the half-mile zone. The area in the study area is larger than six states, while the calculated population is larger than that of eight states.

Of the 79,118 active oil and gas wells in PA for which location data are available, we determined the area and estimated the population within a half mile radius. Note that some regions are with a half-mile of both conventional and unconventional wells.

Fig. 2. Number of people in PA near oil and gas wells (79,118 active wells for which location data are available). Note that some regions are with a half-mile of both conventional and unconventional wells.

The county most impacted, in terms of area, for unconventional wells is Bradford, with 353 square miles (See Figure 2). Washington County had the most people living in the zone, however, with 20,566. For conventional wells, the drilling landscape is the largest in Indiana County, affecting 761 square miles, while Erie County has the most people in the half-mile zone, with 212,900. When considering all wells together, the numbers are almost identical to conventional wells. Indiana County leads with 762 square miles, while the drill zone in Erie County represents 211,903 people, or 76% of the county’s population in 2010.

Gas Trucks Blocking Roads

Companies Lack Truck Traffic Coordination

Recently, I was observing how Statoil was managing their gas well traffic, how well it was moving, and whether local residential traffic was being significantly delayed.

Figure 1. Road map referred to throughout text

Figure 1. Road map referred to throughout text

In Wetzel County, WV, gas trucks travel 4.5 miles from a Statoil pipe yard (Fig 1. Location A) in Uniontown to the Statoil Kuhn well pad (E). This trip can take at least 15 minutes for each truck. Rockford is also doing pipeline work along this route (B and D).

The roadway Statoil is using, even though it is small gravel lane, is a public route. Routine well pad traffic was moving between the pad and pipe yard. When I attempted to travel out to the well pad, I noticed some issues around the pipeline crossing. A large truck was blocking the road and all traffic was stopped. At 3:59 pm, a large dump truck hauling drill cuttings left the well pad coming towards the pipeline. Statoil personnel radioed the flagger at the pipe yard to stop traffic there.

The dump truck was stopped at the pipeline crossing, point D at 4:09 pm, where the road was blocked. It was not until 4:34 pm that traffic was finally able to proceed. This section of road was closed for 35 minutes, as was the lower road at the pipe yard.

For the past few days, Statoil has been stopping all traffic as soon as any truck leaves the well pad, whether the pipeliners have the road blocked or not.

Associated Issues

There are three serious factors that significantly hamper traffic flow along this route:

Statoil's Kugh Well Pad

Statoil’s Kugh Well Pad

  1. Statoil has flagger-radio personnel stationed at the pipe yard and at the pad, but not at the top of the hill (C) about a mile from the pipe yard. As a result, there was no way to allow any local traffic to come up the hill even when they intend to continue heading west or southeast. With a flagger-radio at the top of the hill, local traffic could be up the hill and long gone before any large trucks got to there. (Note: After a few weeks a traffic person was then stationed at the top of the hill).
  2. Not all Statoil subcontractors trucks are equipped with CB radios, so it is impossible to track their progress or location on this road.
  3. Rockford and Statoil do not use any common radio band. They do not appear to communicate with each other even though they are working along this same truck route.

This traffic block incident luckily did not include emergency vehicle traffic. If there had been any accident on or near the well pad or the pipeline right of way, no one would have been able to get through. It would seem that it is in the best interest of the companies and their employees to make sure the road is clear, all the time. When I discussed this with the tool pusher* on the well pad, he agreed. He was also concerned that there was no helicopter landing area nearby in the event of a serious accident. He runs a safe well drilling operation but wanted to be certain that an emergency vehicle could get through.

* A tool pusher is the boss man who runs the whole drilling operation as a subcontractor to the gas operator.

By Bill Hughes, WV Community Liaison, FracTracker Alliance
Read more Field Diary articles.


The Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio, Part I

OH Utica Production, Water Usage, and Changes in Lateral Length
Part I of a Multi-part Series
By Ted Auch, OH Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

As shale gas expands in Ohio, how too does water use? We conducted an analysis of 500+ Utica wells in an effort to better understand the water-energy nexus in Ohio between production, water usage, and lateral length across 500+ Utica wells. The following is a list of the primary findings from this analysis:

Lateral Length

Modified EIA.gov Schematic Highlighting the Lateral Portion of the Well

Figure 1. Modified EIA schematic highlighting the lateral portion of the unconventional well

In unconventional oil and gas drilling, often operators need to drill both vertically and then laterally to follow the formation underground. This process increases the amount of shale that the well contacts (see the modified EIA schematic in Figure 1). As a general rule Ohio’s Utica wells transition to the horizontal or lateral phase at around 6,800 feet below the earth’s surface.

1. The average Utica lateral is increasing in length by 51-55 feet per quarter, up from an average of 6,369 feet between Q3-2010 and Q2-2011 to 6,872 feet in the last four quarters. Companies’ lateral length growth varies, for example:

    • Gulfport is increasing by 46 feet (+67,206 gallons of water),
    • R.E. Gas Development and Antero 92 feet (+134,412 gallons of water), and
    • Chesapeake 28 feet (+40,908 gallons of water).

2. An increase in lateral length accounts for 40% of the increase in the water usage, as we have discussed in the past.

3. As a general rule, every foot increase in lateral length equates to an increase of 1,461 gallons of freshwater.

Regional and County-Level Trends

This section looks into big picture of shale gas drilling in OH. Herein we summarize the current state of water usage by the Utica shale industry relative to hydrocarbon production, as a percentage of residential water usage, as well as long-term water usage and waste production forecasts.

