Koontz Class II Injection Well, Trumbull County, Ohio, (41.22806065, -80.87669281) with 260,278 barrels (10,020,704 gallons) of fracking waste having been processed between Q3-2010 and Q3-2012 (Note: Q1-2016 volumes have yet to be reported!).
Ted Auch, PhD

Ohio Shale Activity, Waste Disposal, and Public Water Supplies

/by

Ohio is unique relative to its Appalachian neighbors in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Basins in that The Buckeye State chose to “diversify” when it came to planning for the hydraulic fracturing revolution. One of the first things financial advisers tell their clients is to “diversify, diversify, diversify.” However, this strategy is usually meant to buffer investors when certain sectors of the economy underperform. Columbus legislators took this strategy to mean that we should drill and hydraulically fracture our geology to extract oil and gas (O&G), as well as taking in vast quantities of liquid and solid O&G waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Accepting significant quantities of out-of-state waste raises several critical questions, however. How will these materials will be contained? Will such volumes require more and larger waste landfills? And will the injection of liquid brine waste into our geology (photo below) make Ohio the “Oklahoma of Appalachia” with respect to induced seismicity?


Above: Example Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio

Risks to Public Water Supplies

There are also mounting concerns about public water supply (PWS) security, quality, and resilience. These concerns stem from the growing uncertainty surrounding the containment of hydraulically fractured and Class II injection wells.

To begin to assess the risks involved in locating these wells near PWS’s, we compiled and incorporated as many of the state’s PWS’s into our primary Ohio maps. In this post, we explore PWS proximity to Utica drilling activity and Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio.

Waste Disposal & Drilling Near PWS’s

Public water chartJust how close are public water supplies to Class II waste disposal wells and permitted Utica wells? As of January 15, 2017, there are 13 PWS’s within a half-mile of Ohio’s Class II SWD wells, and 18 within a half-mile of permitted Utica wells. These facilities serve approximately 2,000 Ohioans each, with an average of 112-153 people per PWS (Tables 1 and 5). Within one mile from these wells there are 64 to 66 PWSs serving 18 to 61 thousand Ohioans. That’s an average of 285-925 residents.

Above: Photos of SWD wells from the sky

While PWSs on the 5-mile perimeter of our analysis don’t immediately conjure up water quality/quantity concerns, they may in the future; the rate of Utica and Class II permitting is likely to accelerate under a new White House administration more friendly to industry and averse to enforcing or enhancing regulatory hurdles.

A total of 960 and 699 PWSs are currently within five miles of Ohio Class II and Utica wells. These facilities service roughly 1.5 million and one-half million Ohioans each day, which is ~13% and 4% of the state, respectively. The average PWS within range of Class II wells is 37% to 330 times the average PWS within range of Utica wells.

Roland Marily Kemble Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Muskingum County, Ohio, Muskingum River Watershed, 39.975, -81.845, 1,984,787 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Roland Marily Kemble Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Muskingum County, Ohio, Muskingum River Watershed, 39.975, -81.845, 1,984,787 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Fifty-eight (58%) to 69% of the PWSs within range of Class II wells are what the Ohio EPA calls Transient Non-Community (TNC) (Table 2). TNC’s are defined by the OH EPA and OH Department of Agriculture as serving[1]:

…at least 25 different persons over 60 days per year. Examples include campgrounds, restaurants and gas stations. In addition, drinking water systems associated with agricultural migrant labor camps, as defined by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, are regulated even though they may not meet the minimum number of people or service connections.

Meanwhile 60-89% of PWS’s in the shadow of Ohio’s permitted Utica wells are of the TNC variety. Even larger percentages of these PWS’s are either Groundwater or Purchased Groundwater types. Most of the PWS’s within the range gradient we looked at are privately owned, with only handful owned by federal or state agencies (Table 6).

Above: Example Class II salt water disposal (SWD) wells in Ohio

Of the 24 hydrologic unit codes (HUCs)/watersheds that contain Class II SWD wells, the lion’s share of PWS’s within the shadow of injection wells are the Tuscarawas, Mahoning, and Walhonding (Table 3). Even the Cuyahoga River, which feeds directly in the Great Lakes, is home to up to 138 PWS’s within 5 miles of Class II SWD wells. Conversely, only 13 HUCs currently contain Ohio’s Utica wells. Like Class II-affected HUCs, we see that the Mahoning, Tuscarawas, and Cuyahoga PSW’s contain most of the PWSs of interest (Table 7).

Conclusion

Watershed security/resilience concerns are growing in Eastern Ohio. Residential and agricultural water demands are increasingly coming into conflict with the drilling industry’s growing freshwater demand. Additionally, as oil and gas drilling uses more water, we will see more brine produced (Figures 1 and 2).

This, in turn, will create more demand – on top of an already exponential trend (Figure 3) – for Ohio’s existing Class II wells from across Northern Appalachia, stretching from Southeast Ohio and West Virginia to North Central Pennsylvania.

An understanding of the links between watershed security, O&G freshwater demand, brine production, and frack waste disposal is even more critical in areas like Southeast Ohio’s Muskingum River Watershed (Figure 4).

A Dynamic Model of Water Demand Between 2000 and 2020 within the Muskingum River Watershed, Southeast Ohio, Kurtz, E. 2015

Figure 4. A Dynamic Model of Water Demand Between 2000 and 2020 within the Muskingum River Watershed, Southeast Ohio, Kurtz and Auch 2015

This is a region of the state where we have seen new water withdrawal agreements like the one below between the Muskingum River Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) and Antero described in last week’s Caldwell Journal-Leader, Noble County, Ohio:

The [MWCD], which oversees 10 lakes in east central Ohio, approved a second short-term water sale from Seneca Lake last week. The deal, with Antero Resources, Inc., could net the district up to $9,000 a day over about a three month period, and allows Antero to draw up to 1.5 million gallons of water a day during the months of August, September and October for a total of 135 million gallons; less than one percent of the lake’s estimated volume of 14.2 billion gallons. Antero plans to use the water in its fracking operations in the area and will pay $6 per 1000 gallons drawn.

Consol Energy's Cowgill Road Impoundment, Sarahsville, Wills Creek, Noble County, Ohio, 39.8212, -81.4061

Consol Energy’s Cowgill Road Impoundment, Sarahsville, Wills Creek, Muskingum River Watershed, Noble County, Ohio, 39.8212, -81.4061

This agreement will mean an increase in new Class II SWD permits and/or discussion about converting Ohio’s thousands of other Class II wells into SWD wells. What does this change means for communities that have already seen the industry extract the equivalent of nearly 14% – and even 25-80% in several counties – of residential water from their watersheds, only to inject it 6,000+ feet into the state’s geology is unknown? (Figure 5)

It is critical that we establish and frequently revisit the spatial relationship between oil and gas infrastructure the water supplies of Appalachian Ohio. The state of national politics, federal agency oversight and administrations, growing concerns around climate change, and the fact that Southeast Ohio is experiencing more intense and infrequent precipitation events are testaments to that fact. We will be tracking these changes to Ohio’s landscape as they develop. Stay tuned.

Kleese Disposal Class II Salt Water Disposal Well, Trumbull County, Shenango/Mahoning River, 41.244, -80.641, 3,548,104 Barrels of Waste Disposed Between 2010 and Q3-2016

Kleese Disposal Class II Salt Water Disposal well from the sky, Trumbull County, Shenango/Mahoning River, 41.244, -80.641. Data suggest 3,548,104 barrels of waste have been disposed of there between 2010 and Q3-2016.

Supplemental Tables

Public Water and Class II Wells

Table 1. Number of Ohio public water supplies and population served at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

Well Distance (Miles) # Total Population Ave Served Per Well Max People Per Well
0.5 13 1,992 153 (±120) 446
<1 66 60,539 917 (±4,702) 37,456
<2 198 278,402 1,406 (±4,374) 37,456
<3 426 681,969 1,601(±8,187) 148,000
<4 681 1,086,463 1,596 (±8,284) 148,000
<5 960 1,450,865 1,511 (±7,529) 148,000

 

Table 2. Ohio public water supplies by system type, source, and ownership at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

Well Distance (Miles)

 System Type† Source†† Ownership
 

NTNC

  

TNC

  

C

  

G

  

GP

  

S

  

SP

  

Private

  

Local

  

Fed

  

State
0.5 3 9 1 13 13
<1 11 47 8 65 1 61 5
<2 30 118 50 177 16 5 164 34
<3 76 245 105 385 32 8 351 75
<4 122 392 167 628 40 12 574 106 1
<5 162 564 234 878 30 32 19 823 135 1 1

† NTNC = Non-Transient Non-Community; TNC = Transient Non-Community; C = Community

†† G = Groundwater; GP = Purchased Groundwater; S = Surface Water; SP = Purchased Surface Water

 

Table 3. Ohio public water supplies by hydrologic unit code (HUC) at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

