Pennsylvania Pipelines map by FracTracker Alliance

Pennsylvania Pipelines and Pollution Events

When people think about oil and gas extraction in Pennsylvania, they think about the tens of thousands of oil and gas wells in the state. It makes sense, because that’s where the process starts. However, while oil and other liquids can be shipped in tanker trucks, all of the producing gas wells in the state – whether they are small conventional wells or the giants of the Marcellus and Utica – must be connected by a network of pipelines.

Moving hydrocarbons from the well to processing facilities to power plants and residential customers all occurs within this giant midstream system, and the cumulative impact that pipelines have on the state is formidable. Let’s take a closer look at where the oil and gas pipelines are located in PA, their safety records, and major data gaps. Additionally, we’ve made available a detailed, interactive map of Pennsylvania pipelines and other important features such as water crossings.

Pipeline routes are everywhere in Pennsylvania

According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), there were 92,407 miles of pipelines carrying natural gas and liquid petroleum products in Pennsylvania in 2017. That distance is equivalent to 151 round trips between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, or more than three trips around the globe at the equator. This figure includes 78,022 miles of distribution lines (which takes gas from public utilities to consumers), 10,168 miles of transmission lines (which move gas between various processing facilities), 3,111 miles of petroleum liquid routes, and 1,105 miles of natural gas gathering lines (which take the gas from wells to midstream processing facilities).

Of note – The last category’s estimate is almost certainly a drastic underestimation. As of June 7th, there were 3,781 unconventional well pads in Pennsylvania, according the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and all of the pads need to be connected to gathering lines. A 2014 report by the Nature Conservancy estimates that 19 acres of land are cleared for each well pad, which would work out to 3.1 miles of gathering lines for a typical 50-foot right-of-way. Multiplied out, 3,781 wells pads would require a total of 11,721 miles of gathering lines – well over PHMSA’s estimate of a 1,105 miles (See Table 1 for estimate comparisons).

Table 1. Varying estimates of gathering lines in Pennsylvania.*

Source

Unconventional Well Pads

Average Gathering Line Length (Miles) Statewide Total Estimated Miles
Nature Conservancy 3,781 3.1 11,721
Bradford County 3,781 3.5 13,234
PHMSA  3,781  0.3 1,105

*Estimates based on Nature Conservancy and Bradford County data are based on calculating the average length of segments, then multiplying by the number of well pads in the state to find the statewide total. The PHMSA estimate was calculated in reverse, by dividing the purported total of gathering lines by the number of well pads to find the average mileage.

Early map of gathering lines in Bradford County, PA by FracTracker (Pennsylvania Pipelines)

Figure 1: Location of gathering lines (2014) and oil and gas wells (2018) in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. Note the pockets of newer wells that are not connected to the older gathering line network.

In 2014, the FracTracker Alliance digitized a published map of gathering lines in Bradford County, allowing us to analyze the data spatially (Figure 2). These efforts yield similar results, with gathering lines averaging 3.5 miles in length. Not counting segments of transmission lines included in the data, such as Stagecoach, Sunoco, and Kinder Morgan’s Tennessee Gas Pipeline, there were 1,003 miles of gas gathering lines just in Bradford County in 2014.

Almost all of this data is based only on unconventional oil and gas activity, and therefore ignores the more than 96,000 conventional oil and gas (O&G) wells active in the state. We do not have a reasonable estimate on the average length of gathering line segments are for this network. It is reasonable to assume that they tend to be shorter, as conventional wells are often closer together than unconventional well pads, but they must still network across vast portions of the state.

Table 2. Estimated length of gathering lines for conventional wells in Pennsylvania by variable average lengths

Average Length (Miles) Conventional Wells Total Miles
0.5 96,143 48,072
1.0 96,143 96,143
1.5 96,143 144,215
2.0 96,143 192,286
2.5 96,143 240,358
3.0 96,143 288,429

If the average gathering line for conventional wells in Pennsylvania is at least 1 mile in length, then the total mileage of gathering lines would exceed all other types of gas and petroleum pipelines in the state. Conversely, for the PHMSA figure of 1,105 miles to be accurate, the average gathering line for all conventional wells and unconventional well pads in Pennsylvania would be 0.011 miles, or only about 58 feet long.

Pipelines are dangerous

As pipelines impact residents in many ways, there are numerous reason why communities should try to understand their impacts – including basic planning, property rights, sediment runoff into streams, to name a few. Perhaps the most significant reason, however, is the potential for harmful incidents to occur, which are more common than anyone would like to think (See Table 3). Some of these incidents are quite serious, too.

Table 3. Nationwide pipeline incidents statistics from PHMSA from January 1, 2010 through July 13, 2018

Report Events Fatalities Injuries Explosions Evacuees Total Damages
Gas Distribution 909 92 432 220 16,949 $348,511,528
Gas Transmission / Gathering 1,031 23 94 49 8,557 $1,085,396,867
Hazardous Liquids 3,368 10 24 14 2,467 $2,531,839,207
Grand Total 5,308 125 550 283 27,973 $3,965,747,602

As of the July 13, 2018 download date, the PHMSA report covers 3,116 days.

Incidents Per Day

This means that nationally per day there are 1.7 pipeline incidents, almost 9 people evacuated, and $1,272,704 in damages, including the loss of released hydrocarbons.

On average, there is a fatality every 25 days, an injury every six days, and an explosion every 11 days. The location of those explosions obviously has a lot to do with the casualty count and aggregate property damage.

How do Pennsylvania pipelines hold up? As one might expect from a state with so many pipelines, Pennsylvania’s share of these incidents are significant (See Table 4).

Table 4. Pennsylvania pipeline incidents statistics from PHMSA from January 1, 2010 through July 13, 2018

Report Events Fatalities Injuries Explosions Evacuees Total Damages
Gas Distribution 29 8 19 12 778 $6,769,061
Gas Transmission / Gathering 30 0 2 2 292 $51,048,027
Hazardous Liquids 49 0 0 1 48 $9,115,036
Grand Total 108 8 21 15 1,118 $66,932,124

Within Pennsylvania, an incident is reported to PHMSA every 29 days, an injury or fatality can be expected every 107 days, and the daily average of property damage is $21,480.

The issue with under-reported gathering lines notwithstanding, PHMSA lists Pennsylvania with 92,407 miles of combined gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, which is roughly 3.3% of the nationwide total, and there is no reason to believe that PHMSA’s issue with accounting for gathering lines is unique to the Keystone State.

Just 2% of the total number of incidents are in Pennsylvania. In terms of impacts, however, the state has seen more than its fair share – with 6.4% of fatalities, 3.8% of injuries, 5.3% of explosions, and 3.9% of evacuations. Property damage in Pennsylvania accounts for just 1.7% of the national total, making it the only category examined above for which its share of impacts is less than expected, based on total pipeline miles.

Pipeline location data not widely available

Pipeline data is published from a variety of public agencies, although almost none of it is really accessible or accurate.

