Each state has its own definition of what it means for an oil or gas well to be “fracked.” In Pennsylvania, these wells are known as “unconventional,” a definition mostly based on the depth of the target formation:
An unconventional gas well is a well that is drilled into an unconventional formation, which is defined as a geologic shale formation below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent where natural gas generally cannot be produced except by horizontal or vertical well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracturing.
The count of these unconventional wells in PA stands at 9,760 as of June 14, 2016. Their distribution is widespread across the state, but is particularly focused in the northeast and southwest corners of Pennsylvania.
The industry is not drilling at the same torrid pace as it was between 2010 and 2012, however. The busiest month for drill rigs in the Keystone State was August 2011, with 210 unconventional wells drilled. Last month, there were just 32 such wells.
Figure 1. Unconventional oil and gas permits, wells, and violations in Pennsylvania by quarter. Data source: Pennsylvania DEP
Permits
As Figure 1 captures, the number of permits issued per quarter is always greater than the number of wells drilled during the same time period. Even when drilling activity seems to be entering a bust phase, oil and gas operators continue to plan for future development. Altogether, there are 17,492 permitted locations, meaning there are about 7,700 permitted locations where drilling has not yet commenced.
Violations
The number of violations issued by DEP is generally follows the same trends as permits and wells. It is usually the smallest of the three numbers. In the first quarter of 2016, however, is one of a few instances on the chart above where the number of violations issued outpaced wells drilled. There could be any number of reasons for this anomaly; it could have been due to to unusual compliance issued in the field or aggressive regulatory blitzes. It could also be due to some other factor that can’t be determined by the available published data source.
Interestingly, this phenomenon has not occurred since the first quarter of 2010, when the industry was in full swing.
About VpW
One of the best ways to understand the impact of the industry is to look at violations per well (VpW). Unfortunately, there are a number of important caveats to that discussion. First of all, not all items that appear on the compliance report receive their own Violation ID number. It is clear from the DEP workload report that violations are tallied internally by the number of Violation ID numbers. This is as opposed to the number of items on the compliance report. As of June 14, 2016, there were 6,706 rows of data and 5,755 distinct Violation ID numbers that were issued to 2,080 different oil and gas wells. This discrepancy means that about 21% of unconventional wells are issued violations in Pennsylvania. Those that are cited receive an average of 2.8 to 3.2 violations per well, depending on how you count them.
Table 1. Violations per well (VpW) of the 20 companies with the most unconventional wells in PA.
Determining the violations per well by operator comes with additional caveats. The drilled wells data comes from the spud report, which lists the current operator of each of the wells. The compliance report, however, lists the operator that was in charge of the well at the time of the infraction. This poses a problem for analysis, however. The ownership of the wells is quite fluid when taken in aggregate, as companies fold, are bought out, or change their names to something else.
VpW Results
We calculated VpW figures for the 20 operators with the largest inventory of drilled wells wells in Pennsylvania, found in Table 1. In some instances, we were able to reunite operators with violations that were issued under a different name but are in fact the same company. Specifically, we combined Rex Energy’s violations with RE Gas Dev, CONSOL violations with CNX, and Southwestern with SWN Productions, as the company is now known.
SWN’s violation-per-well score appears to be quite low. Their statistic, however, does not take into account wells that it purchased from Chesapeake in 2014, for example. In this transaction, 435 wells changed hands, with an unknown number of those in Pennsylvania. Any violations on these wells that Chesapeake had would stay with that company even as their well count was reduced. Such a change would thereby artificially inflate Chesapeake’s VpW score. On the other hand, SWN is now in possession of a number of wells which might have been problematic during the early stages of operation. Those violations, alternatively, are not associated with SWN, making their inventory of wells appear to be less problematic.
Data Caveats and Takeaways
Alas, we do not live in a world of perfect data. As such, these results must be taken with a grain of salt. Still, we can see that there are some trends that persist among operators that have been active in Pennsylvania for many years. Chief, Cabon, and EXCO, for example, all average more than one violation per well drilled. Chevron, CNX, and RE Gas Development, on the other hand, have much better rates of compliance, on the order of one violation per every five wells drilled.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PAUpdate-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2016-06-22 10:05:472020-03-12 17:20:08Approaching 10K Unconventional Wells in PA
By Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator
Weld County, Colorado, is one of the top producing shale oil and gas regions in the United States, boasting more than 12,000 active horizontal or directional wells, which account for 50% of all horizontal or directional wells in the state. To put this into perspective, the entire state of Pennsylvania has ten times the land area with “only” 9,663 horizontal or directional wells. At the center of Weld County is the city of Greeley, population 92,889. Greeley has experienced dramatic changes in the past decade as extraction companies compete to acquire oil and gas mineral rights. Extensive housing developments on the outskirts of the city are being built to accommodate future well pads on neighboring lots. Meanwhile, a number of massive well pads are proposed within or on the border of city limits.