HUC Name

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula-Chagrin, 799 1 5 18 18 22
Black-Rocky, 859 1 1 2 2 9
Cuyahoga, 832 1 8 20 92 92 138
Grand, 811 12 30 71 71 81
Hocking, 1081 4 18 18 22
Licking, 1010 1 2 17 17 29
Little Muskingum-Middle Island, 1062 1 2 2 6
Lower Maumee, 856 2 2 4
Lower Scioto, 1091 6 6 9
Mahoning, 831 9 17 48 129 129 161
Mohican, 919 1 3 3 4
Muskingum, 1006 1 3 15 15 33
Raccoon-Symmes, 1128 1
Sandusky, 862 3 19 19 27
Shenango, 815 1 2 6 10 10 11
St. Mary’s, 934 3 5 5 7
Tiffin, 837 4 4 7
Tuscarawas, 889 1 9 76 147 147 213
Upper Ohio, 901 3 15 15 23
Upper Ohio-Shade, 1120 4 8 8 9
Upper Ohio-Wheeling, 984 1 1 4 4 5
Upper Scioto, 959 5 13 13 23
Walhonding, 906 1 11 26 69 69 101
Wills, 1009 2 3 12 12 14

 

Table 4. Ohio public water supplies by county at several intervals from Class II Injection wells

 

County

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula 4 9 16 19 22
Athens 1 2 2 3
Auglaize 3 5 5 7
Belmont 1 4 5 6
Carroll 2 9 20
Columbiana 1 2 6 13 20 32
Coshocton 7 8 10 13
Crawford 1
Cuyahoga 1
Delaware 1
Fairfield 4
Franklin 1 3 7
Fulton 2 4 8
Gallia 1
Geauga 8 19 33 60 71
Guernsey 2 4 10 11 11
Harrison 1 1
Henry 2 3 3
Henry 2 3
Hocking 3 10 11 13
Holmes 1 11 34 25 38 47
Jefferson 1 3 3 5
Knox 2 6 8 9
Lake 1 4 7 17 18
Licking 1 2 10 14 26
Lorain 1 4
Mahoning 3 4 13 25 37 48
Medina 1 1 1 2 5
Meigs 4 5 6 7
Morgan 1 1 1 6 17
Morrow 3 8 11 11
Muskingum 3 8 15
Noble 1 2 2 3
Perry 5 6 8
Pickaway 2 3 7 10
Portage 3 12 41 62 90 113
Seneca 1 12 17 21
Stark 1 4 20 52 121 161
Summit 2 12 26 51
Trumbull 3 7 24 32 45 61
Tuscarawas 6 10 22 24 26
Washington 1 2 4 9
Wayne 1 1 9 18 24 54
Wyandot 2 2 2 3

Public Water and Hydraulically Fractured Wells

Table 5. The number of Ohio public water supplies and population served at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica Wells

Well Distance (Miles) # Total Population Ave Served Per Well Max People Per Well
0.5 18 2,010 112 (±72) 31
<1 64 17,879 279 (±456) 2,598
<2 235 116,682 497 (±1,237) 8,728
<3 433 257,292 594 (±2,086) 29,787
<4 572 380,939 666 (±2,404) 29,787
<5 699 496,740 711 (±2,862) 47,348

 

Table 6. Ohio public water supplies by system type, source, and ownership at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica Wells

 

Well Distance (Miles)

 System Type† Source†† Ownership
 

NTNC

  

TNC

  

C

  

G

  

GP

  

S

  

SP

  

Private

  

Local

  

Fed

  

State
0.5 1 16 1 17 1 18
<1 9 45 10 59 3 1 1 58 6
<2 50 137 48 216 6 3 10 206 29
<3 83 265 85 400 14 5 14 381 51 1
<4 109 352 111 534 16 7 15 504 67 1
<5 141 421 137 652 19 9 18 621 77 1

† NTNC = Non-Transient Non-Community; TNC = Transient Non-Community; C = Community

†† G = Groundwater; GP = Purchased Groundwater; S = Surface Water; SP = Purchased Surface Water

 

 

Table 7. Ohio public water supplies by hydrologic unit code (HUC) at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica wells

 

HUC Name

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Black-Rocky, 859 1 4 4 4
Cuyahoga, 832 2 12 31 54 82
Grand, 811 1 15 18 23
Licking, 1010 2 2 3 3
Little Muskingum-Middle Island, 1062 2 5 10 11 11
Mahoning, 831 2 5 48 105 142 175
Muskingum, 1006 3 7 9 11
Shenango, 815 2 5 10 13 14
Tuscarawas, 889 8 28 87 140 178 220
Upper Ohio, 901 7 20 45 66 72 73
Upper Ohio-Wheeling, 984 1 13 23 27 28
Walhonding, 906 10 15 34 47
Wills, 1009 2 3 5 7 8

 

 

Table 8. Ohio public water supplies by county at several intervals from hydraulically fractured Utica wells

 

County

 Well Distance (Miles)
0.5 <1 <2 <3 <4 <5
Ashtabula 1 1
Belmont 1 2 7 14 15 16
Carroll 6 20 36 43 43 43
Columbiana 4 15 45 72 80 81
Coshocton 7 10 10
Geauga 14 20 25
Guernsey 1 1 2 4 5
Harrison 2 6 16 16 16 16
Holmes 5 13 31 43
Jefferson 2 3 11 22 25 25
Knox 1 1 2 2
Licking 1 1 1 1
Mahoning 2 10 32 44 55
Medina 1 4 5 7
Monroe 2 4 6 6 6
Muskingum 1 1 1 2 3
Noble 2 2 2 2
Portage 2 8 25 49 84
Stark 2 5 40 85 110 122
Summit 6 10
Trumbull 3 23 36 53 65
Tuscarawas 1 2 15 22 28 43
Washington 3 10 12 13
Wayne 5 5 7 21

Footnote

  1. Community (C) = serve at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serve at least 25 year-round residents. Examples include cities, mobile home parks and nursing homes; Non-Transient, Non-Community (NTNC) = serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Examples include schools, hospitals and factories.

By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Northern Access Project - pipeline map
Karen Edelstein

Northern Access Project: Exporting PA’s Marcellus Gas Northward

/by

In March 2015, the National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline Company filed a joint application with the Federal Energy Resource Commission (FERC) to construct a new natural gas pipeline and related infrastructure, known collectively as the Northern Access Project (NAPL). The pricetag on the project is $455 million, and is funded through international, as well as local, financial institutions. The Public Accountability Initiative recently produced a report detailing the funding for this pipeline project, entitled “The Power Behind the Pipeline“.

The proposed Northern Access Project consists of a 97-mile-long, 24” pipe that would carry Marcellus Shale gas from Sergeant Township (McKean County), PA, to the Porterville Compressor Station in the Town of Elma (Erie County), NY. Nearly 69% of the proposed main pipeline will be co-located in existing pipeline and power line rights-of-way, according to FERC. The agency says this will streamline the project and reduce the need to rely on eminent domain to most efficiently route the project.

A $42 million, 15,400 horsepower Hinsdale Compressor Station along the proposed pipeline route was completed in 2015. In addition to the pipeline itself, the proposed project includes:

  • Additional 5,350 HP compression at the existing Porterville Compressor Station, a ten-fold increase of the capacity of that station
  • A new 22,214 HP compressor station in Pendleton (Niagara County), NY
  • Two miles of pipeline in Pendleton (Niagara County), NY
  • A new natural gas dehydration facility in Wheatfield (Niagara County), NY
  • An interconnection with the Tennessee Gas Pipeline in Wales (Erie County), NY, as well as tie-ins in McKean, Allegany, and Cattaraugus counties
  • A metering, regulation and delivery station in Erie County
  • Mainline block valves in McKean, Allegany, Cattaraugus and Erie counties; and
  • Access roads and contractor/staging yards in McKean, Allegany, Cattaraugus and Erie counties

Map of Proposed Northern Access Project


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

The above map shows the proposed pipeline (green) and related infrastructure (bright pink). The pale yellow and pink lines on the map are the existing pipelines that the Northern Access Project would tie into. Click here to explore the map fullscreen.

Project Purpose

National Fuel maintains that the goal of the proposed project would be to supply multiple markets in Western New York State and the Midwest. The project would also supply gas for export to Canada via the Empire Pipeline system, and New York and New England through the Tennessee Gas Pipeline 200 Line. The company anticipates that the project would be completed by late 2017 or early 2018. Proponents are hoping that NAPL will keep fuel prices low, raise tax revenues, and create jobs.

Push-back against this project has been widespread from citizens and environmental groups, including Sierra Club and RiverKeeper. This is despite an environmental assessment ruling in July 2016 that FERC saw no negative environmental impacts of the project. FERC granted a stamp of approval for the project on February 4, 2017.