For example the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publishes a number of energy-related datasets. While they do not publish gas pipelines, they do have a 2012 dataset of natural gas liquid routes, which is a significant portion of the hazardous liquid inventory. From an analytical point of view, however, this dataset is essentially worthless. Many of these pipelines are so generalized that they don’t make a single bend for multiple counties, and the actual location of the routes can be miles from where the data are represented. Communities cannot use this as a tool to better understand how pipelines interact with places that are important to them, like schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. The dataset is also incomplete – the original Mariner East natural gas pipeline, which has been around for decades, isn’t even included in the dataset.

Screenshot from PHMSA's public pipeline viewer

Figure 2: This text appears to viewers of PHMSA’s public pipeline viewer.

Another data source is PHMSA’s National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer. While this source is rich in content, it has several intentional limitations that thwart the ability of the public to accurately analyze the pipeline network and understand potential impacts:

  1. Data can only be accessed one county at a time, which is impractical for long interstate transmission routes,
  2. Data can not be be downloaded, and
  3. The on-screen representation of the routes disappears when users zoom in too far.

Within Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) maintains the Pennsylvania Pipeline Portal, which contains a lot of information about various recent pipeline projects. However, with the sole exception of the Mariner East II project, the agency does not provide any geospatial data for the routes. The reason for this is explained on the Mariner East II page:

These shapefiles are the GIS data layers associated with the permits that have been submitted for the proposed pipeline project. These shapefiles are not required as part of a permit application and are not commonly submitted but were provided to the Department by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.

The files were accepted by the Department to aid in the review of the application material given the large scale of the project. The shapefiles ease the review by displaying some information contained in the hardcopy of the plans and application in a different format.

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) does make oil and gas infrastructure data available, including pipelines, where it occurs on state forest land.

Pennsylvania Pipelines Map

Considering the risks posed by pipelines, their proliferation in Pennsylvania, and this critical juncture in their development with an implicit opportunity to document impacts, FracTracker believes it is important now to develop an accurate interactive statewide map of these projects, fortify it with essential data layers, and facilitate citizen reporting of the problems that are occurring.

Other than the Mariner East II route and the state forest data available from DCNR, all of the pipeline routes on our Pennsylvania Pipeline Map, below, have been painstakingly digitized – either from paper maps, PDFs, or other digital media – to make geospatial data that can analyzed by interacting with other datasets. These layers are only as good as their sources, and may not be exact in some cases, but they are orders of magnitude better than data produced by public agencies such as DHS.

Figure 3: FracTracker’s Pennsylvania Pipeline Map. View fulll screen to explore map further, view water crossings, and other details not visible at the statewide map view.

Data Layers on Pennsylvania Pipelines Map

  • Incidents

    PHMSA incidents (7-13-2018). Pipeline incidents that were reported to the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. These reports contain significant information about the incidents, including location coordinates, and are shown on the map with white circles.

    Note that a few of the location coordinates appear to be erroneous, as two reports appear outside of the state boundary.

  • Spills

    Mariner East II – Inadvertent Returns (6-1-2018). This data layer shows inadvertent returns – or spills – related to the construction of the Mariner East II pipeline. This is a combination of two reports, including one where the spills that impacted waterways, and those categorized as upland spills. These are represented on the map by orange dots that vary in size depending on the amount of fluid that spilled. Some of the locations were provided as latitude / longitude coordinates, while others are estimates based on the description. In a few cases, the latitude value was adjusted to intersect the pipeline route. In each case, the adjusted location was in the correct county and municipality.

  • Water Crossings

    Known Stream & Wetland Crossings (2018). This shows the locations where the known pipeline routes intersect with streams and other wetlands on the National Wetland Inventory. These are organized by our four pipeline layers that follow, including FracTracker Vetted Pipelines (1,397 crossings), DCNR Pipelines (184 crossings), PHMSA Gas Pipelines (6,767 crossings), and Bradford County Gathering Lines (867 crossings). These crossings are shown as diamonds that match the colors of the four listed pipeline layers.

  • Vetted Pipelines

    FracTracker Vetted Pipelines (2018). This pipeline layer is an aggregation of pipeline routes that have been digitized in recent years. Much of this digitization was performed by the FracTracker Alliance, and it is an available layer on our mobile app. These are largely newer projects, and contain some routes, such as the Falcon Ethane Pipeline System, that have not been built yet. In some cases, multiple versions of the pipeline routes are printed, and we may not have the final version of the route in all circumstances. FracTracker Vetted Pipelines are represented with a red line.

  • DCNR Pipelines

    DCNR Pipelines (2018). This includes pipeline routes on state forest lands, and is shown as green lines on the map.

  • PHMSA Pipelines

    PHMSA Gas Pipelines (2018). This includes data digitized from the PHMSA Public Pipeline Viewer. This source contains gas and liquid pipelines, but only gas pipelines are included in this analysis. These routes are shown in a bright purplish pink color.

  • Bradford Lines

    Bradford County Gathering Lines (2014). This layer was digitized by the FracTracker Alliance after Bradford County published a printed map of gathering lines within the county in 2014. It is the only county in Pennsylvania that we have gathering line data for, and it is shown on the map as a yellow line.

  • Nearby Waterways

    Streams & Wetlands with 1/2 Mile of Pipelines (2018). This clipped layer of the National Wetlands Inventory is provided for visual reference of the wetlands near known pipeline routes. Due to the large amount of data, this layer is only visible when users zoom in to a scale of 1:500,000, or about the size of a large county.


By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data and Technology

This article is the first in a two-part series on Pennsylvania pipelines. Stay tuned!

Population density map of ME2 pipeline (aka Dragonpipe)

Population density maps: Lessons on where NOT to put a pipeline

By George Alexander, Guest Author

Census maps tell the story

FracTracker Alliance recently created a set of maps showing population variation along the route of the Mariner East 2 Pipeline, which I refer to as the “Dragonpipe.” FracTracker’s maps dramatically reveal a route that runs through many centers of dense population, and seems to avoid relatively nearby areas with far lower population density. The maps are based on US Census 2010 block-level data.

The take-away lesson from these maps is this: Sunoco has put the Dragonpipe in a very bad location.

As an example, here is a map of the pipeline route as it passes through Berks, Chester, and Delaware counties in Pennsylvania:

Figure 1. Population density in southeastern Pennsylvania. Map courtesy of FracTracker Alliance. Location annotations added by G. Alexander.

Figure 1. Population density in southeastern Pennsylvania. Map courtesy of FracTracker Alliance. Location annotations added by G. Alexander.

The dark brown areas in the map above denote the most densely populated locations, displayed as the number of people per square mile. The lighter the color, the lower the population density. The black line is the pipeline route.

In the upper left-hand part of the map, note that the route passes through the suburbs of Reading, in Berks County. Further south in the same map, notice how it passes directly through population centers in Chester and Delaware counties.

Let’s examine this pattern more closely.

Why was this route chosen in the first place?

For Sunoco’s convenience

In many areas, from a standpoint of impacts on local communities, the pipeline route is actually the worst possible track that Sunoco could have chosen; it puts more people at risk than any other path, given the same starting- and endpoints. Why in the world did they choose this route?

The answer is this: for Sunoco’s corporate convenience. The Dragonpipe, for most of its length, runs side-by-side Mariner East 1 (ME1), an existing 80+ year-old pipeline designed to carry gasoline and heating oil to customers in the central and western parts of Pennsylvania. From this standpoint, the location of the old pipeline makes sense; it had to be sited near populated areas. That’s where the customers for gasoline and heating oil were located back in the 1930s.