1. Freshwater Use

    • Across 516 wells, we found that the average OH Utica well utilizes 5.04-5.69 million gallons of freshwater per well.
    • This figure includes a ratio of 12:1 freshwater to recycled water used on site.
    • Water usage is increasing by 221-330,000 gallons per well per quarter.
      • Note: In neighboring – and highly OH freshwater reliant-West Virginia, the average Marcellus well uses 6.1-6.6 million gallons per well, with a trend increase of 189-353,000 gallons per quarter per well.
      • Water usage is up from 4.88 million gallons per well between 2010 and the summer of 2011 to 7.27 million gallons today.
    • Over the next five years, we will likely see 18.5 billion gallons of freshwater used for shale gas drilling in OH.
    • On average, drilling companies use 588 gallons of water to get a gallon of oil.
      • Average: 338 gallons of water required to get 1 MCF of gas
      • Average: 0.078 gallons of brine produced per gallon of water

2. Residential Water Allocation

    • A portion of residential water (3.8-6.1% of usage) is being allocated to the Utica drilling boom.
      • This figure is as high as 81% of residential water requirements in Carroll County.
      • And amounts to 2.2-3.5% of the available water in the Muskingum River Watershed.
    • The allocation will increase over time to amount to 8.2-10.5% of residential usage or 4.4-5.6% of Muskingum River available water.

3. Permitted Wells Potential

    • If all permitted Utica wells were to come online (active), we could expect 299.7 million gallons of additional brine to be produced and an additional 220 million gallons of freshwater a year to be used.
    • This trend amounts to 1.1 billion gallons of fracking brine waste looking for a home within 5 years.

4. Waste Disposal

    • Stallion Oilfield Services has recently purchased several Class II Injection wells in Portage County.
    • These waste disposal sites are increasing their intake at a rate of 2.13 million gallons per quarter, 4.76 times that of the rest of OH Class II wells.

Water Usage By Company

The data trends we have reviewed vary significantly depending on the company that is assessed. Below we summarize the current state of water usage by the major players in Ohio’s Utica shale industry relative to hydrocarbon production. 

1. Overall Statistics

    • The 15 biggest Water-To-Oil offenders are currently averaging 16,844 Gallons of Water per gallon of oil (PGO) (i.e., Shugert 2-12H, Salem-Grubbs 1H, Stutzman 1 and 3-14H, etc).
    • Removing the above 15 brings the Water-To-Oil ratio down from 588 to 52 gallons of water PGO.
    • The 9 biggest Water-To-Gas offenders are currently averaging 16,699 gallons of water per MCF of gas.
    • Removing the above 9 brings the Water-To-Gas ratio down from 338 to 27 gallons of water per MCF of gas.

Company differences are noticeable (Figure 2):

Water Usage by Hydraulic Fracturing Industry in Ohio

Figure 2. Average Freshwater Use Among OH Utica Operators

    • Antero and Anadarko used an average of 9.5 and 8.8 MGs of water per well during the course of the 45-60 drilling process, respectively (Note: HG Energy has the wells with the highest water usage but a limited sample size, with 9.8 MGs per well).
    • Six companies average in the middle with 6.7-8.1 MGs of water per well.
    • Four companies average 5 MGs per well, including Chesapeake the biggest player here in OH.
    • Devon Energy is the one firm using less than 3 MGs of freshwater for each well it drills.

2. Water-to-Oil Ratios

Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio: Water-to-Oil Ratios Among OH Utica Operators

Figure 3. Water-to-Oil Ratios Among OH Utica Operators

Freshwater usage is increasing by 3.6 gallons per gallon of oil. Companies vary less in this metric, except for Gulfport (Figure 3):

    • Gulfport is by far the least efficient user of freshwater with respect to oil production, averaging 3,339 gallons of water to extract one gallon of oil.
    • Intermediate firms include American Energy and Hess, which required 661 and 842 gallons of freshwater to produce a gallon of oil.
    • The remaining eleven firms used anywhere from 6 (Atlas Noble) to 130 (Chesapeake) gallons of freshwater to get a unit of oil.

3. Water-to-Gas Ratios (Figure 4)

Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio: Water-to-Gas Ratio Among OH Utica Operators

Figure 4. Water-to-Gas Ratio Among OH Utica Operators

    • American Energy is also quite inefficient when it comes to natural gas production utilizing >2,200 gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas produced
    • Chesapeake and CNX rank a distant second, requiring 437 and 582 gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas, respectively.
    • The remaining firms for which we have data are using anywhere from 13 (RE Gas) to 81 (Gulfport) gallons of freshwater per MCF of natural gas.

4. Brine Production (Figure 5)

Water-Energy Nexus in Ohio: Brine-to-Oil Ratios among Ohio Utica Operators

Figure 5. Brine-to-Oil Ratios among Ohio Utica Operators

    • With respect to the relationship between hydrocarbon and waste generation, we see that no firm can match Oklahoma City-based Gulfport’s inefficiencies with an average of 2,400+ gallons of brine produced per gallon of oil.
    • American Energy and Hess are not as wasteful, but they are the only other firms generating more than 750 gallons brine waste per unit of oil.
    • Houston-based Halcon and OH’s primary Utica player Chesapeake Energy are generating slightly more than 400 gallons of brine per gallon of oil.
    • The remaining firms are generating between 17 (Atlas Noble and RE Gas) and 160 (Anadarko) gallons of brine per unit of oil.