Concerns about the Proposed Pipeline

The Bufffalo-Niagara Riverkeeper, asserts that the project presents multiple threats to environmental health of the Upper Lake Erie and Niagara River Watersheds. In their letter to FERC, they disagreed with the Commission’s negative declaration that the project would result in “no significant impact to the environment.” The pipeline construction will require crossings of 77 intermittent and 60 perennial streams, 19 of which are classified by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) as protected trout streams. Twenty-eight of the intermittent streams impacted also flow into these protected streams. Resulting water quality deterioration associated with bank destabilization, increased turbidity, erosion, thermal destabilization of streams, and habitat loss is likely to impact sensitive native brook trout and salamanders. Riverkeeper found that National Fuel’s plan on how to minimize impacts to hundreds of wetlands surround the project area was insufficient. FERC’s Environmental Assessment of the project indicated that approximately 1,800 acres of vegetation would affected by the project.

Several groups have also taken issue with the proposed project’s plan to use the “dry crossing” method of traversing waterways. Only three crossings will be accomplished using horizontal directional drilling under the stream bed — a method that would largely protect the pipes from dynamic movement of the stream during floods. The rest will be “trenched” less than 5 feet below the stream bed. Opponents of the project point out that NYSDEC, federal guidelines, and even industry itself discourage pipe trenching, because during times of high stream flow, stream scour may expose the pipes to rocks, trees, and other objects. This may lead to the pipes leaking, or even rupturing, impacting both the natural environment, and, potentially, the drinking water supply.

A December 2016 editorial to The Buffalo News addressed the impacts that the proposed Northern Access Project could have to the Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for 20,000 residents in surrounding Cattaraugus, Erie, and Wyoming counties in New York. In particular, because the aquifer is shallow, and even at the surface in some locations, it is particularly vulnerable to contamination. The editorial took issue with the absence of measures in the Environmental Assessment that could have explored how to protect the aquifer.

Other concerns include light and noise pollution, in addition to well-documented impacts on climate change, created by fugitive methane leakage from pipelines and compressors.

NYSDEC has held three public hearings about the project already: February 7th at Saint Bonaventure University (Allegany, NY), February 8th at Iroquois High School (Elma, NY), February 9th at Niagara County Community College (Sanborn, NY). The hearing at Saint Bonaventure was attended by nearly 250 people.

While FERC approved the project on February 4, 2017, the project still requires approvals from NYSDEC – including a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. These decisions have recently been pushed back from March 1 to April 7.

Proponents for the project – particularly the pipefitting industry – have emphasized that it would create up to 1,700 jobs during the construction period, and suggested that because of the experience level of the construction workforce, there would be no negative impacts on the streams. Other speakers emphasized National Fuel’s commitment to safety and environmental compliance.

Seneca Nation President Todd Gates expressed his concerns about the gas pipeline’s impacts on Cattaraugus Creek, which flows through Seneca Nation land (Cattaraugus Indian Reservation), and is downstream from several tributaries traversed by the proposed pipeline. In addition, closer to the southern border of New York State, the proposed pipeline cuts across tributaries to the Allegheny River, which flows through the Allegany Indian Reservation. One of New York State’s primary aquifers lies beneath the reservation. The closest that the proposed pipeline itself would pass about 12 miles from Seneca Nation Territory, so National Fuel was not required contact the residents there.

Concerns about Wheatfield dehydration facility & Pendleton compressor station

According to The Buffalo News, National Fuel has purchased 20 acres of land from the Tonawanda Sportsmen’s Club. The company is building two compressors on this property, totaling 22,000 HP, to move gas through two miles of pipeline that are also part of the proposed project, but 23 miles north of the primary stretch of newly constructed pipeline. Less than six miles east of the Pendleton compressor stations, a dehydration facility is also proposed. The purpose of this facility is to remove water vapor from the natural gas, in accordance with Canadian low-moisture standards. According to some reports from a National Fuel representative, the dehydration facility would run only a few days a year, but this claim, has not been officially confirmed.

Residents of both Pendleton and Wheatfield have rallied to express their concerns about both components of the project, citing potential impacts on public health, safety, and the environment relating to air and water quality.

Northern Access Project Next Steps

The deadline for public comment submission is 5 pm on February 24, 2017 — less than two weeks away. To file a comment, you can either email NYS DEC directly To Michael Higgins at NFGNA2016Project@dec.ny.gov, or send comments by mail to NYS DEC, Attn. Michael Higgins, Project Manager, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233.

 

Note: this article originally stated that the Porterville Compressor Station would double its capacity as a result of the NAPL project. In fact, the capacity increase would be ten-fold, from 600 hp to about 6000 hp. We regret this error.

by Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Ted Auch, PhD

Power Plants & Other Facilities Now on Ohio Oil & Gas Map

/by

Over the last few months we’ve been busy working on some updates to our Ohio Oil & Gas Map. Check out what we’ve added recently and explore the map below!

New: Power Plants & ATEX Pipeline

We now have the locations of eight of the credible natural gas power plants proposed in Ohio, along with the jobs they cite during construction and operations. We also now have a complete inventory of 118 existing power plants, including 25 natural gas facilities. Together, these plants would produce 7,660 megawatts, around 957 per facility.

Six of these plants are either in the heart of Ohio’s Utica Shale or within several miles of the 1,200+ mile Appalachia-to-Texas (ATEX) pipeline. ATEX was installed to transport 190,000 barrels per day (BPD) of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from the Marcellus and Utica region to the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Goast refinery corridor. The 360 mile segment of this pipeline that runs from Pennsylvania to south central Jackson County, Indiana is also now shown on the Ohio Oil & Gas Map.

Late Permitting Increases

Cumulative and Monthly Ohio Utica Hydraulic Fracturing Well Permits

Figure 1. Cumulative and monthly hydraulic fracturing well permits in Ohio’s Utica Shale

While many shale plays across the United States are experiencing a period of contraction (with low gas prices often cited as the primary reason), drilling activity in Ohio’s Utica Shale has been experiencing a slow and steady expansion. The region has seen more than 2,700 permitted wells as of the end of January 2017. Incidentally, roughly 59% of these wells are producing either oil or gas as of Q3-2016. For more information on that subject, explore our production map.

The permitting trajectory hit a low of 13-16 permits per month between February and January of 2016. Since the presidential election in November, however, permitting rates have more than doubled (Figure 1).

Ohio Oil & Gas Map

Ohio sits on the western edge of both the Utica and Marcellus Shale formations, but conditions are such that the Marcellus Shale is all but being ignored in Ohio. Explore our updated map of OH drilling activity and related facilities below:


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Map Layers

The map above is made up of various datasets, from the location of permits to compressor stations. These “map layers” make up the legend. Below we describe each layer on the map, as well as the data source and date range.

Horizontal Marcellus Permits, Laterals
There have been 40+ permits issued for horizontal wells in Ohio’s Marcellus Shale.

Source:   Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Date Range:  December 2009 – Present

Horizontal Utica Permits
An aggregate of ODNR’s monthly cumulative Utica and Marcellus permits as well as a more detailed weekly Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) Microsoft Access inventory. At the present time Ohio is home to 2,160+ permitted Utica Wells with the wells broken out by status. Additionally this layer contains depth, water usage, sand usage, HCl, and Gelling Agent percentage for 249 wells based on data provided to FracFocus. Finally, we have incorporated production in various units from individual industry press releases and the ODNR annual report.

Source:   Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Date Range:  December 2009 – Present

Horizontal Utica Permits actual and straight line laterals
An aggregate of ODNR’s monthly cumulative Utica and Marcellus permits as well as a more detailed weekly Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) Microsoft Access inventory. At the present time we have straight line laterals for all drilled, drilling, and producing wells as well as actual PLAT laterals for 341 of the wells.

Source:   Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Date Range:  December 2009 – Present

High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Gathering Lines
All gathering lines servicing Ohio’s inventory of High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) wells.

Source:   Herbert Hoover Foundation grant
Date Range:  December 2009 – 2015

High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Well Pads
The well-pads of all Ohio’s drilled or producing High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) wells.

Source:   Herbert Hoover Foundation grant
Date Range:  December 2009 – 2015

High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Well Pad’s Limits Of Disturbance (LOD)
Limits Of Disturbance (LOD) for all Ohio’s drilled or producing High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) well-pads.

Source: Herbert Hoover Foundation grant
Date Range:  December 2009 – 2015

Compressor Stations and Cracking Facilities
Boundaries of several confirmed High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) servicing cracking and compressor station facilities.

Source:   Herbert Hoover Foundation grant
Date Range:  December 2009 – 2015

Ohio Active Class II Injection Wells
This data speaks to the state’s “Active” Class II Injection wells able to accept hydraulic fracturing waste. There are 240+ Active Wells with 51 having yet to receive waste from hydraulic fracturing. For more on Ohio’s Class II Inventory in depth refer to our recent Ohio Fracking Waste Transport & Disposal Network article.