However, the flip-side of Sunoco’s corporate convenience may also mean unnecessary risks to tens of thousands of Pennsylvania residents. 

The old pipeline connected the centers of population in the 1930s, areas that are now much more populous when they were nearly ninety years ago. In the southeastern part of Pennsylvania, the character of the area has also changed dramatically. When the original pipeline was built, the landscape along ME1’s route through Delaware and Chester counties was predominantly farmland. Today, that area has changed to densely-settled suburbs, with homes, schools, businesses, hospitals, and shopping centers directly adjacent to the pipeline’s right-of-way.

The Exton area provides a prime example of how this transition to suburbia has set the stage for potential disaster along the pipeline route. The following image shows a detailed view of the population density near Exton. As you can see, the pipeline route sticks to high-density areas (shown in dark brown) the entire way, even though lower-density options (shown in orange and yellow) exist nearby.

Figure 2. Population density in Exton area. Map courtesy of FracTracker Alliance. Location annotations added by G. Alexander.

Figure 2. Population density in Exton area. Map courtesy of FracTracker Alliance. Location annotations added by G. Alexander.

Sunoco — like any corporation — has a moral obligation to conduct its business in a safe manner. This includes choosing a safe route for a pipeline that has inherent dangers and risks. However, Sunoco apparently did not choose to do so. Moreover, by law, Sunoco has an obligation to make human safety paramount. In the settlement Sunoco reached last August with Clean Air Council, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Mountain Watershed Association, Sunoco agreed to consider alternative routing for the pipeline in this area. Then, despite their promises, Sunoco simply bypassed that part of the agreement. Rather than explore alternatives to the proposed route, Sunoco dismissed the alternatives as “not practicable” because they did not involve the right-of-way that was already in use for Mariner East 1.

Sunoco seemed to have made their sole priority in considering a pipeline route whether the company has an existing pipeline there already. A better route would reduce by hundreds the number of people who could be killed or injured if there were a leak and explosion.

Pipelines leak

Pipelines can and do leak. Mariner East 1, in its short career as a pipeline carrying NGLs, has already leaked several times. It is just good luck that the leaks were stopped before any product ignited. (See most recent report of ME1 and ME2 issues.) The Atex pipeline, a pipeline of similar size and content that runs down to the Gulf Coast, ruptured and exploded near Follansbee, WV, in just its second year of operation. And there’s no reason to believe such an incident would never happen with the Dragonpipe.

Sunoco has an obligation to do what it can to minimize the injuries, death, and destruction caused by an event like the Follansbee explosion. The Follansbee incident occurred in a forested area. The explosion destroyed several acres of trees, but no-one was killed. The result would have been far different if had the explosion been in a densely populated area.

Just as the maps above show how the Philadelphia suburbs and those of Reading are threatened, other FracTracker maps show the threats to suburbs of Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, below. Click to expand.

A call for change

Indeed, across the state, the Dragonpipe route gets dangerously and notably close to population centers. Such a path may be a convenient and financially beneficial option for Sunoco, but it is an unacceptable risk for Pennsylvania’s citizens to bear.


About the Author: George Alexander publishes the Dragonpipe Diary (www.dragonpipediary.com), covering all aspects the Mariner East pipeline project, including technology, risks, legal issues, economics, and the people and groups involved. He recently retired from a career in journalism and marketing.

An earlier version of this essay was published in Mr. Alexander’s blog, Dragonpipe Diary, on June 29, 2018.

 

Tracking the Movement Against Fossil Fuels

Energy use — whether for heating, cooking, transportation, or manufacturing — is a fact of life for humans on our planet. From the most subsistence-level village life, to the largest metropolises in the world, energy is consumed. But fossil fuels are not a sustainable source of energy. Fossil fuels, by their very nature, are finite in quantity, and increasingly more expensive to extract as the most accessible stores are tapped.

Fossil fuel consumption by-products are driving CO2 and methane to accumulate in the atmosphere, leading towards what most scientists think will be a tipping point to irreversible climate chaos (see image below).

Alternatives to fossil fuels not only exist, but in many cases, are becoming more affordable (see additional information on solar afforability here) than the environmentally-destructive oil, gas, and coal-burning options. Technological advances are changing the way people around the world can live, with cleaner, greener, and more equitable energy sources, as well as more conservation-focused consumption patterns.

Recognizing the benefits to transitioning away from fossil fuels, communities across the US and world-wide, are saying NO to fossil fuel extraction and YES to renewable energy: solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power, as well as electric vehicles when the electricity that supplies them is renewably generated. Below, and in the following map, we are tracking this movement to a clean energy future.

The Resistance – Movements Against Fossil FuelsThe Resistance - Movements against fossil fuelsView Live Map |  How FracTracker maps work

Municipal law-making

At least 35 communities in California and Washington State have passed resolutions against off-shore drilling. On the East Coast, from Florida to New York State, 44 municipalities have passed resolutions opposing seismic blasting, a form of exploration for oil and gas that has disastrous impacts on marine life, including threatened and endangered marine mammals. What’s further, 105 communities have come out against a combination of offshore drilling and seismic blasting, and at least 26 have taken a stand against offshore drilling.

In Florida, where several bills that would prohibit fracking statewide have been in play for the past few years, individual municipalities have registered their opposition. 43 have signed resolutions opposing fracking, and 7 communities, including Zephyr Hills, Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, Coconut Creek, Dade City, Estero, and St. Petersburg, have passed full ordinances against fracking within their boundaries. In addition to resolutions against drilling in 25 Florida counties, 13 counties in Florida have passed legislation fully banning fracking. These counties are Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Citrus, Indian River, Madison, Osceola, Pinellas, Seminole, St. Lucie, Volusia, Wakulla, and Walton.

In Connecticut, where the geology is not suitable for oil and gas extraction, communities are still proactively protecting themselves against one byproduct of extreme oil and gas extraction: fracking waste disposal. While historically, there are no known instances of fracking waste being exported to Connecticut for disposal, as of March 2018, 46 municipalities are considering rules to ban future disposal of oil and gas wastes within their boundaries, while another 45 have already outlawed the practice, as of late May 2018.

New York State has had a state-wide ban against high-volume hydraulic fracturing since December of 2014. New York led the way in home-rule backed municipal bans and moratoria (temporary prohibitions). Since 2011, 92 NYS municipalities have instituted bans against fracking, and 96 towns, cities, and village have passed moratoria — most of which have now expired. At least another 88 municipalities have also considered banning the practice, prior to the more comprehensive state-wide ban.

The state of Vermont has also banned fracking, and Maryland has instituted a long-term moratorium. Outside of New York State, another 51 municipalities — from Australia to Italy, and New Jersey to California — have passed local ordinances banning fracking. Five countries — Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Germany, and Scotland — have banned the practice altogether. The countries of Wales, The Netherlands, and Uruguay have active moratoria. Moratoria are also currently in place in Cantabria, Spain; Victoria, Australia; Newfoundland, Canada; Paraná, Brazil; Entre Rios, Argentina; and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, as well as the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.