Part II of the Series

In the next part of this series we will look into inter-county differences as they relate to water use, production, and lateral length. Additionally, we will also examine how the OH DNR’s initial Utica projections differ dramatically from the current state of affairs.

Water and Production in Ohio's Utica Shale - Water Per Well

Water and Production in Ohio’s Utica Shale – Water Per Well


Digging into Waste Data

Digging into Waste Data

By Katie Mattern, FracTracker Summer Intern

Seeing is believing, as the saying goes. Without physically observing the amount of waste generated from hydraulic fracturing of unconventional oil and gas wells, it is difficult to comprehend the volume and scope of the waste produced.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) makes a considerable amount of waste production data publicly available, speaking to the quantities of fluids and solids produced by 25 oil and gas operators across 25 counties. This figure, however, is only about 40% of all of the operators according to StateImpactPA. Also, complete data is not available for the 25 companies that are included, but let’s dig into some waste data simply as an exercise.

Dig Into Basic Cabot Waste Statistics

In order to gain a sense for industry trends we decided to look at data pertaining to Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, specifically, whose entire 2013 inventory of oil and gas wells were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region. The first and second halves of 2013 contain fairly complete records for Cabot – such as well location, waste facility location, waste type, waste quantity, and disposal method. It is interesting to note that in the comments section, all but a few of the well permit sites read “Entire water fraction of waste stream recycled at a centralized treatment plant for reuse by Cabot,” even for drill cuttings that were taken to a landfill.

The following analysis focuses on the waste generated by 264 Cabot wells during this period. All of Cabot’s unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania during 2013 were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region.

Waste Produced

In the first 6 months of 2013 (Period 1), liquid waste – consisting of produced fluid, servicing fluid, hydraulic fracturing fluid (frac fluid) waste, and drilling fluid waste – totaled 745,898 barrels (Bbl) or over 30,000,000 gallons. Solid waste – or drill cuttings – totaled 51,981 tons.1 To put this into perspective, 745,898 Bbls is equivalent to the water usage requirements of about 4 wells in West Virginia.2 The 51,981 tons of drill cuttings weighs about the same as the average amount of garbage produced by 65,029 Americans per year, or 1.5 times the population of Susquehanna County. The fluid waste is also enough to fill approximately 48 Olympic swimming pools.

Period 2 (July through December) of 2013, consisting of 319 reporting wells, experienced a 77% increase in liquid waste, climbing past the 1 million Bbl mark to 1,340,143 Bbl. This figure is the equivalent of filling almost 85 Olympic swimming pools. Similarly, drill cuttings increased to 96,165 tons, almost double the amount generated in Period 1. The total amount of waste generated by Cabot for the entire year yields more than 2 million Bbl of liquid waste and nearly 150,000 tons of solid waste from drill cuttings1 – more than 130 Olympic swimming pools worth of water and a weight of solid waste equivalent to the average waste generated by more than 120,000 American per year- over 2.8 times the population pf Susquehanna County (see infographic below).

Digging into waste data infographic

Waste Composition

According to Cabot’s waste data, most of the liquid waste is made up of produced fluid,1 which is the saline water that returns to the surface as a byproduct of the drilling process. This fluid can be up to 10 times saltier than ocean water and can also be radioactive.3 Frac fluid waste3 contributed to the next largest amount of waste, followed by drilling fluid waste and servicing fluid. Produced fluid tripled from Period 1 to Period 2, while frac fluid waste remained fairly steady, and drilling fluid waste decreased slightly. However, the amount of servicing fluid waste generated between the first and second half of 2013 increased more than 12 times.1 Overall, the following increases were seen between Period 1 and Period 2 in 2013:

  • Fluid waste from hydraulic fracturing rose by nearly 80%
  • Solid waste rose by 85%
  • The number of unconventional oil and gas reporting wells only increased by about 20%, from 264 to 319.

Examining the data from FracFocus that is available for these reporting wells,4 it is interesting to note that the average true vertical depth of the wells decreased by about 100 feet between the two periods. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the amount of drill cuttings increased by 85% in Period 2. Why is there such a large increase in both solid and liquid waste between these two periods when there was only a 20% increase in the number of wells? There are various theories that could result in such a dramatic increase in period 2 compared to the 6 months prior, including but not limited to:

  1. The use of more liquids for the construction or drilling processes,
  2. Longer lateral distances per horizontal well,
  3. More lax operating procedures,
  4. More detailed reporting by Cabot, and/or
  5. Stricter reporting/enforcement by the PADEP.
Dig into waste date. Waste Impoundment - Photo by Pete Stern 2013

Waste Impoundment – Photo by Pete Stern 2013

Waste Produced Means Waste Transported

Although Cabot is responsible for producing large amounts of waste, they also are recycling their liquid waste (as is listed for every site in the Period 2 data). To do so, the company transports their waste to a centralized treatment plant. There, the water is filtered so that it can be mixed with more freshwater and chemicals and be reused at another well site. However, hauling so much fluid to the centralized treatment plant requires numerous trips by tanker trucks, as well as dump trucks and trailer trucks taking drill cuttings to landfills. Some treatment facilities for PA waste are located as far away as Ohio, West Virginia, and New York. Cabot trucks travelled approximately 114,000 miles5 in Period 1 of 2013, and over 1,122,000 miles were travelled in Period 2 of 2013. The total miles travelled to transport Cabot’s waste is equivalent to almost 50 times around the earth – for one company in one state, operating in only two counties.1

Additional Considerations

Further analysis should examine the air pollution and carbon footprint generated from such extensive traffic. The miles make a difference, considering that a highly efficient tractor trailor only gets ~10 miles per gallon.