Source:   Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Date Range:  Historical to October, 2015

Earthquakes of >2.0 Magnitude
This data speaks to the state’s 258 earthquakes with current updates from the Ohio Seismic Network and historical quakes – all >2.0 magnitude. These data come from the department’s inventory. Additionally, we present Ohio earthquakes with <2.0 magnitude courtesy of Environment Canada’s Search the Earthquake Database platform.

Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, The Ohio Seismic Network
Date Range:  Historical to Present

Mariner East Technical Difficulties map
FracTracker Alliance

Remaining Questions on Mariner East Technical Deficiencies

/by

In the summer of 2015, Sunoco Logistics submitted applications to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to build its massive Mariner East 2 pipeline. The ME 2 pipeline would have the capacity to transport 275,000 barrels a day of propane, ethane, butane, and other hydrocarbons from the shale fields of Western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook export terminal, located on the Delaware River.

Sunoco’s applications were to satisfy the state’s Chapter 105 (water obstruction and encroachment) and Chapter 102 (erosion/sediment control and earth disturbance) permitting requirements. The DEP responded to Sunoco’s application, issuing 20 deficiency letters totaling more than 550 pages. Sunoco resubmitted their application in the summer of 2016 and the DEP again rejected many of its plans to disturb streams, ponds, and wetlands. In December, Sunoco resubmitted its revised application for a third time, hoping for final approval.

FracTracker Alliance first wrote about ME 2’s risks to watershed in August 2016, following Sunoco’s second application. Readers who want a general overview of the issues may find that article worth reading. In this new article, we dig deeper into the subject. Along with its December application, Sunoco also supplied the DEP with revised GIS files illustrating ME 2’s new route and documents summarizing its impacts to nearby water bodies. We have created a new map utilizing newly available data and provide contextual analysis valuable in determining how Sunoco responds to the DEP’s review of its prior rejected applications.

Detailed Mapping of Water Body Impacts

At the end of December, the DEP finally released Sunoco’s GIS files detailing water bodies that will be impacted by ME 2, as well as Sunoco’s data tables outlining alternative methods that might mitigate certain impacts. Our map (below) combines these new datasets to show the locations where ME 2’s route has changed since Sunoco’s initial application, presumably in response to the DEP’s technical deficiency letter.

Also on this map are water bodies: 1) implicated in ME 2’s environmental impact assessment, 2) determined by the DEP as likely impacted by construction, and 3) identified by Sunoco as having viable construction alternatives to mitigate impacts.

Mariner East 2 Technical Deficiencies Map


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

By viewing the map fullscreen and zooming in, one can click on a water feature to reveal its data tables (see below example). These tables contain information on the water body’s flow regime, the extent of permanent and temporary impacts, alternative crossing methods that could be used, and what benefits might come from those alternate methods. Also in the tables are a number of designations such as:

  • USGS Fish and Wildlife wetland classification (see guide). Most common are PEM (palustrine emergent wetland), PSS (palustrine scrub-shrub wetland), PFO (palustrine forested wetland), and PuB (palustrine unconsolidated bottom – i.e. ponds).
  • PA DEP stream designation (see guide). Most common are WWF (warm water fishes), CWF (cold water fishes), HQ (high quality), and EV (exceptional value).
  • PA Fish and Boat Commission classifications (see guide). Most common are ATW (approved trout water), STS (stocked trout stream), Class A (class A water), and WTS (wilderness trout stream).

An example water body data table that can be found on the map:
me2-zoom-screenshot2

Our analysis of this new data reveals the number of water crossings in question is significantly higher than what we estimated in August: now totaling 1,222 streams, 34 ponds, and 708 wetlands crossings. This increase is primarily due to Sunoco’s data also containing information on ephemeral and intermittent waters that are not typically accounted for in USGS data (all that was available at the time of our prior analysis).

Defining Impacts

The DEP’s Chapter 105 Joint Permit Application Instructions break down “impacts” into two broad categories: permanent and temporary. These are primarily used to assess environmental impact fees, but are also valuable in determining what parameters Sunoco will be held to during and after ME 2’s construction.

Permanent impacts: are “areas affected by a water obstruction or encroachment that consist of both direct and indirect impacts that result from the placement or construction of a water obstruction or encroachment and include areas necessary for the operation and maintenance of the water obstruction or encroachment located in, along or across, or projecting into a watercourse, floodway or body of water.”

Permanent impacts are calculated using the pipeline’s 50-foot permanent right-of-way. For streams, all bed and banks are to be restored to pre-construction conditions. For ponds and wetlands, permanent impacts are assumed to remain even if the area is considered restored.

Temporary impacts: are “areas affected during the construction of a water obstruction or encroachment that consists of both direct and indirect impacts located in, along or across, or projecting into a watercourse, floodway or body of water that are restored upon completion of construction.” Temporary impacts consist of areas such as temporary workspaces and access roads.

The below table lists the total impacted acres broken down by county. Of interest here is that more than 175 acres would be permanently impacted — equivalent to 134 football fields — with an additional 82 acres temporarily impacted.

Table 1. Impacted Acres by County

County Permanent Impacts (acres) Temporary Impacts (acre)
Allegheny 1.85 0.39
Berks 11.14 4.88
Blair 11.70 6.72
Cambria 20.21 8.48
Chester 10.30 3.92
Cumberland 24.06 7.61
Dauphin 8.12 6.55
Delaware 5.05 3.33
Huntingdon 18.75 8.04
Indiana 11.42 4.73
Juniata 5.25 3.02
Lancaster 4.65 1.66
Lebanon 6.48 2.53
Perry 5.58 2.63
Washington 9.37 2.94
Westmoreland 17.72 12.36
York 3.46 2.16
Total 175.12 81.93

Viable Options to Reduce Impacts

Example of an open cut wet crossing

An open cut wet crossing (image source)

Pipeline companies cross water bodies using a variety of methods depending on their classification. The DEP maintains three general categories for water crossings: minor (in streams less than or equal to 10 feet wide at the water’s edge at the time of construction), intermediate (perennial stream crossings greater than 10 feet wide but less than 100 feet wide at the water’s edge at the time of construction), and major (crossings of more than 100 feet at the water’s edge at the time of construction).

Minor and intermediate crossings often employ rudimentary trenching along “open cut” crossings where the water is either temporarily diverted (wet crossing) or allowed to flow during construction (wet crossing). After the cuts, the company attempts to repair damage done in the process of trenching.

In more sensitive places, such as in exceptional value streams, wetlands, and always in major crossings, a company uses conventional boring to tunnel under a water feature. When boring over long distances, such as under a lake or river, a company turns to Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), a more engineered form of boring. An example of HDD boring is seen below (image source):

hdd_crossing_example

We were surprised by the number of water crossings identified by Sunoco as having options to minimize impact. As the table below shows, more than 44% (869) of Sunoco’s crossings have an alternate method identified in the resubmitted applications. In most of these instances, the intended crossing method is either trenching through open cuts or dry crossings. The majority of identified alternatives would reduce impacts simply by altering the trenching route. 53 of the 869 were shown to have feasible conditions for conventional or HDD boring, but Sunoco categorized all of these as impracticable options despite their environmental benefits.

Table 2. Number of Crossings With and Without Viable Alternate Methods

Crossings Assessed but Unimpacted Impacted with No Alternative Impacted with Alternatives Total
Streams 313 925 297 1,535
Ponds 66 3 31 100
Wetlands 963 167 541 1,671
  1,342 1,095 869 3,306

Absorbing the Costs of Environmental Impacts

If executed, these alternative methods would decrease the length of crossings, limit right-of-way encroachments, prevent land fragmentation, and significantly reduce risks to larger water bodies. More likely, Sunoco will pay the impact fees associated with the less complicated crossing methods. We’ve summarized these fees (found in Sunoco’s resubmitted application) in the table below. In total, Sunoco would pay roughly $1.8 million in exchange for nearly 2,000 water body crossings – a fraction of the project’s $2.5 billion estimated cost:

Table 3. Impact Fees for Sunoco’s Preferred Crossings

County Permanent Impacts area (fees) Temporary Impact area (fees) Admin Fees Total Fees
Allegheny $15,200 $1,600 $1,750 $18,550
Berks $89,600 $19,600 $1,750 $110,950
Blair $94,400 $27,200 $1,750 $123,350
Cambria $162,400 $34,000 $1,750 $198,150
Chester $83,200 $16,000 $1,750 $100,950
Cumberland $192,800 $30,800 $1,750 $225,350
Dauphin $65,600 $26,400 $1,750 $93,750
Delaware $40,800 $13,600 $1,750 $56,150
Huntingdon $150,400 $32,400 $1,750 $184,550
Indiana $92,000 $19,200 $1,750 $112,950
Juniata $42,400 $12,400 $1,750 $56,550
Lancaster $37,600 $6,800 $1,750 $46,150
Lebanon $52,000 $10,400 $1,750 $64,150
Perry $44,800 $10,800 $1,750 $57,350
Washington $75,200 $12,000 $1,750 $88,950
Westmoreland $142,400 $50,000 $1,750 $194,150
York $28,000 $8,800 $1,750 $38,550
$1,408,800 $332,000 $29,750 $1,770,550

Conclusion

This week, acting DEP Secretary Patrick McDonnell met with residents who voiced frustration that the agency failed to provide an additional public comment period following Sunoco’s application resubmission. Nevertheless, the DEP is expected to greenlight Sunoco’s plans any day now, adding another to the list of recent pipeline approvals in the region. Sunoco needs its permits now in order to begin clearing trees prior to endangered species bat nesting season, which begins in April.