Crossing Boundaries

Coordinated efforts are happening — across state lines, linking urban and rural communities — to fight new fossil fuel infrastructure on local and regional levels. On both sides of the New York / Connecticut border, communities are uniting against the Cricket Valley Energy Center, an 1,100 MW fracked gas-powered plant that opponents say presents environmental and human health risks and diverts NYS’s renewable energy focus back to fossil fuels.

More than 30 communities in Pennsylvania along the route of the proposed PennEast pipeline have passed resolutions opposing that pipeline. Nearly 80 communities in New York and New Jersey have come out against the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline, designed to carry light crude from the Port of Albany to the Atlantic Coast refineries. And a plan by Crestwood/ Stagecoach Energy to store hydrocarbons in abandoned salt caverns along the shores of Seneca Lake in the scenic Finger Lakes Region of central New York met unprecedented sharp opposition. As of early 2018, over 32 towns and counties, and close to 400 local businesses had signed resolutions opposing the gas storage plans. Pressure from business and government interests likely contributed to scaling down of the storage plans from butane, ethane, and natural gas, to only LNG.

Unconventional Bans

A 2013 ban on fracking in Hawai’i was met initially with some puzzlement, since there are no oil and gas deposits within the lava-created rock that makes up the Big Island. However, this ban was not against fracking for gas; rather, it dealt with fracking to harness geothermal energy. The Puna Geothermal Venture Plant, located on Hawaii’s highly geologically active East Rift Zone, was controversial when it was built twenty-five years ago. Now, with lava already on the property and poised to potentially inundate the facility, opponents are pushing for its complete closure — if the plant survives the massive flow from Kilauea, now devastating Lower Puna, that started in early May 2018.

Transportation Concerns

Fossil fuels are transported through a variety of mechanisms. Pipelines are the most common means of conveyance; the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that 3 million miles of oil and gas transmission and delivery pipelines crisscross the US. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimated in 2014 that there were nearly 1.6 million miles of gas transmission pipelines in the US, and another 160,521 miles of oil pipelines.  Pipeline safety has been a concern for years, and as pipeline build-out continues, so does the litany of accidents due to failures.

A widely used alternative to moving light crude via pipelines is to transport it by rail, from oil fields in Canada and the Dakotas to coastal refineries. In 2014, crude oil production from North Dakota was nearly 1 million barrels per day. The same year, Texas was producing 2.9 million barrels per day. Statistics from the Association of American Railroads (NY Times, 4/12/2014) indicate that in 2013, 407,642 carloads (700 barrels = 1 carload) of crude oil were shipped across the US. That’s more than 285 million barrels, or about 80% of the crude oil shipped to port, that were transported via rail.

Accidents resulting from the derailment of freight cars carrying crude oil can be disastrous to both human communities, and to the environment. The Lac-Mégantic derailment in July, 2013 resulted in a death toll of 47, and the near complete devastation of the downtown of this small Quebec town. Benzene contamination at the site was heavy, and the Chaudière River was contaminated with 26,000 gallons of the light crude, which impacted towns 50 miles downstream.

The disaster at Lac-Mégantic led to a rallying cry among policy-makers, regulators, and environmentalists, who continued to raise awareness of the risks of “crude by rail”, or, as the freight cars are often known, “bomb trains”. Within 2 years after the disaster, over 180 communities from Washington State, to California, to New York, and New Jersey, passed local resolutions demanding better safety regulations, and exhorting officials to stop shipping crude through their communities.

Earlier research by FracTracker Alliance on “bomb train” routes through major New York urban centers like Buffalo and Rochester showed dozens of K-12 public and private schools are within the ½-mile blast zones. Without adequate evacuation plans, the injury or loss of life — were a derailment to happen within the cities — could be extensive. The importance of public critique about the transportation of light crude by rail cannot be overstated.

Transitions to renewable energy

communities making it happen

The answer to a clean and renewable energy future, while rooted in the resistance to fossil fuel build out, consists of much more than protesting, and saying “NO”. A clean energy future requires goal-setting, and a vision to commit to change. It takes communities investing in a healthy future for all community members—today, tomorrow, and into the next century.

Clean, Renewable Energy MovementsThe Resistance - Clean Energy MovementsView Live Map |  How FracTracker maps work

To that end, nearly 350 communities worldwide (so far) have set tangible goals to transition off fossil fuels – see map above. These communities are our beacons for a sustainable planet. They take seriously the dangerous ecological cascades posed by climate change and have made creative and conscious commitments to future generations of Earth’s biota.

350

Communities Worldwide

As of early 2018, at least 62 cities in the US have set goals for being powered by renewable energy before the middle of the 21st century according to Sierra Club’s tally of municipalities striving for clean energy power. Five of these communities — Kodiak Island, AK; Rock Port, MO; Greensburg, KS, Burlington, VT; and Aspen, CO, have already met their goals. EcoWatch collected information on over 100 cities around the world that are now powered by at least 70% renewables, and the organization CDP noted close to 200 cities and towns with ambitious targets for renewable power within the next two decades.

Across the US, over 27,300 MW of commercial solar has been installed as of April, 2018.  And currently, wind turbines provide close to 59,000 MW of clean energy, nationwide.  As of June, 2018, there were more than 18,000 electric vehicle charging stations across the country.  While many municipalities are committed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, we have a long way to go. Change must happen exponentially in order to meet ambitious goals of even 50% renewable energy in the next decade. For example, in 2011, New York State was meeting approximately 19% of its energy needs from renewable energy—largely from hydropower. Governor Cuomo’s “50 by 30” plan—mandating a clean energy standard of 50% renewables by 2030—sets forth goals that will require aggressive advocacy, the will of decision-makers, economic funding and incentives, education, and the steadfast insistence of the citizenry if we are to have a chance at slowing climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Other resources on resistance

On every continent of the planet, there are citizen-based movements to address the impacts of coal on the environment. CoalSwarm has compiled a dynamic listing on a country-by-country basis. Similarly, a sister project, FrackSwarm, is a clearinghouse for citizen’s movements around the world that are addressing the impacts of fracking. Both CoalSwarm and FrackSwarm advocate strongly for a movement to clean energy everywhere. Both sites feature detailed background information on movements around the world and are partner projects to SourceWatch and the Center for Media and Democracy.

Halt the Harm Network, another organization closely allied with FracTracker Alliance, has developed a robust network of groups leading the fights against the oil and gas industry. Their database is searchable by skills, geography, and interests. Many of the organizations included in their database are also included in this map of resistance advocacy and activism groups fighting for a clean energy future.

Last, but not least, in 2017, FracTracker Alliance partnered with E2 to create a resource called “Mapping Clean Energy: New York”. You can view the maps that show clean energy jobs, solar, wind, and electric vehicle resources here. FracTracker also developed clean energy interactive maps for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri.

Next steps

FracTracker will continue to update our Clean Energy Action Maps project, and actively solicit input and feedback from the public. If your advocacy group is not listed on our maps above, please complete the form at the bottom of the project page. We’ll compile public input, and regularly add new organizations to this resource.