While reusing the majority of liquid waste in an effort to reduce the amount of fresh water needed for hydraulic fracturing is a positive step, transporting recycling water by truck still results in fuel used, pollutants emitted, and traffic impacts.

Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. was the second largest unconventional shale gas producer in PA behind Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, which had more than 809 reporting wells in Period 2 of 2013. With a total of 62 companies operating in PA at this time,6 the cumulative effects of waste transportation undoubtedly add up. Serious efforts should be made on the part of all oil and gas companies to reduce their waste and provide accurate and timely waste reports.

References and Resources

  1. Data obtained from the PA DEP Oil and Gas Reporting Website
  2. Data originally posted on FracTracker.org
  3. Data obtained from New York State Water Resources Institute
  4. True vertical depth measurements are missing for many of the sites in Period 1. Data obtained from FracFocus
  5. Miles calculated in Microsoft Excel using formula obtained from Blogspot.com
  6. Data obtained from StateImpact Pennsylvania
Train Counts - Call for Volunteers

Help Us to Track Oil Trains in Pittsburgh and Beyond

Call for Volunteers

FracTracker Alliance and the CREATE Lab at CMU are seeking volunteers to track oil trains on October 21st near Pittsburgh, PA for 2-hour segments from 7:00am – 7:00pm.

Sign up to participate (Link Deactivated, Archived Event)

Approximately 400,000 barrels of oil are transported daily from the west, following tracks from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale Play, which typically run through populated urban areas such as Pittsburgh. These trains have been known to derail and cause immense damage. The most recent of cases occurred in Québec in July of 2013, when a derailed train and the subsequent explosions resulted in the deaths of 47 people. The transportation of volatile crude oil from western states to major cities up and down the Eastern seaboard poses a major risk to any town or city through which these trains pass. FracTracker and affiliated groups want to understand the true risk that these volatile train cars pose to our region.

FracTracker and CREATE Lab will use the data collected during this project to analyze the frequency and risk of crude oil freight trains passing through the Pittsburgh area, but we need your help.

We are looking for volunteers that can commit to a two-hour shift throughout the day on October 21st. Volunteers will be equipped with a video camera, tripod, and of course coffee and snacks in order to record the passing of trains in either direction throughout a two-hour shift. The video footage will allow us to identify a plaque that is required to be displayed on cars carrying oil, as well as whether the cars are empty or full.

If you are interested in volunteering with FracTracker and this freight train project, follow the link above to sign up for a shift. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns at (412) 802-0273 or Malone@FracTracker.org. We hope to see you there!

About Us

FracTracker Alliance is a non-profit with an office in the Pittsburgh area whose mission is to share maps, data, and analyses to communicate impacts of the global oil and gas industry and to inform actions that positively shape our energy future. www.fractracker.org

The Community Robotics, Education and Technology Empowerment Lab (CREATE Lab) explores socially meaningful innovation and deployment of robotic technologies and is based out of Carnegie Mellon University. www.cmucreatelab.org

Politics and Campaign Financing

O&G Politics & Campaign Financing

By Ted Auch, OH Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Anyone who has been paying attention to the domestic shale gas conversation knows the issue is fraught with controversy and political leanings. The debate is made only more complicated by the extensive lobbying to promote drilling and related activities. It would be nice to look at shale gas through a purely analytical lens, but it is impossible to decouple the role of politicians and those that fund their campaigns from the myriad socioeconomic, health, and environmental costs/benefits.

As such, this article covers two issues:

  1. Who Gets Funded: the distribution of oil and gas (O&G) funds across the two primary parties in the US, as well as the limited funds awarded to third parties, and
  2. Funding Allocation to a Specialized Committee: industry financing to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology1 the primary house committee responsible for:

…all matters relating to energy research, development, and demonstration projects therefor; commercial application of energy technology; Department of Energy research, development, and demonstration programs; Department of Energy laboratories; Department of Energy science activities; energy supply activities; nuclear, solar, and renewable energy, and other advanced energy technologies; uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of Energy waste management; fossil energy research and development; clean coal technology; energy conservation research and development, including building performance, alternate fuels, distributed power systems, and industrial process improvements; pipeline research, development, and demonstration projects; energy standards; other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman; and relevant oversight.

Politics and Campaign Financing

Fig. 1. Relevant Oil & Gas PACs, Institutes, and Think Tanks – as well as Koch Industries and subsidiaries offices (Orange). Click to explore

1. Letting the Numbers Speak

“When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”

The above quote has been attributed to a variety of sources from sports figures to economists, but nowhere is it more relevant than the politics of shale gas. The figures below present campaign financing from O&G industry to the men and women that represent us in Washington, DC.

Data Analysis Process

To follow the shale money path, FracTracker has analyzed data from the: a) total contributions and b) average per representative across Democrats and Republicans. Our Third Party analysis included five Independents in the Senate as well as one Green, one Unaffiliated, one Libertarian, and two Independents in the House.