FracTracker visited Colorado back in November 2015 and met with regional advocacy organizations including Coloradans Against Fracking, Protect our Loveland, Weld Air and Water, and Our Longmont to determine how we could assist with data analysis, mapping, and digital storytelling. FracTracker returned in June 2016 to explore conditions unique to Weld County’s oil and gas fields. During our visit we interviewed residents of Greeley and found that one of their greatest concerns was the dangers of siting oil and gas wells near schools. While there is much more we will be publishing in coming weeks about our visit, this article focuses on one troubling project that would bring gas drilling to within 1,300ft of a public school. The proposal goes before the Weld County Commissioners on Wednesday, June 29th for final approval. As such, we will be brief in pointing out what is at stake in siting industrial oil and gas facilities near schools in Colorado and why residents of Greeley have cause for concern.
Drilling Bella Romero
On June 7th, the Weld County Planning Commission unanimously approved a proposal from Denver-based Extraction Oil & Gas to develop “Vetting 15H”—a 24-head directional well pad in close proximity to Bella Romero Academy, a middle school just outside Greeley city limits. In addition to the 24-head well pad would be a battery of wastewater tanks, separators, and vapor recovery units on an adjacent lot. The permit submitted to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) also states that six more wells may be drilled on the site in the future.
As was detailed in a recent FracTracker article, Colorado regulations require a minimum setback distance of 500ft from buildings and an additional 350ft from outdoor recreational areas. In more populated areas, or where a well pad would be within 1,000ft of high occupancy buildings, schools, and hospitals, drilling companies must apply for special variances to minimize community impacts. Setbacks are measured from the well head to the nearest wall of the building. For well pads with multiple heads, each well must comply with the respective setback requirements.
Bella Romero’s playground with Vetting 15H’s proposed site just beyond the fence.
Vetting 15H would prove to be one of the larger well pads in the county. And while its well heads remain just beyond the 1,000ft setback requirement from Bella Romero buildings, a significant portion of the school’s ballfields are within 1,000ft of the proposed site. When setbacks for the well pad and the processing facility are taken together—something not explicitly demonstrated in the permit—almost the entirety of school grounds are within 1,000ft and the school itself lies only 1,300ft from the pad. The below figures show the images supplied by Extraction Oil & Gas in their permit as well as a more detailed graphic generated by FracTracker.
Youth: A High Risk Population
The difference between 1,000ft and 1,300ft may be negligible when considering the risks of locating industrial scale oil and gas facilities near populated areas. The COGCC has issued 1,262 regulatory violations to drilling companies since 2010 (Extraction Oil & Gas ranks 51st of 305 operators in the state for number of violations). Some of these violations are for minor infractions such as failing to file proper paperwork. Others are for major incidents; these issues most often occur during the construction phases of drilling, where a number have resulted in explosions and emergency evacuations. Toxic releases of air and water pollution are not uncommon at these sites. In fact, the permit shows drainage and potential spills from the site would flow directly towards Bella Romero school grounds as is shown in the figure below.
Vetting 15H post-development drainage map.
A host of recent research suggests that people in close proximity to oil and gas wells experience disproportionate health impacts. Emissions from diesel engine exhaust contribute to excessive levels of particular matter, and fumes from separators generate high levels of volatile organic compounds. These pollutants decrease lung capacity and increase the likelihood of asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (read more on that issue here). Exposure to oil and gas facilities is also linked to skin rashes and nose bleeds.
As we’ve mentioned in our analysis of oil and gas drilling near schools in California, children are more vulnerable to these pollutants. The same amount of contaminants entering a child’s body, as opposed to an adult body, can be far more toxic due to differences in body size and respiratory rates. A child’s developing endocrine system and neural pathways are also more susceptible to chemical interactions. These risks are increased by children’s lifestyles, as they tend to spend more hours playing outdoors than adults and, when at school, the rest of their day is spent at a central location.