Of note: We will soon be retiring our Alliance Map in favor of these maps, as we believe it is extremely important to capture the depth and breadth of the movements against fossil fuels and in support of renewables. This project is our effort to make connections across the globe, whether or not we are in direct communication with the groups on the maps.

If you have any questions about this work, please email: info@fractracker.org.

LPA Pipeline protest - Crosshairs feature

In the Crosshairs

The Origins & Work of Lebanon Pipeline Awareness, Inc. in Lebanon County, PA
by Michael Schroeder, Lebanon Pipeline Awareness, Inc.
LPA Logo

Nestled in a mostly agricultural region blessed with some of the most fertile, non-irrigated farmland in the world, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania sits square in the crosshairs of a Pipeline Revolution – smack-dab in between the Marcellus Shale fracking zones in northern and western PA and the processing and export facilities of the Eastern seaboard. This Pipeline Revolution began in earnest more than four years ago, in spring 2014, when Williams/Transco announced plans to build a 200-mile, 42-inch diameter, high-pressure (1,480 p.s.i.) underground natural gas pipeline with the Orwellian-sounding name “Atlantic Sunrise” as a shortcut to whisk fracked natural gas to points south – mainly Cove Point just south of Baltimore – for export. See map below for more context.

That’s the north-south axis of the crosshairs. East-west, for starters, is the 8-inch diameter, cast-iron Mariner East pipeline, which has traversed the state since the late 1930s, carrying gasoline from the Philadelphia region to the Pittsburgh area. Also around spring 2014, Mariner East’s owner-operator, Sunoco Logistics, announced its Mariner East expansion project: to stop carrying gasoline, reverse the flow, and start streaming natural gas liquids (NGLs – mainly propane, ethane, and butane) from the fracking zones of western PA to the Marcus Hook export facility outside Philadelphia. Also planned were several new larger-volume pipelines to be laid in the same easement – Mariner East 2 and 2X – along with their corresponding pump stations.

The two major transmission pipeline projects cross on private land atop a forested hill in Lebanon County’s South Londonderry Township – making “in the crosshairs” an apt metaphor for where we stand in relation to the Pipeline Revolution.

In response to Williams/Transco’s announcement in spring 2014, activists in neighboring Lancaster County organized the grassroots citizens’ group Lancaster Against Pipelines. We soon followed suit, holding our first organizing meeting in April in humble surroundings, an artist’s loft in downtown Lebanon. After a democratic vote,we called ourselves Lebanon Against Pipelines and began meeting bi-weekly with a core group of 8-10 people.

LPA Organizing Meeting - Crosshairs

Initial organizing meeting of Lebanon Against Pipelines (soon changed to Lebanon Pipeline Awareness), downtown Lebanon, April 2014

By summer 2014, we adopted what we felt was a more positive and publicly acceptable name in our strongly conservative county, one more in keeping with our core mission of raising public awareness about the immensely destructive power of fracking and pipelines: Lebanon Pipeline Awareness.

Making Plans

Over the next year, a core leadership emerged. With the pro-bono help of a local attorney, we became a 501c(3) non-profit corporation with officers and a board of directors, making it possible to apply for much-needed grants after our meager, mostly self-funded beginnings.

Realizing the importance of strength in numbers, from the outset we reached out to collaborate with other groups. We’ve had many key allies in this fight, especially our sister organization, Concerned Citizens of Lebanon County (CCLC). Focused on Sunoco’s Mariner East projects, CCLC has focused mainly on the judicial system to challenge the absurd notion that this project merits status as a “public utility” – most notably by pursuing civil action against Sunoco for not obtaining the proper permits before building its new pump station in West Cornwall Township.

Bringing About Change

How have we worked to raise public awareness? In most every way we can think of, given our limited resources.

We still lack a website, but we have developed and curated a highly active Facebook presence (with nearly 800 “likes” at present). We’ve designed, printed, and distributed widely an attractive tri-fold brochure and our own eye-catching logo. We’ve set up tables at most every available community event (National Night Out in Campbelltown; Historic Old Annville Day; the Lebanon County Fair; and others). We’ve organized protests and demonstrations, often in tandem with Lancaster Against Pipelines and other allied groups. We have sponsored film screenings, public safety forums, speakers from allied organizations, and informational meetings for local landowners and other concerned citizens.

Public protest by LPA

Public protest with Lancaster Against Pipelines, Annville town square, December 2015

We’ve attended local municipal meetings to encourage local authorities to pass resolutions opposing the pipelines traversing their municipalities – in two cases successfully. We’ve filed dozens of Right-To-Know requests, developing a rich archive of construction violations and disseminating our findings publicly. We’ve brought our concerns to the county commissioners’ meetings, prompting them to write letters of concern to state and federal officials and add an informational “pipelines” tab to their website. We have developed a robust presence in local media outlets – issuing press releases and writing letters to the editor and op-ed pieces, and inviting reporters to the events we sponsor – including local newspapers (like the Lebanon Daily News), regional digital media platforms (like NPR’s StateImpact), local TV and radio stations, and more. We’ve even hosted a few tours for national photographers and reporters.

Working with Others

In our interactions with local governmental authorities, we consistently act respectfully and courteously and try hard not to blindside anyone. Before attending a public meeting, we’ll send a courtesy note to the relevant authority, detailing our concerns and summarizing what we’ll be saying and asking for. When speaking at public meetings, we’re civil, crisp, and respectful – though, when necessary, we have engaged in peaceful acts of public protest (like duct-taping our mouths shut when prevented from speaking at a township meeting because we’re not township residents).

We’ve also met with all of our state representatives, either in individual meetings or during town hall-style meetings with constituents. We’ve expressed our concerns to members of Governor Tom Wolf’s staff, his Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force and other Department of Environmental Protection officials, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other public bodies.

Innovative Pipeline Monitoring Program

Pipeline monitor badge

Citizen pipeline monitoring badge

More recently, with pipeline construction well underway, we’ve developed a pipeline construction monitoring program, undergoing rigorous training and developing official badges to identify ourselves and our organization. We also register all of our monitors with the county commissioners’ office (to prevent imposters from engaging in nefarious acts in our name). (See badge, right)

And it’s made a difference.

I remember well our first outreach efforts in summer 2014 at events like National Night Out in Campbelltown, where we were met with a fair amount of open hostility. “Why do you oppose American energy independence?” people would ask.  “What about all the jobs the pipelines will bring to local workers?” After four years of respectfully but insistently hammering on these issues, the public tenor has shifted. Very rarely do we encounter outright hostility anymore. The public has grown increasingly receptive to our message – especially now that construction has begun and folks can see that what we’ve predicted is now coming to pass.

Respect and Reciprocity

We’ve worked very hard to cultivate a respectable public persona and reputation, and we’ve largely succeeded. As best as we can tell, the predominant public perception is that Lebanon Pipeline Awareness is run by a group of dedicated and well-informed volunteers with an important message to share. In fact, two of our leaders were singled out last year by the local newspaper for recognition as providing a positive impact for our community. Our core group, which generally meets twice a month, has expanded to include upwards of 15 committed local activists.

We’ve also worked hard to always couple our anti-pipeline message with a positive message about renewable energy – repeatedly emphasizing that wind, solar, geothermal, and other green energies represent an increasingly viable alternative for energy and for jobs.