Annual Senate compensation relative to average US Income Per Capita

Fig. 3. US Senate Salary (Late 18th Century to 2014) & Average American Salary (1967-2013).

There are sizable inter-party differences across both branches of congress (See Figures 2a-b). In total, Democratic and Republican senators have received $18.1 and $48.6 million from the O&G industry since data collection began in 1990. Meanwhile, Third Party senators have received a total of $385,632 in O&G campaign finance. It stands to reason that the US House would receive more money in total than the senate, given that it contains 435 representatives to the Senate’s 100, and this is indeed the case; Democratic members of the House received $28.9 million to date vs. $104.9 million allocated to the House’ GOP members – or a 3.6 fold difference. Third Party members of the House have received the smallest allotment of O&G political largesse, coming in at $197,145 in total.

To put this into perspective, your average Democratic and Republican senator has seen the gap increase between his/her salary and the average American from $27,536 in 1967 to $145,171 in 2013 (Figure 3).

These same individuals have also seen their political war chests expand on average by $151,043 and $412,007, respectively. Third Party senators have seen their campaign funds swell by an average of $64,272 since 1990. Meanwhile, the U.S. Capitol’s Democratic and GOP south wing residents have seen their O&G campaign contributions increase by an average of $50,836 and $188,529, respectively, with even Third Partiers seeing a $38,429 spike in O&G generosity.

Figure 2a

Figure 2a. Total funding received by both branches of the US legislative branch

Average funding received by oil and gas industry

Figure 2b. Average funding received by oil and gas industry

Location is a better predictor of whether a politician supports the O&G industry than his/her political affiliation. At the top of the O&G campaign financing league tables are extraction-intensive states such as Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska, California, and Louisiana. (See Figures 4a-h at the bottom of this article for Average Oil & Gas Contributions to US House Representatives and Senators across the US.)

2. Committee on Science, Space and Technology

The second portion of this post covers influences related to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology (CSST). There is no more powerful group in this country when it comes O&G policy construction and stewardship than CSST. The committee is currently made up of 22 Republicans and 18 Democrats from 21 states. Thirty-five percent of the committee hails from either California (6) or Texas (8), with Florida and Illinois each contributing three representatives to the committee. Almost all (94%) of the O&G campaign finance allocated to CSST has gone to its sitting GOP membership.

The top three recipients of O&G generosity are all from Texas, receiving 3.2-3.5 times more money than their party averages – totaling $1.93 million or 37% of the total committee O&G financial support. The next four most beholden members of the committee are Frank Lucas and Michael McCaul (TX, $904,709 combined), Cynthia Marie Lummis (WY, $400,400), and Kevin Cramer (ND, $343,000). The average Democratic member of the CSST committee has received 12.8 times less in O&G funding relative to their GOP counterparts; Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex representatives Marc Veasey and Eddie Bernice Johnson collected a combined $130,350 from industry. Interestingly a member of political royalty, Joe Kennedy III, has collected nearly $50K from the O&G industry, which corresponds to the average for his House Democrat colleagues.

See Figures 5-6 for totals and percentage of party averages of O&G campaign funds contributed to current member of the US House CSST.

Total Oil & Gas campaign funds contributed to current member of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Figure 5. Totals

Total Oil & Gas campaign funds contributed to current member of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology as percentage of party averages.

Figure 6. Percentage of party averages

 “Don’t Confuse Me With The Facts”

In addition to current do-nothing politicians beholden to the O&G industry, we have prospects such as Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst going so far as to declare that the Koch Brothers various Political Action Committees (PACs) started her trajectory in politics. Promising “ ‘to abolish’ the Environmental Protection Agency, she opposes the Clean Water Act, and in May she downplayed the role that human activities have played in climate change and/or rises in atmospheric CO2.

In Ohio it seems realistic to conjecture that OH Governor John Kasich, bracing for a tough reelection campaign, is wary of biting the PAC hands that feed him. He has also likely seen what happened to his “moderate” colleagues in states like Mississippi and Virginia, and in the age of Citizens United and McCutcheon he knows that the Hydrocarbon Industrial Complex will make him pay for anything that they construe as hostile to fossil fuel business as usual.

Close to the Action

Groups like the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, Randolph Foundation, and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)2 are unapologetically wedded to continued production of fossil fuels. Nationally and in OH, politicians appear to be listening more to the talking points and white papers of such groups than they do their own constituents.. Therefore, it is no coincidence that DC and its surrounding Virginia suburbs has been colonized by industry mouthpieces, energy policy and economic academic tanks, philanthropies, and Political Action Committees (PACs). See Figure 1 for more information.

Know Your Vote

So when you go to the polls on November 4th, remember that politicians are increasingly beholden not to their constituents but to the larger donors to their campaigns. Nowhere is this more of a concern than US energy policy and our geopolitical linkages to producers and emerging markets. More to the point, when offered an opportunity to engage said officials make sure to bring up their financial links as it relates to how they vote and the types of legislation they write, massage, customize, or outright eliminate. As Plato once said, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Our current selection of politicians at the state and federal level are not evil, but data on O&G politics and campaign financing presented herein do indicate that objectivity with respect to oil and gas legislation has been at the very least compromised.