Meanwhile, communities along the pipeline’s path are preparing for the sudden wave of disruption that may ensue. Some have threatened lawsuits, arguing that the resubmitted application still contains many deficiencies including missing wetlands and private drinking wells that must be accounted for. Indeed, the map and data presented in this article confirms that there is still a lot that the general public does not know about ME 2 – in particular, the extent of water impacts the DEP seems willing to accept and the range of options at Sunoco’s disposal that might mitigate those impacts if it were forced to do so.

Finally, it is encouraging to see that the DEP is becoming more transparent in sharing datasets, compared to other pipeline projects. However, this data is complex and not easily understood without sufficient technical expertise. We are discouraged to think that it is unlikely the public will learn about additional changes to the construction plan until after permits are issued. In order for data to be useful, it must be made available throughout the process, not at the end stages of planning, and done so in a way that it becomes integrated into the agency’s public participation responsibilities.

by Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community-Based Research & Engagement

Offshore oil and gas development in CA - Photo by Linda Krop Environmental Defense Center
Kyle Ferrar, MPH

More offshore drilling and “fracking” in California

/by

Offshore oil and gas development is expanding in CA. This article explores the state’s regulatory framework, existing data, and data discrepancies.

Federal Regulations for Offshore Fracking

In the summer of 2016 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) jointly released an environmental study that reviewed offshore fracking operations. The report found that operations have a minimal impact on marine health. For a review of California’s offshore oil and gas operations, see FracTrackers Alliance’s coverage of the collaborative report with the Environmental Defense Center, the Dirty Water Report.

As ThinkProgress reports, these two federal agencies will now resume the approval of offshore fracking permits. In response, Governor Jerry Brown made a plea to President Obama, to prevent fracking off California’s coast. Governor Brown asked President Obama to institute a permanent ban on all new offshore oil and gas drilling in federal waters, saying:

California is blessed with hundreds of miles of spectacular coastline; home to scenic state parks, beautiful beaches, abundant wildlife and thriving communities,” Brown wrote in a letter to Obama. “Clearly, large new oil and gas reserves would be inconsistent with our overriding imperative to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and combat the devastating impacts of climate change.

A new report by Liza Tucker at Consumer Watchdog has reviewed the state regulatory agency’s own policies under the Brown Administration. The report claims, “Brown has nurtured drilling and hydraulic fracturing in the state while stifling efforts to protect the public.” The report asks Governor Brown to “direct regulators to reject any drilling in a protected coastal sanctuary, ban offshore fracking, and phase out oil drilling in state waters” among other recommendations.

Read "How Green is Jerry Brown?" Report

California Data & Discrepancies

FracTracker Alliance reviewed the data published by DOGGR on permitted offshore wells. (DOGGR refers to the Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources, which regulates drilling in CA). Using API identification numbers as a timeline, we actually find that it is likely that 238 wells have been drilled offshore since the start of 2012. The DOGGR database only lists “spud” (drilling) and completion dates for 71 – a mere 1.3% of the 5,435 total offshore wells. DOGGR reports that 1,366 offshore wells are currently active production wells. It must be noted that these numbers are only estimations, since operators have a 2-year window to drill wells after receiving a permit and API number.

Using these methods of deduction, we find that since the beginning of 2012 the majority of offshore wells have been drilled offshore of Los Angeles County in the Wilmington Oil Field (204 in total); followed by 25 offshore in the Huntington Beach field; 7 in the West Montalvo field offshore of Ventura County, and 1 in the Belmont field, also offshore of Ventura County. These wells are shown as bright yellow circles in the map below. Additionally, the Center for Biological Diversity reports that at least 200 of the wells off California’s coast have been hydraulically fractured.

Offshore Oil and Gas Development and SB4-Approved Well Stimulations


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

In total, DOGGR data shows 5,435 offshore oil and gas wells. Of those listed as active, new or idle, they break down into well types as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Offshore oil and gas well types

Well Type Count
Oil and Gas Production 1,539
Dry Gas 5
Waste Disposal 14
Steam Flood 2
Water Flood 813
Pressure Maintenance 3
Observation 8

New Fracking under SB4 Rules

The map above also shows several datasets that detail the stimulation activity that has been occurring in California since the passage of SB4 under Jerry Brown. Prior to the adoption of the new stimulation regulations on July 1, 2015, operators submitted applications and received permits for a total of 2,130 wells. These well permits are shown in the map labeled “CA SB4 Interim Well Stimulation Permits.” Since July of 2015, 596 of these permitted wells have been stimulated. In the map above, the layer “CA SB4 Well Stimulation Disclosures” shows the time series of these wells. An additional 31 well stimulation treatment permit applications have been submitted to DOGGR, since the adoption of the final rules on July 1, 2015. They are shown in the map, labeled “CA SB4 Well Stimulation Treatment Permit Applications.”

Offshore drilling cover photo by Linda Krop, Environmental Defense Center

By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

louisiana bayou proposed pipeline map
Karen Edelstein

Pipeline Under Debate in Louisiana Bayou

/by

The 30-inch Bayou Bridge Pipeline began operations in April of 2016, with a short leg of pipeline that ran from Nederland, Texas to refineries in Lake Charles, Louisiana. But this 60-mile long pipeline, operated by Sunoco Logistics Partners, was just the first step in a much lengthier, and more controversial, 24-inch diameter pipeline project (jointly owned by Sunoco Logistics Partners, as well as Phillips 66 Partners and Energy Transfer Partners). Nonetheless, Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC argues that transport of crude oil by pipeline rather than by tanker or train, is the safest transportation option, as they continue to advocate and justify more pipeline construction in the name of “energy independence.” They compare its necessity to that of FedEx, a mere “delivery system”—one that would carry 280,000 barrels of light or heavy crude across the Acadiana terrain. The company building the pipeline, in fact, distances itself from problems that could result after oil starts flowing:

The pipeline is merely a delivery system, similar to FedEx, to help fill a need that already exists to ship the crude to refiners and market. We do not own the crude in the pipeline,” Alexis Daniel, of Granado Communications Group, a public relations firm in Dallas, wrote in an email response to questions posed to Energy Transfer Partners. Source

Developers hope that second phase of the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline will be put into operation during the second half of 2017. It would run 162 miles from Lake Charles, LA to refineries in St James, LA. It would cross the 11 Louisiana parishes and over 700 acres of fragile wetlands, and watersheds that supply drinking water for up to 300,000 people. Pump stations are planned for Jefferson Davis and St. Martin parishes. St. James is located on the western bank of the Mississippi River, about 50 miles upstream of New Orleans. In addition, the proposed pipeline crosses the state-designated Coastal Zone Boundary, an area targeted by Louisiana for special consideration relating to ecological and cultural sustainability.

Map of Proposed Louisiana Bayou Bridge Pipeline


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Zoom in closer to the area around the Bayou Bridge Pipeline, and the National Wetlands Inventory data should appear. Use the “Bookmarks” tab to zoom in close to the refinery sites, and also to zoom back out to the full extent of the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline.

What’s the connection to the DAPL?

The 2010 BP Gulf oil spill resulted in $18 billion in settlements and penalties. With protests in the news about the impacts the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) could pose to drinking water for the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation should another oil spill occur along the Missouri River, it’s no surprise that environmentalists are also calling for an environmental impact statement about the proposed extension of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline.

Acadiana is already criss-crossed by a dense network of pipelines leading to Gulf Coast refineries. Nonetheless, the process of building the proposed Bayou Bridge pipeline, the Atchafalaya Basin, a major watershed of the Gulf of Mexico, will see additional and significant impacts. Even if the construction process happens without a hitch, 77 acres of wetlands would be permanently affected, and 177 acres would be temporarily affected, along with the wildlife and aquatic species that live there. Within a 5-mile buffer area of the pipeline, National Wetlands Inventory has mapped over 600 square miles of forested wetlands, nearly 300 square miles of estuarine wetlands, and 63 square miles of freshwater emergent wetlands. Essential ecosystem services that the wetlands provide, absorbing floodwaters, could be compromised, leading to increased erosion and sedimentation downstream. Impacts to these wetlands could be greatly magnified into the already environmentally stressed Gulf.