In It for the Long Haul

So that’s where we in Lebanon Pipeline Awareness stand at the beginning of our fifth year. Because we have every reason to expect this insane pipeline buildout to intensify, we know we’re in it for the long haul. Our goals for the coming year are to expand our membership; build on and extend our alliances even further; intensify our outreach efforts and our pipeline construction monitoring program; and continue to host public meetings for concerned property owners and citizens.

CHISPA Flyer

CHISPA Flyer – Click to enlarge

We also plan to expand our activities to include direct action campaigns like CHISPA – “Challenge in the Streets to Pipelines in PA” – where every Friday afternoon from 4-6 p.m. we’ll be lining five miles of westbound Route 422 from Lebanon to Annville with volunteers bearing provocative protest signs that challenge the thousands of passing motorists to think in fresh ways about issues like climate change, jobs, eminent domain, property rights, renewable energies, and more.

Lebanon Pipeline Awareness is but one of dozens of grassroots citizens’ organizations that have emerged across Pennsylvania over the past decade to resist the Fracking and Pipeline revolutions and insist that we follow “a better path” (the name of an emergent coalition of anti-fracking and anti-pipeline groups from across Pennsylvania). We have lost many battles against our vastly more deep-pocketed and powerful adversaries, but we’ve also made a substantial and positive difference.

Will we win the war? Yes, eventually, as global climate disruption makes increasingly clear that our most pressing need as a species is to leave the remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground. In the meantime, win or lose, our efforts continue – and will continue as long as these insane Fracking and Pipeline revolutions continue to imperil humankind and the web of life that sustains us all.


by Michael Schroeder, Vice President, Lebanon Pipeline Awareness, Annville, Pennsylvania

Job announcement image

Community Outreach and Communications Specialist Position

Job Announcement and Application

PURPOSE: The Community Outreach and Communications Specialist will assist and support regional and national communication activities of the FracTracker Alliance; and engage and support organizations, primarily but not exclusively at the community-scale, fighting fossil fuel harms in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia – especially in the Ohio River corridor.

POSITION DUTIES:

  • Assist with website content development and editing, including blog posts and responding to comments
  • Assist with writing and preparing monthly e-newsletter
  • Develop and post social media content and respond to comments
  • Engage with local and regional organizations involved in fighting oil and gas harms – through email, conference calls, listserves, presentations, and attendance at key meetings
  • Elicit guest blogs from organizations and researchers working in affected communities
  • Author and post personal blogs about key community issues or fights
  • Coordinate with Manager of Data and Technology and/or regional coordinators to create maps and data analyses in support of key community issues or needs
  • Promote FracTracker’s mobile and web applications and provide training – in-person and online – to font line communities and organizations about the use of these technologies
  • Assist in updating and developing digital and printable training tools, guides, and tutorials on various topics of interest to our website visitors and clients
  • Assist in developing user surveys to obtain feedback on the FracTracker web experiences and experiences with other FracTracker tools or activities
  • Assist in engagement of news media on oil and gas issues and FracTracker’s work under direction of the Manager of Communications and Development
  • Assist with grant reporting, as needed
  • Other related-communications and community-support duties, as assigned

POSITION REPORTS TO: Manager of Communications and Development

PREFERRED SKILLS: Writing and editing; website design; media relations; public speaking; citizen science; data management; social media; teamwork; interpersonal; and familiarity with environmental justice issues, and knowledge of environmental and/or public health concerns or other issues of relevance to understanding and addressing the implications of oil and gas extraction and climate change

MINIMUM EDUCATION/QUALIFICATIONS: Bachelor’s degree in communications, journalism or related field OR natural or physical sciences, environmental studies, citizen science, social science, public health, public policy or other relevant field; three years of experience exercising the skills listed above; additional academic studies (e.g. graduate coursework or research) can substitute for work experience; ability and willingness to travel (~10% of time); valid U.S. driver’s license.

LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA                    STATUS: Full time (37.5 hours per week) – exempt

COMPENSATION/BENEFITS: Starting salary of $45,000 – $50,000 annually (based on experience), generous healthcare benefits (medical, dental, vision), paid sick leave, 15 vacation days per year, matching 401k program

Interested candidates should apply online using the form below by July 6, 2018 at 5:00pm ET.

The deadline to apply for this position has passed.


The FracTracker Alliance studies, maps, and communicates the risks of oil and gas development to protect our planet and support renewable energy transformation. Learn more at www.FracTracker.org

The FracTracker Alliance is an equal opportunity employer. All decisions regarding recruiting, hiring, promotion, assignment, training, termination, and other terms and conditions of employment are made without unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, age, pregnancy, disability, work-related injury, covered veteran status, political ideology, genetic information, marital status, or any other factor that the law protects from employment discrimination.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/invenergy-completes-construction-financing-for-michigan-wind-farm/

Michigan’s budding renewable clean energy sector has room to grow

By Vivian Underhill, Data and GIS Intern; and Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

California and New York are not the only states supporting the transition from harmful fossil fuels such as natural gas to more sustainable and less polluting clean, renewable energy sources. In collaboration with Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2), FracTracker has produced a series of maps investigating current clean energy businesses, existing renewable energy infrastructure, and renewable energy potential. These maps show where growth of the renewable economies is growing and even identifies the many renewable contractors and projects that are planned and already active across the country.

Michigan’s Clean Energy Sector

According to the Clean Jobs Midwest Report, growth of the renewable sector has been a strong boon for local Michigan economies, in addition to reducing green-house gas emissions. Michigan increased clean energy jobs by 5.3 percent, or 4,655, outpacing other job sectors in the state by a factor of three. According to a new Union of Concerned Scientists Report, Michigan utilities could create 10 times more jobs in renewables than natural gas. Another report by the Union of Concerned Scientists notes that:

… using the latest wind turbine technologies, Michigan’s onshore wind resource has the potential to generate nearly five times the state’s 2012 electricity demand, even after a variety of competing land uses are accounted for. Solar photovoltaic (PV) resources in urban areas — including large ground-mounted and smaller rooftop systems — could provide another 71 percent of the state’s 2012 electricity demand.

FracTracker’s maps below show plenty of potential for additional renewable energy generation, and highlight where Michigan’s clean energy sector is already paving the way to a healthier future. But first, let’s give you some background on this story.

Legislation

In 2008, Michigan passed legislation requiring utilities to generate 10% of their electricity from renewables by 2015. In 2014, The Michigan Public Service Commmission (MPSC) reported that this legislation would save the state over $4 billion dollars; as the MPSC Chairman John D. Quackenbush wrote in conjunction with a 2014 report on the state’s energy optimization activities: “The cheapest energy is the energy never used… For every dollar spent on these programs in 2014, customers can expect to realize $4.38 in savings – more than any year since 2010.” In addition, the statute’s focus on renewables has brought nearly $3 billion in renewable energy investment to the state.

In 2016, legislators built on this track record and improved aspects of the state’s clean energy standards with Public Acts 341 and 342; among other things, these acts increase the percentage of renewable energy to 15% by 2021, and otherwise incentivize clean energy sources.