Figures 4a-h. Average & Total O&G Industry Contributions to US House Representatives and Senators across the US mainland and Alaska

Average Total
Democratic Representatives

Average Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Democratic Representatives

Fig. 4a

Total Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Democratic Representatives

Fig. 4b

Democratic Senators

Average Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Democratic Senators

Fig. 4c

Total Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Democratic Senators

Fig. 4d

Republican Representatives

Average Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Republican Representatives

Fig. 4e

Total Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Republican Representatives

Fig. 4f

Republican Senators

Average Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Republican Senators

Fig. 4g

Total Oil & Gas Industry Contributions to Republican Senators

Fig. 4h


  1. This committee’s minority leader Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) recently proposed the H.R.5189 – Energy and Water Research Integration Act of 2014 with an as yet to be published summary.
  2. …along with like-minded entities like the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Chamber of Commerce’s PAC. These PACs and foundations tend to fund and greatly benefit from frackademic shops like Northwestern University’s Northwestern Law Judicial Education Program and George Mason University’s Law and Economics Center.
Missing from the Conversation - Renewables

Missing from the Conversation

By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

After spending the afternoon travelling to drilling pads and compressor stations for the extraction and processing of unconventional oil and gas in our nearby communities, I travelled to the Niehaus Farm in the beautiful hills of West Virginia to visit with Rich and Felicia Niehaus. As the discussion centered on energy issues, it became evident that there is something crucial missing from the conversation about unconventional oil and gas issues:

energy conservation, energy efficiency, or renewable energy.

Conversations usually cover either fracking or energy conservation, efficiency, and renewables (ECER). It’s the exception for both to be covered in tandem even though they are the two sides of the same coin (Here, and here are examples of that exception). So, how did our conversation at the farm end up turning to ECER? Well, it turns out that this particular farm in West Virginia is entirely solar powered (photo above). Energy for the two barns and a beautiful home comes from rooftop panels installed in May of 2011. After finding funding and rebates to help with the upfront installation costs and participating in a renewable credits program, as of last year the Neihaus family spent $0.00 on utility bills. Their farm even generated a surplus of electricity, which they sold to the utility company as Solar Renewable Energy Credits – or SREC.

Missing from the Conversation

Solar farm tour in Cameron, WV

Missing from the Conversation

Reviewing the energy produced

Missing from the Conversation

Inside the barn

Missing from the Conversation

Discussing renewables with Rich

Perceived Barriers to Renewables

Why don’t more people follow this route? I only have anecdotal answers right now. When discussing fracking or unconventional oil and gas with folks, I ask why they haven’t considered solar as an energy source. Their responses vary but generally look like:

  • It never even entered my mind.
  • I’ve heard about solar and wind but heard they are really expensive.
  • No one sells or installs them around here.
  • Seems like a lot of work and expense.

Unlike the landman from the oil and gas company who calls or visits your home to talk to you about the benefits of selling your mineral rights for fracking or pipelines, no “sunman / windman / efficiencyman” calls or comes to your home to share the benefits of ECERs. There are few billboards or stories in our local or national media telling us how renewables can power the nation and keep the lights on. However, there are few or no print advertisements for solar, no polished TV ads on the clean energy of solar, wind or geothermal.

Basically, while coal, oil and gas are promoted – and receive generous federal incentives – at every turn or click, the benefits of ECER are truly missing from our conversation, locally and nationally.


What if we decided to include the benefits of ECER in all of our conversations about fracking and fossilized sources of energy? Here are just a few items to keep in mind when sharing information that would move us to a more positive energy system future.

First, remember that coal, gas and, nuclear plants are highly intermittent over long time periods, such as their operating year or life span, requiring planned and unplanned maintenance and repair. An article in Cleantechnica tells us that as a result of this downtime, nuclear plants only generate electricity 83% of the time; combined cycle natural gas plants, 86% of the time; and coal plants, 88%. “Coupled renewable systems, like wind with solar tied to baseload power like hydropower, geothermal and solar thermal (with molten salt energy storage) are examples of reliable, dependable energy systems. Solar thermal plants are up and running 98% of the time; hydroelectric dams, 95%, and geothermal plants, 91%.1 According to a FracTracker analysis of Ohio wind potential:

If OH were to pursue the additional 900 MW public-private partnership wind proposals currently under review by the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB), an additional 900,000-1.2 million jobs, $1.3 billion in wages, $3.9 billion in sales, and $102.9 million in revenue would result. If the state were to exploit 10% more of the remaining wind capacity, the numbers would skyrocket into an additional 5.5-7.1 million jobs, $8.1 million in wages, $23.8 billion in sales, and $627.9 million in public revenues.

Enough Energy to Power a Nation

Sustainably harnessing enough power to fuel a nation requires conservation and efficiency. According to a recent analysis by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the US actually wastes 61-86% of the energy it produces. This figure is especially outrageous because the tools and technology needed to save a significant portion of this wasted energy are available right now and would easily fall under President Obama’s “shovel ready” label. For instance, in the past few years, net-zero buildings — those that produce as much (or more) clean energy on site as they use annually — have been gaining momentum. More than 400 such buildings are documented globally, with about one-fourth in the U.S. and Canada.