The connection between DAPL and Bayou Bridge is both figurative and literal. Like most new pipelines, concerns about spills loom large in the minds of many. A new pipeline represents more money that is not being directed toward clean energy alternatives.

Energy Transfer Partners, the same company building DAPL, is also building the Bayou Bridge, which the final leg of the Dakota Access Pipeline, 1300 miles to the north. The two pipelines would be connected by a 700+-mile-long stretch of Energy Transfer Partner’s 30-inch Trunkline. This pipeline, which has been a gas transmission line, was proposed in 2012 for conversion from gas to crude transport. The project was cancelled in 2014, and reworked to use 678 miles of the original Trunkline, and also add 66 miles of new pipeline. When it is online, the flow direction of the Trunkline pipeline would reversed to accommodate the south-flowing crude.

Other unanticipated impacts

Interestingly, if crude oil transport to Gulf Coast refineries is diverted to pipelines rather than traditional rail or barge transport, some industry analysts predict that transportation using those modes of conveyance will shift more to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

A chance for public input

Environmental groups, including a coalition the comprises the Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network, and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, as well as concerned citizens, and landowners (some of whom already have multiple pipelines crossing their properties) are making their resistance to the pipeline heard, loud and clear about the need for a full environmental impact statement that will address the cumulative and indirect impacts of the project.

Note

In response to public outcry, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality has agreed to hold a public hearing about the Bayou Bridge Pipeline extension. The meeting will take place at 6 p.m. on January 12 in the Oliver Pollock Room of the Galvez Building, 602 North 5th St. in Baton Rouge.

Update, 6 February 2017. Here’s an article that features information about the January 12 public meeting, which was packed to capacity.

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Matt Kelso, BA

Hypothetical Impacts of Unconventional Drilling In Allegheny County

/by

With tens of thousands of wells scattered across the countryside, Southwestern Pennsylvania is no stranger to oil and gas development. New, industrial scale extraction methods are already well entrenched, with over 3,600 of these unconventional wells drilled so far in that part of the state, mostly from the well known Marcellus Shale formation.

Southwestern Pennsylvania is also home to the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area, a seven county region with over 2.3 million people. Just over half of this population is in Allegheny County, where unconventional drilling has become more common in recent years, along with all of its associated impacts. In the following interactive story map, the FracTracker Alliance takes a look at current impacts in more urban and suburban environments, plus projects what future impacts could look like, based on leasing activity.

Click to Enter the Hypothetical Impacts Interactive Story Map

hypothetical impacts map

By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data & Technology

You Are Here feature image
Karen Edelstein

You Are Here!

/by
Read more
Ted Auch, PhD

Oklahoma and Kansas Class II Injection Wells and Earthquakes

/by

By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
In collaboration with Caleb Gallemore, Assistant Professor in International Affairs, Lafayette University

The September 3rd magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Pawnee, Oklahoma, is the most violent example of induced seismicity, or “man-made” earthquakes, in U.S. history, causing Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin to declare a state of emergency. This was followed by a magnitude 4.5 earthquake on November 1st prompting the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) and U.S. EPA to put restrictions on injection wells within a 10-mile radius of the Pawnee quake.

And then on Sunday, November 6th, a magnitude 5.0 earthquake shook central Oklahoma about a mile west of the Cushing Hub, the largest commercial crude oil storage center in North America capable of storing 54 million barrels of crude. This is the equivalent of 2.8 times the U.S. daily oil refinery capacity and 3.1 times the daily oil refinery capacity of all of North America. This massive hub in the North American oil landscape also happens to be the southern terminus of the controversial Keystone pipeline complex, which would transport 590,000 barrel per day over more than 2,000 miles (Fig. 1). Furthermore, this quake demonstrated the growing connectivity between Class II injection well associated induced seismicity and oil transport/storage in the heart of the US version of Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar Oil Fields. This increasing connectivity between O&G waste, production, and processing (i.e., Hydrocarbon Industrial Complex) will eventually impact the wallets of every American.

North American Oil Refinery Capacity, Pipelines, and Cushing, OK

Figure 1. The Keystone Pipeline would transport 590,000 bpd over more than 2,000 miles.

This latest earthquake caused Cushing schools to close. Magellan Midstream Partners, the major pipeline and storage facility operator in the region, also shut down in order to “check the integrity of our assets.” Compounding concerns about induced seismicity, the Cushing Hub is the primary price settlement point for West Texas Intermediate that, along with Brent Crude, determines the global price of crude oil and by association what Americans pay for fuel at the pump, at their homes, and in their businesses.

Given the significant increase in seismic activity across the U.S. Great Plains, along with the potential environmental, public health, and economic risks at stake, we thought it was time to compile an inventory of Class II injection well volumes. Because growing evidence points to the relationship between induced seismicity and oil and gas waste disposal, our initial analysis focuses on Oklahoma and Kansas. The maps and the associated data downloads in this article represent the first time Class II injection well volumes have been compiled in a searchable and interactive fashion for any state outside Ohio (where FracTracker has compiled class II volumes since 2010). Oklahoma and Kansas Class II injection well data are available to the public, albeit in disparate formats and diffuse locations. Our synthesis makes this data easier to navigate for concerned citizens, policy makers, and journalists.

Induced Seismicity Past, Present, and Future

inducedseismicity_figure

Figure 2. Central U.S. earthquakes 1973-August 15, 2015 according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Note: Based on our analysis this exponential increasing earthquakes has been accompanied by a 300 feet per quarter increase in the average depth of earthquakes across Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas).

Oklahoma, along with Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas, is at the top of the induced seismicity list, specifically with regard to quakes in excess of magnitude 4.0. However, as the USGS and Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO)[1] have recently documented, an average of only 21 earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 or greater occurred in the Central/Eastern US between 1973 and 2008. This trend jumped to an average of 99 between 2009 and 2013. In 2014 there were a staggering 659 quakes. The exponential increase in induced seismic events can be seen in Figure 2 from a recent USGS publication titled “High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity,” where the authors note:

“An unprecedented increase in earthquakes in the U.S. mid-continent began in 2009. Many of these earthquakes have been documented as induced by wastewater injection…We find that the entire increase in earthquake rate is associated with fluid injection wells. High-rate injection wells (>300,000 barrels per month) are much more likely to be associated with earthquakes than lower-rate wells.”

hydraulic-fracturing-freshwater-demand

Figure 3. Average freshwater demand per hydraulically fractured well across four U.S. shale plays and the annual percent increase in each of those plays.

This trend suggests that induced seismicity is the new normal and will likely increase given that: 1) freshwater demand per hydraulically fractured well is rising all over the country, from 11-15% per year in the Marcellus and Bakken to 20-22% in the Denver and Midland formations, 2) the amount of produced brine wastewater parallels these increases almost 1-to-1, and 3) the unconventional oil and gas industry is using more and more water as they begin to explore the periphery of primary shale plays or in less productive secondary and tertiary plays (Fig. 3).

Oklahoma

The September, 2016, Pawnee County Earthquake

This first map focuses on the September, 2016 Pawnee, OK Magnitude 5.8 earthquake that many people believe was caused by injecting high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) waste into class II injection wells in Oklahoma and Kansas. This map includes all Oklahoma and Kansas Class II injection wells as well as Oklahoma’s primary geologic faults and fractures.

Oklahoma and Kansas Class II injection wells and geologic faults


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Pawnee, Oklahoma 5.8 magnitude earthquake, September, 2016 & Active Class II Injection Wells

Figure 4. The September, 2016 Pawnee, Oklahoma 5.8M earthquake, neighboring active Class II injection wells, underlying geologic faults and fractures.

Of note on this map is the geological connectivity across Oklahoma resulting from the state’s 129 faults and fractures. Also present are several high volume wells including Territory Resources LLC’s Oldham #5 (1.45 miles from the epicenter, injecting 257 million gallons between 2011 and 2014) and Doyle #5 wells (0.36 miles from the epicenter, injecting 61 million gallons between 2011 and 2015), Staghorn Energy LLC’s Hudgins #1 well (1.43 miles from the epicenter, injecting 11 million gallons between 2011 and 2015 into the Red Fork formation), and Cooke Co Production Co.’s Laird #3-35 well (1.41 miles from the epicenter, injecting 6.5 million gallons between 2011 and 2015). Figure 4 shows a closeup view of these wells relative to the location of the Pawnee quake.

Class II Salt Water Disposal (SWD) Injection Well Volumes

This second map includes annual volumes of disposed wastewater across 10,297 Class II injection wells in Oklahoma between 2011 and 2015 (Note: 2015 volumes also include monthly totals). Additionally, we have included Oklahoma’s geologic faults and fractures for context given the recent uptick in Oklahoma and Kansas’ induced seismicity activity.