At the June 7th public hearing Extraction Oil & Gas noted that they intend to use pipelines instead of trucks to transport water and gas to and from Vetting 15H to reduce possible exposures. But, as residents of Greeley noted of other projects where similar promises were made and later rescinded, this is dependent on additional approvals for pipelines. Extraction Oil & Gas also said they would use electric drilling techniques rather than diesel engines, but this would not eliminate the need for an estimated 22,000 trucking runs over 520 days of construction.
Below is a table from the Vetting 15H permit that shows daily anticipated truck traffic associated with each phase of drilling. The estimated duration and operational hours of each activity are based on only 12 wells since construction is planned in two phases of 12 wells at a time. These numbers do not account for the trucking of water for completions activities, however. The figures could be much higher if pipelines are not approved, as well as if long-term trucking activities needed to maintain the site are included in the estimates.
Vetting 15H daily vehicle estimates from permit
At the Top of the Most Vulnerable List
Bella Romero Academy has the unfortunate distinction of being one of the few schools in Colorado in close proximity to a horizontal or directional well amongst 1,750 public and 90 private schools in the state. Based on our analysis, there are six public schools within 1,000ft of a horizontal or directional well. At 2,500ft we found 39 public schools and five private schools. Bella Romero is presently at the top of the list of all schools when ranked by number of well heads located within a 1,000ft buffer. An 8-head well pad is only 800ft across the street from its front door. If the Vetting 15H 24-head well pad was to be constructed, Bella Romero would be far and above the most vulnerable school within 1,000ft of a well. It would also rank 3rd in the state for well heads located within 2,500ft of a school. The tables below summarize our findings of this proximity analysis.
Colorado public schools within 1,000ft of a horizontal or directional well
Colorado public schools within 2,500ft of a horizontal or directional well with 5 or more well heads. There are 39 schools in total
Colorado private schools within 2,500ft of a horizontal or directional well
The following interactive map shows which schools in Colorado are within a range of 2,500ft from a directional and horizontal well. Additional buffer rings show 1,000ft and 500ft buffers for comparison. 1,000ft was selected as this is the minimum distance required by Colorado regulations from densely populated areas and schools without requiring special variances. Environmental advocacy groups are presently working to change this number to 2,500ft. The map is zoomed in to show the area around Bella Romero. Zoom out see additional schools and click on features to see more details. [NOTE: The Colorado school dataset lists Bella Romero Academy as an elementary/middle school. Bella Romero was recently split, with the elementary school moving a few blocks west.]
Drilling near Bella Romero is also arguably an environmental justice issue, as its student population has some of the highest minority rates in the county and are amongst the poorest. According to coloradoschoolgrades.com, Bella Romero is 89% Hispanic or Latino and 3% African American whereas, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Greeley as a whole is 59% White and 36% Hispanic or Latino. 92% of Bella Romero’s students are also from low income families. Furthermore, according to the EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening Tool, which is used by the agency to assess high risk populations and environments, the community surrounding Bella Romero is within the 90-95% percentile range nationally for linguistically isolated communities.
Many of Bella Romero’s students come from low-income communities surrounding Greeley.
Implications
These statistics are significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, oil and gas permitting in Colorado only requires operators to notify residents immediately surrounding proposed well pads. This rule does not include residents who may live further from the site but send their students to schools like Bella Romero. Parents who might comment on the project would need to hear about it from local papers or neighbors, but language barriers can prevent this from occurring. Another factor we witnessed in our June visit to Latino communities in Weld County is that many students have undocumented family members who are hesitant to speak out in public, leaving them with no voice to question risks to their children.
Residents of Greeley speak out at the June 7th Planning Commission meeting
Nevertheless, at the June 7th Planning Commission hearing, Weld County administrators insisted that their decisions would not take race and poverty into consideration, which is a blatant disregard for EPA guidelines in siting industrial development in poor minority communities. Weld County’s Planning Commission claimed that their ruling on the site would be the same regardless of the school’s demographics. By comparison, another proposed Extraction Oil & Gas site that would have brought a 22-head well pad to within 1,000ft of homes in a more well off part of town was denied on a 0-6 vote by the City of Greeley’s Planning Commission earlier this year after nearby residents voiced concerns about the potential impacts. Extraction Oil & Gas appealed the ruling and Greeley City Council passed the proposal in a 5-2 vote pending additional urban mitigation area permit approval. While the Greeley Planning Commission and the Weld County Planning Commission are distinct entities, the contrast of these two decisions should emphasize concerns about fair treatment.