Knowing the considerable negative impacts of fracking, it is incomprehensible that a targeted national energy conservation and efficiency conversation has yet to take place, and that state policies promoting ECER like those in Ohio are actively being undercut. Energy conservation and efficiency, when coupled with renewables have the capability to power the nation.2

Gas – Nonrenewable, Finite, Declining

Missing from the Conversation: Renewables

Unlike ECER, oil and natural gas are finite resources. Additionally, highly productive, economically recoverable shale wells have very high geological depletion rates and will become more difficult and more expensive to access.3 “The average flow from a shale gas well drops by ~50-75% in the first year, and up to 78% for oil”, said Pete Stark, senior research director at IHS Inc (a global information company with expertise in energy and economics). In neighboring Ohio, first-year oil and natural gas production declined by 84% (21-48 barrels of oil per day), with respective declines of 27% and 10% in subsequent years, while freshwater usage increases by 3.6 gallons per gallon of oil. Even the United States’ most productive Bakken shale requires 2,500 new wells per year to maintain 1 million BDD, while traditional fields in Iraq require a mere 60 new wells per year. ECERs, on the other hand, are renewable systems with decline rates calculated in the billions-of-years time frame.

Fossilized Energy – Costs Exceed Benefits

Water Pollution Control Permit

Often you will hear that fracking and fossilized energy are “cheap and affordable.” According to a report by Environment America, the reality is that externalized costs of fossilized energy, were they included on the balance sheet, would make gas, oil and coal costly and unaffordable. Alternatively, 53 Fortune 100 Companies report savings of $1.1 billion annually through energy efficiency and renewable energy.4

Some reports indicate that due to the nature of fossil fuel extraction compared to renewables, there are more jobs to be had in renewables.5 There is also the [significantly higher job, tax revenue, and income] multiplier effect associated with renewable energy technologies. The Union of Concerned Scientists reminds us that,

In addition to creating new jobs, increasing our use of renewable energy offers other important economic development benefits. Local governments collect property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. These revenues can help support vital public services, especially in rural communities where projects are often located.

Along with externalized costs, natural gas also gets a preferred boost from our nation’s R&D funding compared to ECER research. This issue does not even include the de facto subsidies provided by our military escapades, which Joe Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes recently put at $3 trillion. In Scientific American’s article, Fracking Hammers Clean Energy Research, David Bello looked at the budget of the ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) and found that five years in, “the gassy revolution was becoming apparent,” with funding going to natural gas research rather than ECER breakthroughs. Bello is of the opinion:

It is also exactly in times of overreliance on one energy source that funding into alternatives is not only necessary, but required. ARPA–E should continue to focus on transformational energy technologies that can be clean and cheap even if political pressures incline the still young and potentially vulnerable agency to look for a better gas tank.

Also, globally, the UN Environmental Program reports that the world spends six times as much money subsidizing fossilized energy as they do renewables. Despite having less government support, renewables have achieved record growth since 2000. The EIA reports that renewables are the fest-growing power source based on percentages, and in 2018 is estimated to rise to 25% of the global gross power generation. The EIA reports that, “On a percentage basis, renewables continue to be the fastest-growing power source… Globally, renewable generation is estimated to rise to 25% of gross power generation in 2018.” Germany alone generates 27% of its energy demand from renewables.


Climate Change – Sources & Solutions

Recent NOAA research suggests fugitive methane leaking from natural gas activity may be substantial, with leakage rates of 4-9% of the total production. This figure is significantly above the 2% recommended level for potential climate change benefits. Ken Caldeira, atmospheric scientist with the Carnegie Institution for Science recently noted:

We have to decide whether we are in the business of delaying bad outcomes or whether we are in the business of preventing bad outcomes. If we want to prevent bad climate outcomes, we should stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump. If we build these natural gas plants, we reduce incentives to build the near zero emission energy system we really need. It is time to start building the near zero emission energy system of the future. Expansion of natural gas is a delaying tactic, not a solution. A switch to natural gas would have zero effect on global temperatures by the year 2100.

Caldiera and Myhrvold’s paper on transitional energy concludes, “If you take 40 years to switch over entirely to natural gas, you won’t see any substantial decrease in global temperatures for up to 250 years [due to the CO2 inertia effect]. There’s almost no climate value in doing it.”

No Longer Missing

To make a short story long, that is what’s missing from the conversation – the great story of the benefits and solutions of ECER. How can we move towards a more positive and diversified energy future if we continue to bury the lead? The real solutions to our energy challenge cannot be relegated to a sidebar conversation. A disconnect between what is and what can be will keep us on the path to dire economic and public health impacts.

Back to the Niehaus farm…

As we were enjoying the fresh air, the pastoral beauty and soft sounds of nature that evening, I tried to picture what this landscape would look like, smell like, sound like, feel like, if instead of enjoying this farm fueled by solar, we were sitting back at one of the many homes bordering a drilling pad or processing facility that I had visited earlier in the day. I tried to envision what the wildlife, streams and skies would look like, what the children’s legacy would be, wondering if we were perhaps too distracted calculating costs instead of values.

When speaking of his investment in solar and his approach to life, Rich shares with us that he subscribes to the ancient Indian proverb, “We do not Inherit the Earth from our Ancestors; we Borrow it from our Children.”

After this “renewed” experience at the farm that evening, I reaffirmed my efforts to not miss any more opportunities to raise the profile of ECERs when people are debating the pros and cons of fracking and fossils. Energy Conservation, Efficiency and Renewables can no longer go missing from our conversations or we allow the myth to flourish that only fossils can “keep the lights on.” With ECERs in the conversation we may actually transition from this “transition fuel,” to a truly transformational future.