Annual volumes of class II injection wells disposal in Oklahoma (2011-2015)


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work | Download map data

Oklahoma statistics for 2011 to 2015 (Table 1):

  1. Maximum volume to date (for a single Class II injection well): 105,979,598 barrels, or 4,080,214,523 gallons (68,003,574 gallons per month), for the New Dominion, LLC “Chambers #1” well in Oklahoma County.
  2. Total Volume to Date: 10,655,395,179 barrels or 410,232,714,392 gallons (6,837,211,907 gallons per month).
  3. Mean volume to date across the 10,927 Class II injection wells: approximately 975,144 barrels per well or 37,543,044 gallons (625,717 gallons per month).
  4. This map also includes 632 Class II wells injecting waste into the Arbuckle Formation which is believed to be the primary geological formation responsible for the 5.0 magnitude last week in Cushing.

This Class II injection well in the Arbuckle formation disposed of 14.46 million barrels of waste from 2011-2015 to a depth of 5,210-6,900 feet.

Kansas

Below is an inventory of monthly oil and gas waste volumes (barrels) disposed across 4,555 Class II injection wells in Kansas between 2011 and 2015. This map will be updated in the Spring of 2017 to include 2016 volumes. A preponderance of this data comes from 2015 with a scattering of volume reports across Kansas between 2011 and 2014.

Monthly Class II injection wells volumes in Kansas (2011-2015)


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work | Download map data

Kansas statistics for 2015 (Table 1):

  1. Maximum volume to date (for a single Class II injection well): 9,016,471 barrels, or 347,134,134 gallons (28,927,845 gallons per month), for the Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. “H.J. Vohs #8” well in Rooks County. This is a well that was initially permitted and completed between 1949 and 1950.
  2. Total Volume to date: 1,060,123,330 barrels or 40,814,748,205 gallons (3,401,229,017 gallons per month).
  3. Mean volume to date across the 4,555 Class II injection wells: approximately 232,738 barrels per well or 8,960,413 gallons (746,701 gallons per month).

Table 1. Summary of Class II SWD Injection Well Volumes across Kansas and Oklahoma

 

 

 Sum Average Maximum
No. of Class II
SWD Wells		 Barrels Sum To Date Per Year Sum To Date Per Year
Kansas* 4,555 1.06 BB 232,738 … 9.02 MB …
Oklahoma** 10,927 10.66 BB 975,143 195,029 105.98 MB 21.20 MB

* Wells in the counties of Barton (279 wells), Ellis (397 wells), Rooks (220 wells), Russell (199 wells), and Ness (187 wells) account for 29% of Kansas’ active Class II wells.

** Wells in the counties of Carter (1,792 wells), Creek (946 wells), Pontotoc (684 wells), Seminole (476 wells), and Stephens (1,302 wells) account for 48% of Oklahoma’s active Class II wells.

Conclusion

If the U.S. EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) estimates are to be believed, the above Class II volumes account for 19.3% of the “over 2 billion gallons of brine…injected in the United States every day,” and if the connectivity between injection well associated induced seismicity and oil transport/storage continues to grow, this issue will likely impact the lives of every American.

Given how critical the Cushing Hub is to US energy security and price stability one could easily argue that a major accident there could result in a sudden disruption to fuel supplies and an exponential increase in “prices at the pump” that would make the 240% late 1970s Energy Crisis spike look like a mere blip on the radar. The days of $4.15 per gallon prices the country experienced in the summer of 2008 would again become a reality.

In sum, the risks posed by Class II injection wells and are not just a problem for insurance companies and residents of rural Oklahomans and Kansans, induced seismic activity is a potential threat to our nation’s security and economy.

Downloads

FracTracker Induced Seismicity Infographic (print quality)

Oklahoma Class II SWD Injection Well Annual Volumes 2011 to 2015 (Barrels)

Kansas Class II SWD Injection Well Monthly Volumes 2011 to 2015 (Barrels)

Footnotes

[1] To learn more about Induced Seismicity read an exclusive FracTracker two-part series from former VTSO researcher Ariel Conn: Part I and Part II. Additionally, the USGS has created an Induced Earthquakes landing page as part of their Earthquake Hazards Program.

Kyle Ferrar, MPH

The Dakota Access Pipeline: An Uncertain Future

/by

By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Eliza Czolowski, Program Associate, PSE Healthy Energy

 

Since April 2016, demonstrators in North Dakota have been protesting a section of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) being built by Dakota Access LLC, a construction subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners LP. The proposed pipeline passes just 1.5 miles north of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Lands, where it is planned to cross Lake Oahe, the largest Army Corps of Engineers reservoir created on the Missouri River. The tribe argues that the project will not only threaten their environmental and economic well-being, but will also cut through land that is sacred.

Given how quickly circumstances have changed on the ground, we have received numerous requests to post an overview on the issue. This article examines the technical aspects of the DAPL proposal and details the current status of protests at Standing Rock. It includes a discussion of what the Army Corps’ recent denial of DAPL’s permits means for the project as well as looks towards the impacts of incoming Trump administration. We have also created the below map to contextualize DAPL and protest activities that have occurred at Standing Rock.

Standing Rock Protest Map


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Background

DAPL is a $3.78 billion dollar project that was initially slated for completion on January 1, 2017. The DAPL is a joint venture of Phillips 66, Sunoco Logistics, and other smaller fossil fuel companies including Marathon Petroleum Corporation, and Enbridge Energy Partners. Numerous banks and investment firms are supporting the project and financing the related infrastructure growth, including Citi Bank, JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, PNC, Community Trust, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, ING, Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, SunTrust, Us Bank, UBS, Compass and others.

Its route travels from Northwestern North Dakota, south of Bismarck, and crosses the waterway made up of the Missouri River and Lake Oahe just upriver of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Area. From North Dakota the pipeline continues 1,172 miles to an oil tank farm in Pakota, Illinois. DAPL would carry 470,000 barrels per day (75,000 m3/d) of Bakken crude oil with a maximum capacity up to 570,000 barrels per day. That’s the CO2 equivalent of 30 average sized coal fired power plants.

As documented by the NY Times map, in addition to the Missouri River and Lake Oahe, the pipeline crosses 22 other waterways that also require the pipeline to be drilled deep under these bodies of water. But Standing Rock portion is the only section disputed and as of yet unfinished. Now the pipeline project, known by the protesters as “the black snake,” is over 95% complete, despite having no official easement to cross the body of water created by the Missouri River and Lake Oahe. The easement is required for any domestic pipeline to cross a major waterway and because the land on either side of the Army Corps Lake Oahe project is managed by the Army Corps (shown in the protest map). An easement would allow Dakota Access LLC to drill a tunnel for the pipeline under the federally owned lands, including the lake and river.

Safety & Environmental Racism

Proponents of the project tout the opinion that pipelines are the safest method of moving oil large distances. Trucking oil in tankers on highways has the highest accident and spill rates, whereas moving oil by railways presents a major explosive hazard when incidents do occur. Pipeline spills are therefore considered the “safe” alternative. On November 11, Kelcy Warren was interviewed on CBS News, claiming Dakota Access, LLC takes every precaution to reduce leaks and that the likelihood of a leak is highly unlikely. The problem with comparing the risk for each of these transportation methods is that rates of incidence are the only comparison. The resulting hazard and impact is ignored. When pipelines rupture, they present a much larger hazard than trucks and trains. Large volumes of spilled oil result in much greater water and soil contamination.

We know that pipelines do rupture, and quite often. An analysis by the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in 2012 shows that there have been 201 major incidents (with volumes over 1,000 gallons) related to liquid leaks in the U.S. over the last ten years that were reported to the Department of Transportation. The “average” pipeline therefore has a 57% probability of experiencing a major leak, with consequences over the $1 million range, in a ten-year period. FracTracker’s recent analysis of PHMSA data shows the systemic issue of pipeline spills: there have been 4,215 pipeline spill incidents just since 2010 resulting in 100 reported fatalities, 470 injuries, and property damage exceeding $3.4 billion! The recent (December 12) spill of 176,000 gallons of crude oil into a stream just 150 miles from the Standing Rock protest site highlights the Tribes’ concerns.

A previously proposed route for the DAPL would have put Bismarck—a city that is 92% white—just downriver of its Missouri River crossing. This initial route was rejected due to its potential threat to Bismarck’s water supply, according to the Army Corps. In addition to being located upriver of Bismarck’s water intake, the route would have been 11 miles longer and would have passed through “wellhead source water protection” areas that are avoided to protect municipal water supply wells. Passing through this “high consequence area” would have required further actions and additional safety measures on the part of Dakota Access LLC. The route would also have been more difficult to stay at least 500 feet away from homes, as required by the North Dakota Public Service Commission. The route was changed and pushed as close to Sioux County as possible, the location of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

Protests: The Water Protectors

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has taken an active stance against Bakken Oil Development in the past. In 2007, the Reservation passed a resolution to prevent any oil and gas development or pipelines on the Tribal Lands. However, deep concerns about the safety of DAPL led protesters to begin demonstrations at Standing Rock in April, 2016. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe then sued the Army Corps in July, after the pipeline was granted most of the final permits over objections of three other federal agencies. Construction of it, they say, will “destroy our burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts.” A timeline of The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s litigation addressing DAPL through this period can be found on the EARTHJUSTICE website.