Just last week, Michigan’s two largest utilities committed to increase their renewable power generation to 25% by 2030 under pressure from a ballot drive launched by Tom Steyer, a billionaire environmentalist.

Maps of Michigan’s Clean Energy Sector

Below we have embedded the maps FracTracker created with E2, showing clean energy potential, generation capacity, and the location of clean energy businesses in Michigan.

Map 1. Michigan Clean Energy Potential

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

As shown in the map above, solar and wind are the most dominant forms of renewable energy in Michigan, although there is also potential to take advantage of the geothermal energy. Approximately 75% of the state has potential for either wind, solar, or geothermal power.

Map 2. Michigan Clean Energy Generation Capacity

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Map 2, above, shows the current generating capacity in the state. Most of Michigan’s existing solar and wind infrastructure exists in the South and Southeast portions of the state, though not exclusively. Many schools also have solar capabilities on their roofs. Further, 32 counties already have large-scale renewable energy projects, and many more are in in the works.

Map 3. Michigan Clean Energy Businesses

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Finally, a vibrant industry of over 1,200 businesses has developed to support the clean energy revolution in Michigan. Map 3 (above) shows the locations of these entreprenuers in fields that include both energy efficiency and renewable energy generation (solar, wind, and geothermal). Businesses include a range of operations including design, machining, installation, contracting, and maintenance – covering all 38 state senate districts and all 110 state house districts.

Room to Grow

While Michigan has come a long way in recent years, the field of clean renewable energy generation is still in its infancy. This geographical assessment, in addition to the numerous economic reports showing the profitability of the clean energy sector, paint a brighter future for Michigan and the climate. However, much more potential remains to be tapped, across solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources. It is imperative that policies are put in place to prioritize clean energy growth over natural gas.


Cover photo: MI Wind Farm. Photo by Michelle Froese | Windpower Engineering and Development

Explore additional state analyses: IL | MI | MONY | OHPA

Help us in addressing pressing energy issues

A Request from FracTracker’s Annual Fund Chair

Dear Friends,

There’s no way to sugarcoat it: The oil and gas industry is destructive. 

Their emissions cause climate chaos, and their political influence corrupts democracy. Petrochemical plastics pollute every corner of the planet, pipelines gouge our communities, and fracking poisons our air, water, land and food. 

Drilling demands unspeakable quantities of sand and water, while truck after truck whisks away the hazardous waste for disposal in a nearby state or the town next door. Imagine if you lived next to it. Many people don’t have to imagine; it’s their daily nightmare.

Too many people have been sickened, too many properties devalued. Too many lives have been disrupted. Enough is enough. We’re not going to take it anymore, and my friends at FracTracker are helping big time with the fight. They – and the army of groups with whom they work – are making a huge impact. 

Because of the critical work FracTracker does – at a local meeting considering proposed drilling, activists are armed with a local FracTracker map showing what’s at stake and where potential damage will occur. 

Because of the work FracTracker does – as the Delaware River Basin Commission considers allowing fracking-related water withdrawals and treated wastewater discharges in that pristine watershed, critical data from FracTracker in the form of cold hard scientific facts are woven into the testimony of organizations working together to stop this toxic intrusion.  

While Californian activists like me strive to accelerate the Golden State’s pivot away from dangerous and toxic drilling practices, FracTracker’s 2,500 foot setback analysis roots our calls for protections in sound science and evidence, and provides a clear pathway for what protecting public health and communities looks like for hundreds of thousands of Californians. 

And, as the E2 network rallies clean energy opportunities across the country, FracTracker is paving the way for a huge energy shift by mapping jobs in the renewable energy economy in numerous states.

Whether making compelling visualizations or synthesizing complex data, FracTracker provides the critical information and a scientific basis that makes campaigns protecting public health from harmful extraction possible. As a trusted ally, FracTracker is a force, forging a better future.  

As the end of the fiscal year looms, they need your help!

Please consider making a one-time donation or, even better, becoming a significant sustainer of this important work by joining FracTracker’s Empower Society. Whatever your gift – big or small – you can feel good knowing it nurtures work that truly matters. 

As a FracTracker board member and director of my own organization, Rootskeeper, I know that every dollar donated is used wisely. Thanks for your generosity and commitment to a vibrant tomorrow. Together, we will continue to change the world!

In solidarity and appreciation, 

David Braun at the 2017 Community Sentinel Award Reception in Pittsburgh, PA

David Braun
Annual Fund Chair, FracTracker Alliance
Director, Rootskeeper 

Divestment – A Necessary Step Towards a Climate Neutral Society

By Guest Author: Austin Sachs, Director and founder of Protect and Divest

In most major social movements where there is an imbalance power, divestment has been a necessary part for progress, whether in South Africa or now in the environmental movement against fossil fuels. Yet, too often in the environmental movement, divestment is only pursued when all other options have run their course and failed. If we want a climate neutral society for generations to come, we must pursue divestment alongside all other actions – and alongside this divestment, a reinvestment into a society we want to see.

So where does this all start? Divestment begins with each of us looking into our financial accounts and seeing who we are funding with them. And that is exactly what Protect and Divest did last year. We researched the funding of the Atlantic Coast, Mountain Valley, Sabal Trail and Atlantic Sunrise pipelines to know where our money was going.

Along the entire East Coast, the TransCo Pipeline connects all these pipelines, but this infrastructure is also all connected by the same banks who are funding each and every single pipeline project. These banks range from the US banks of Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, CitiBank, and Bank of America to the International banks of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Scotiabank and the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ. What we truly found is that no one bank is guilty alone – The entire financial industry is banking on the destruction of our beautiful home!

So where do we go if the banking industry is against a sustainable future? Well, luckily the entire industry is not against sustainability, and some heavily promote it. One of these options is Amalgamated Bank, who has promised to never invest depositor’s money into fossil fuels. Across this nation are countless credit unions doing the same for their members, who see money as a necessary tool of sustainability.

Protect and Divest has now launched our Divest the Commonwealth campaign to take our pledge one step further and move Virginia’s government funds out of fossil fuels, as well. Over $330 million dollars of the Virginia Retirement System is invested in fossil fuels. And of the stock of Duke Energy, one of the main builders of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, 10 state pensions plans hold over $785 million in it. If the banks are guilty, so are our government pensions and funds. And it’s not like there are no sustainable options. Blackrock, the FTSE Group, and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have come together to develop the FTSE ex-Fossil Fuels Index Series, a fossil fuel free index fund.

Divest the Commonwealth is working to build grassroots effort to move this money. We have started and are supporting city council resolutions from Harrisonburg, VA to Arlington, VA to Richmond, VA and are adding more weekly. Together, the cities and counties of Virginia will begin to bring about the future we want to see. Together, we will create a future we can be proud of.

Join us today and divest today! Every dollar, signature, and voice counts in making sure our money is where our mouth is. This is the way we create a world we want to live and one that we can tell our children about!


For more information visit: protectanddivest.weebly.com, or visit their Facebook page at: facebook.com/protectandivest.

Austin Sachs is the director and founder of Protect and Divest, created to build a market solution to climate change. Brought to the environmental movement by the Standing Rock crisis, Austin has worked endlessly to create a world we can all be proud within the economic and political models existing today!