As Buckminster Fuller once said:

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. 
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

Additional References

  1. To learn more, go to the Rocky Mountain Institute website.
  2. Mark Jacobson, a founder of The Solutions Project continues to crunch the numbers to demonstrate, How to Power the World without Fossil Fuels.
  3. According to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies
  4. report by WWF, Ceres, Calvert Investments and David Gardiner and Associates finds that
  5. Addressing the issue of job creation, the Union of Concerned Scientists reports, “Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor-intensive. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.”
Inadequate vapor recovery system lead to residue forming on tank from escaping fumes. Jay-Bee was finally fined in Oct 2014 for these emissions.

Finally Fined – Oct. 5, 2014

Sometimes we all need to be more patient. Enforcement of environmental regulations against a corporation rarely happens, and environmental enforcement against an oil and gas corporation is truly an amazing rarity. These do not come our way with any degree of frequency. However, here is one where an operator was finally fined – and in West Virginia.

The enforcement and fine in Tyler County, WV is especially amazing since it follows just weeks after the Trans Energy guilty pleas and fines totaling $600,000 for three violations of the Clean Water Act in Marshall County, WV.

On October 5, 2014, Jay-Bee Oil and Gas Company was fined $240,000
for violations at its Lisby Pad in Tyler County, WV.

Now, finally, after about a year and a half of deplorable operating conditions on one of the worse (readily visible) well pads that we have seen in years, some enforcement action has finally happened.

Findings of Fact

Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc. owns and operates natural gas well sites known as Lisby / TI-03, RPT8, RPT5, Coffman, W701, TI213, McIntyre, and Hurley, which are located in West Virginia. Here is the timeline for inspections and complaints related to this site:

  • March 28, 2014 – Personnel from the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) conducted an inspection at the Lisby / TI-03 Well Pad in response to a citizen odor complaint.
  • April 1, 2014 – Personnel from the DAQ conducted a follow-up inspection at the Lisby 1 T1-03 Well Pad. Visible emissions were observed from the permanent production storage tanks.
  • April 17, 2014 – Personnel from the DAQ conducted a follow-up inspection at the Lisby 1 TI-03 well pad in response to additional citizen odor complaints
  • July 18, 2014 – In response to a citizen complaint, personnel from the DAQ conducted an inspection at the Lisby 1 T1-03 Well Pad. Objectionable odors and visible emissions were observed from the thief hatch of one of the permanent production storage tanks. A visible liquid leak was also observed on a pipe located at the tank nearest to the vapor recovery unit.
  • September 30, 2014 – Jay-Bee Oil and Gas Company agrees to pay a total civil administrative penalty of two hundred forty thousand dollars ($240,000) to resolve the violations described in this Order (PDF).

Of Note

This enforcement action was not done by the WVDEP Office of Oil & Gas, who seem to only politely try to encourage the drillers to somewhat improve their behavior. The WVDEP Department of Air Quality issued this Notice of Violation and enforcement.

Most of this air quality enforcement process started because of the continued, asphyxiating, toxic gas fumes that poured off the Jay-Bee Lisby pad for months. The residents were forced to move away and have not returned due to lack of confidence that it is safe to live in this area yet. These residents join the growing ranks of others, who are now referred to as Marcellus refugees.

Inadequate vapor recovery system lead to residue forming on tank from escaping fumes

Inadequate vapor recovery system lead to residue forming on tank from escaping fumes

Additional Resources

Below are links to some of the newspaper articles on the same mismanaged well pad:

By Bill Hughes, WV Community Liaison, FracTracker Alliance
Read more Field Diary articles here.

Jay Bee Lisby Pad Inspection – Sept. 11, 2014

I regularly visit the Jay Bee Lisby pad on Big Run in Tyler County, WV. Given its significant and continuing problems over the past year, and also due to the total absence of any environmental enforcement, it is important to give all those JB well pads extra attention. In fact, I happened upon a few new issues during my recent visits and site inspections on Sept. 11, 2014 and again on Oct. 1st.

There seems to be an effort by Jay-Bee to literally bury their evidence in a ditch along their poorly constructed well pad. New dirt has recently been put into the low area along the jersey barriers (photo above). It appears that they are trying now to build some type of well pad, whereas most drillers usually build a proper well pad before they drill the wells.

An additional issue is the orange fluid pouring out of the well pad (photos below). While I have conducted my own sampling of this contaminant, regulatory sampling should be conducted soon to find out the nature of this fluid and its source from the Jay Bee Lisby pad.

Orange Liquid Seeping from Lisby Pad

Orange Liquid Close Up

Given the many spills at this pad, this issue is not surprising. However, we still need to find out what this is, as it will not be going away on its own. JB should not be allowed to bury its evidence before they are required to test and reclaim the whole area.

Please keep in mind that the law might allow a driller to force a well pad on a land owner to recover the gas, and to also locate it next to a stream, but it does not give them the right to contaminate and pollute private property – which has been done here numerous times.


Readings from conductivity meter

When I sampled the fluid from the puddle below the orange stream and tested its conductivity, the meter read ~2.34 millisiemens – or 2340 microsiemens (photo right).

The orange fluid continues to flow under the fence and beyond their limits of disturbance. However, given the wide area covered in sludge after the January explosion, it is hard to say where their limits of disturbance actually stop.

By Bill Hughes, WV Community Liaison, FracTracker Alliance
Read more Field Diary articles here.