Photo by Derrick Broze

Photo by Derrick Broze/cc

In August, a group organized on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation called ReZpect Our Water brought a petition to the Army Corps in Washington, D.C. stating that DAPL interferes with their ancestral land and water rights. The Tribe sued for an injunction citing the endangerment of water and soil, cultural resources, and the improper use of eminent domain. The suit argued that the pipeline presents a risk to Sioux Tribe communities who live near or downstream of the pipeline. The Missouri River is the main water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In September, members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in North Dakota finally made headlines.

Federal Injunction

On September 9, District Judge James Boasberg denied the Standing Rock Sioux Tribes preliminary injunction request to prevent the Army Corps from granting the easement. The Judge ordered Dakota Access to stop work only on the section of pipeline nearest the Missouri river until the Army Corps granted the crossing easement. The excavation of Standing Rock burial grounds and other sacred sites, where direct action demonstrators were clashing with Dakota Access security and guard dogs, was allowed to continue. Later that same day, a joint statement was released by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Army:

“We request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.”

In the map above the 20-mile buffer zone is shown in light green. Regardless of the request from the three federal agencies to pause construction, Dakota Access’s parent company Energy Transfer Partners LP ignored requests to voluntarily halt construction. Dakota Access LLC has also disregarded the instructions of the federal judge. The Army Corps declared Dakota Access LLC would not receive the easement required to cross the waterway until after 2016, but that has not stopped the company from pushing forward without the necessary permits. The pipeline has been built across all of Cannonball Ranch right up to Lake Oahe and the Missouri River, which can be seen in the map above and in drone footage taken November 2, 2016 showing the well pad for the drill rig has been built.

On November 4 the Army Corps requested Dakota Access LLC voluntarily halt construction for 30 days; then on November 8 (Election Day), Dakota Access ignored the request and announced they would begin horizontally drilling under the waterway within weeks. On November 14 Dakota Access filed a lawsuit against the Army Corps arguing that permits are not legally required. Later that day, the Army Corps responded with a statement that said any construction on or under Corps land bordering Lake Oahe cannot occur because the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant an easement. In the issued statement, Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy said “in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossession of lands [and] the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe,” the Standing Rock Sioux tribe would be consulted to help develop a timetable for future construction plans. The Army Corps has since denied the easement entirely.

Violence Against Protesters

Law enforcement has used physical violence to disrupt demonstrations on public lands and to prevent direct action activities as protesters aim to shut down construction on private land held by Energy Transfer Partners LP. Since September 4, law enforcement agencies led by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department have maintained jurisdiction over the protests. Officers from other counties and states have also been brought in to assist. Morton County and the State of North Dakota do not have the jurisdiction to evict protesters from the camps located on Army Corps land. Well over 500 activists have been arrested.

The majority of clashes with law enforcement have occurred on the roadways exiting the Army Corps lands, or at the access points to the privately owned Cannonball Ranch (shown on the map). Morton County has spent more than $8 million keeping direct action protesters from shutting down excavation and construction activities along the path of the pipeline. Meanwhile, the state of North Dakota has spent over $10 million on additional law enforcement officials to provide assistance to Morton County.

DAPL protests from in-depth documentations at: https://vimeo.com/189249968

DAPL protests from video by UnicornRiot/cc

The first violent confrontation occurred on September 3 after Dakota Access bulldozed an area of Cannonball Ranch identified by the Tribe as a sacred site hosting burial grounds. At that time, the site was actively being contested in court and rulings still had not been made. The Tribe was seeking a restraining order, known as a “preliminary injunction” to protect their cultural heritage. Direct action demonstrators put themselves in the way of bulldozers to stop the destructive construction. In response, Dakota Access LLC security personnel assaulted protesters with pepper spray and attack dogs. The encounter was documented by Democracy Now reporter Amy Goodman.

October 27, the Morton County Sheriff’s Department reinforced with 300 police from neighboring counties and states, raided the frontline camp site making mass arrests. In response, demonstrators reinforced a blockade of the 1806 bridge, shown in the map above. The most violent clash was witnessed on public lands on November 20, 2016 at this bridge, which demarcates Army Corps land. The Police forces’ use of “non-lethal” bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, water hoses, LRAD, and explosive flash grenades on peaceful demonstrators has been criticized by many groups. Fire hoses were used on protesters in freezing conditions resulting in dozens of demonstrators needing treatment for hypothermia. In total 300 people were injured according to a release from the standing rock medic and healer council.

Most recently, the Army Corps has targeted the Standing Rock Demonstration by determining that it is no longer safe to stay at the Sacred Stone and Oceti Sakowin camps located on Army Corps property. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple has frequently blasted the Army Corps for not removing the protesters.

As of December 5th, federal authorities consider the protesters to be trespassing on federal lands, leaving protesters vulnerable to various citations and possible arrest. The Army Corps has also said that emergency services may no longer be provided in the evacuation area. The Army Corps has jurisdiction on Army Corps lands, and only federal authorities can remove the protesters from federal lands. There are now more than 5,000 activists demonstrating at Standing Rock, and an additional 2,000 U.S. veterans joined the protest this past week for an action of solidarity. Nevertheless, U.S. authorities have said that there are no plans to forcibly remove activists, despite telling them to leave.

Victory and an Uncertain Future

Perhaps as a result of this mass outcry, the Army Corps announced on December 4th—only a day before trespassing claims would be imposed—that Dakota Access LLC’s permit application to cross under the Missouri River and Lake Oahe had been denied. Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, announced:

“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do…The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”

To determine alternate routes, the Army Corps has announced it will undertake an environmental impact statement which could take years to complete. While this is a major victory for the “water protectors” demonstrating at Standing Rock, it is not a complete victory. Following the Army Corps’ announcement, the two main pipeline investors, Energy Transfer Partners LP and Sunoco Logistics, responded that they:

“…are fully committed to ensuring that this vital project is brought to completion and fully expect to complete construction of the pipeline without any additional rerouting in and around Lake Oahe. Nothing this Administration has done today changes that in any way.”

In fact, prior to the Army Corps denying the easement, numerous democrats in congress called for President Obama to shut down the pipeline. While President Obama has not heeded these calls to shut down the project entirely, he also has not given the green light for the project either. Instead the President stated that the situation needed to be handled carefully and urged the Army Corps to consider rerouting the pipeline. “We’re monitoring this closely and I think, as a general rule, my view is that there’s a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans…. I think right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline,” the President said.

trump keystone

The Corps decision to conduct a lengthy environmental impact statement is encouraging but, ultimately, the Trump administration may have the final say on the DAPL easement. President-elect Trump has voiced support for the easement in the past, and on December 5th, just one day following the Army Corps’ decision, Trump spokesman Jason Miller commented:

“That’s something we support construction of, and we will review the full situation in the White House and make an appropriate determination at that time.”

Energy Transfer Partners LP CEO Kelcy Warren donated $103,000 to the Trump campaign and the President-elect has investments in Energy Transfer Partners LP totaling up to $1 million according to campaign financial disclosures. President-elect Trump has made it clear that pipeline projects, specifically the Keystone Access Pipeline rejected by President Obama, will be allowed to move forward along with additional fossil fuel extraction projects.

If the construction company, Dakota Access LLC, continues building the pipeline they are liable to be fined. It is not yet clear whether Dakota Access LLC will “eat” the fine to continue building and drilling, or whether the Army Corps will forcefully stop DAPL. Analysts say the expense of changing the route, such as to the south of the tribal lands, would make the economics of the pipeline a total loss. It is cheaper for Dakota Access LLC to continue to fight the protest despite overwhelming disapproval of the project.

Meanwhile, protestors have refused to leave Standing Rock in fear that the Army Corp will reverse its decision and allow DAPL to proceed, despite requests by the chairman of the Sioux Tribe that demonstrators go home. Many are hopeful that, by stalling the project past January 1st—the deadline by which Energy Transfer Partners LP promised oil companies it would complete construction—the possibility exists that contracts will expire and DAPL loses support from investors.

Other Mapping Resources

This web map shows the current construction progress of the pipeline.

The New York Times website is hosting a map focusing on the many water crossings of the pipeline route.

The Guardian has a static map on their website similar to our interactive map.

Header photograph by Joe Brusky/flickr/cc