PA Well Pad Violations map

Well Pad Violations in Pennsylvania

Emerging Trends

We are always learning new things at FracTracker. While we have been analyzing and mapping oil and gas (O&G) violations issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in Pennsylvania since 2010, we have apparently been under-representing the total amount of issues associated with unconventional drilling in the state.

The reason for the missing violations is that there are inconsistencies with how well pads are classified in the compliance report. Many of these well pads – full of unconventional permits and drilled wells – are indeed categorized as “unconventional” in the DEP compliance data. Others, equally full of unconventional permits and wells, simply leave that field blank.

Therefore, any analysis for unconventional violations is likely to miss some of the incidents that are attributed to the well pad itself, as opposed to any of the wells that are found upon that well pad.

Midas Well Pad unearths issue

While we have heard about missing violation data in the past, I discovered the nature of the issue while researching the Midas Well Pad in Plum Borough, Allegheny County on the DEP resource site eFACTS, noting the presence of multiple violations at the nascent well site. However, when attempting to download the relevant data on the compliance report, the results were missing. I had entered search parameters that made sense to me, limiting results to violations in the proper county and municipality, and including an inspection date range that was broader than what was showing up on eFACTS. I had also limited results to unconventional wells, because while this is Plum’s first unconventional well pad, the back roads are dotted with dozens – if not hundreds – of conventional O&G sites.

The Midas Well Pad, as seem from Coxcomb Hill Rd. in Plum, PA

After that attempt failed, I downloaded the entire state’s worth of data, whether conventional or not, and I was able to find the 31 violations associated with the well pad.

I contacted DEP about this, wondering whether there was some data irregularity that prevented my search in Plum from finding all of the incidents that occurred there. The reply was somewhat helpful, noting that there was no county, municipality, or unconventional value associated with that well pad in the compliance report, explaining why the search result came up negative.

It is worth noting that the separate well pad report does indeed have values for all of these fields for the Midas Well Pad, so there is a lack of consistency on this issue. Even more importantly, it is worth remembering that any compliance report search that limits results using county, municipality, or unconventional variables are likely to result in incomplete results.

The violations at the Midas Well Pad are focused around erosion and sedimentation issues, wetland impacts, failure to follow approved methodology, and failure to fix some of the problems on subsequent site inspections. The compliance report includes a narrative inspection comment, giving the public a glimpse through the inspector’s eyes. Here is one of several such comments at the site:

Follow up inspection related to wetland impact reported on 2/23/18 and 2/24/18. At the time of inspection, the Operator was actively conducting earth disturbance activity associated with the construction of well pad channel 6. The Department gave verbal permission on 2/27/2018 to deviate from the construction sequence and continue with the construction of PCSM wet pond 1. At the time of inspection wet pond 1 was partially constructed. The outlet structure and emergency spillway associated with wet pond 1. At the time of inspection wet pond 1 was holding water, however the slopes were not temporary stabilized. The Operator indicated that additional work was planned for the wet pond and would be temporary stabilized. The Operator indicated a previously unidentified seep located upgradient and outside of the LOD is contributing additional water to wet pond 1. The Department recommended the Operator identify wet weather springs upgradient from wet pond 1. Additionally, the Department recommends the Operator monitor all additional flow and submit a permit modification outlines changes made to the construction sequence and identifies the location of all toe drains to be constructed on site. The Department and Operator agreed to reschedule an onsite meeting to discuss the remediation of the wetland. Th Department recommends the Operator monitor the vegetative growth in the wetland. The Department recommends that the Operator add additional temporary mulch to the disturbed area and continue to perform routine maintenance to the temporary BMPs.

How pervasive is this problem?

The DEP well pad report contains data on 12,600 wells, situated on 3,715 wells pads. On the compliance side, there are 2,689 violations at 390 different sites that contain the words “Well Pad.” 739 of these violations do not have associated Well API Numbers, and are therefore not shown in our Pennsylvania Shale Viewer map. The number of sites with violations per operator is shown below in Figure 1 (click to expand).

Figure 1: Number of well pads appearing on compliance report by operator, through 5/15/2018. Click on the image to see the full-sized version.

There are four things to note about about Figure 1. 

First, this table is not the number of violations on well pads, but merely the count of well pads with violations appearing on the compliance report.

Second, this does not contain any data on wells on those pads that were issued violations – only instances where the well pads themselves were cited are shown.

PA Well Pad Violations: 

View map fullscreen

This map shows oil and gas (O&G) violations in Pennsylvania that are assessed to well pads, as opposed to individual wells. To access the map’s legend and other details, click the double-arrow icon at the top-left corner of the map.

The third thing to note about Figure 1 is that there are instances where the same pad falls into more than one category. Hilcorp Energy, for example, has 10 wells in the unconventional category, 11 wells that are not defined, but only 13 total wells, indicating significant overlap between the categories.

And fourth, there are 31 instances where the phrase “well pad” occurs in the compliance report where the unique Site ID# does not appear on the well pad report. In some cases, the name of the facility indicates that it might be for another facility that is related to the well pad, such as “Southwest System – Well Pad 36 to Bluestone Pipeline.” For other entries, such as “Yarasavage Well Pad”, it remains unclear why the Site ID# does not yield a matching entry from the well pad report.


By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data and Technology, FracTracker Alliance

 

Upper Appalachian Gas Storage Wells

New map available showing Upper Appalachian gas storage wells

FracTracker has received numerous requests to compile a regional map of natural gas storage wells. In response, we have built the dynamic map below covering storage wells in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia:

Upper Appalachian Gas Storage Wells Map

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work 

Using Our Map

The colored areas on the map above  (pink, blue, and yellow) correspond to gas storage wells in one of the three states. When you first view the map in fullscreen mode you will notice that these wells have been “generalized” into one large layer. That feature allows the map to load more quickly in your browser.

Zoom in further to where the generalized layers change to individual points in order to explore the wells more in depth, as shown in the screenshot below:

Screenshot of the Upper Appalachian Gas Storage Wells map, zoomed in


Map Metadata: Upper Appalachian Gas Storage Wells

This map shows gas storage wells in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  Due to the large amount of data, generalized layers were created to show the location of the storage fields at statewide zoom levels.  To access well data, viewers must zoom in beyond the scale of 1:500,000, or about the size of a large county.  Each state’s data includes slightly different data fields.

Data Layers include:

Name: OH Storage Wells
Date: January 2018
Source: Ohio DNR
Notes: Gas storage wells in Ohio. Storage wells selected from a broader dataset by FracTracker Alliance.

Name: PA Storage Wells
Date:  January 2018
Source:  Pennsylvania DEP
Notes:  Gas storage wells in Pennsylvania. Storage wells selected from a broader dataset by FracTracker Alliance.

Name:  WV Storage Wells
Date:  January 2018
Source:  West Virginia DEP
Notes:  Gas storage wells in West Virginia. Storage wells selected from a broader dataset by FracTracker Alliance.

Name: State Boundaries
Date:  2018
Source:  USDA Geospatial Data Gateway
Notes:  State boundaries of states with gas storage wells on this map.