Conclusion
There are very real health concerns associated with siting oil and gas wells near schools. When evaluating this project, county administrators should assess not only the immediate impacts of constructing the well pad but also the long-term effects of allowing an industrial facility to operate so close to a sensitive youth population. There are obvious environmental justice issues at stake, as well. Public institutions have a responsibility to protect marginalized communities such as those who send their children to Bella Romero. Finally, approving the Vetting 15H project would place Bella Romero far at the top of the list for schools in Colorado within 1,000ft of oil and gas wells. School board administrators should be concerned about this activity, as it will undoubtedly put their students’ health and academic performance at risk. We hope that, when the County Commissions review the proposal, these concerns will be taken into account.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BellaRomeroSchool-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-06-21 13:09:522020-03-11 17:05:19Drilling Bella Romero: Children at Risk in Greeley, Colorado
By Danny Kallich, Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project
This article examines whether emergency responders are prepared in rural areas for oil and gas drilling emergencies, how people may be put at risk if the proper procedures aren’t in place, and other critical safety questions that citizens in Southwest Pennsylvania should be asking.
Maps of wells per sq. mile and people per well in Washington County, PA
The rapid spread of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) across Pennsylvania has highlighted the need for state, county, and municipal agencies to regulate industry activity and protect the public on several fronts. In particular, comprehensive emergency preparedness and response specific to natural gas development is an obvious necessity for residents living within close proximity of wells, compressor stations, and other stages of UNGD.
While experts in the field of emergency planning are rightfully responsible for creating and executing emergency plans, the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) defines citizens’ rights to engage in the process, both through open records requests and public meetings with local emergency planners. EPCRA establishes roles and requirements for emergency planners while clarifying the rights of citizens to engage in dialogue with those responsible for safety about potentially harmful industrial activity in their community.
Unique Emergency Preparedness Challenges
UNGD presents a unique set of challenges for residents and emergency planners. The high likelihood that UNGD will be located in a rural area not typically supporting industrial use argues for the need for special treatment by emergency planners. Furthermore, responding to a UNGD emergency requires specialized training that is not mandated for local first responders, often volunteer fire fighters. While local first responders cannot be expected to specialize in UNGD related emergencies, it takes many hours for the contracted well-fire specialists, Texas-based Wild Well Control, to arrive and mitigate an emergency situation. The interim period between the arrival of local and county first responders and the arrival of Wild Well Control is, nonetheless, a critical time during which a system for consistent updates to nearby residents should be a priority. An emergency situation, as demonstrated by the February 11, 2014 Chevron Appalachia well fire, discussed below, can affect a community in a variety of ways, even if evacuation is not necessary.
Chevron Appalachia Incident, Greene County, PA
Testing The System:
Using Right-To-Know requests to gauge transparency & citizen awareness
The opportunities for citizen comment and engagement with emergency planners are limited and not well publicized. The dearth of clear and consistent means of communication between residents and those responsible for emergency planning provides a noteworthy opportunity to test the provisions of EPCRA as they relate to UNGD.
In this regard, testing the emergency response system related to oil and gas drilling emergencies is intended to analyze existent emergency plans, municipal preparedness, communication between county, municipal, and industry emergency planners, and perhaps most importantly, how much of this information is available to citizens.
The transparency of the system was tested by filing Right-To-Know requests. These public information requests were filed with nine municipalities in various counties across the state of Pennsylvania. All filed requests specifically asked for “all available county, municipal, and company generated emergency plans” in relation to specific well sites. One request asked for emergency plans generated by an elementary school in relation to a well site within approximately a half-mile.
Of these nine requests, three were fulfilled with returned emergency plans. Of the remaining six requests, five were not fulfilled because no emergency plan existed on record in the municipality. Initially, the request for the elementary school emergency plan was unable to be met by the municipal open records officer because no plan existed. Two months after that request, an unsolicited response from the same individual was received stating that the now-existent plan could not be shared because of security issues. A final question posed to the open records officer asked what concerned parents might be able to do to prepare themselves for emergency situations. This question, too, was deemed unanswerable due to security reasons. Another unmet municipal request was redirected to a county emergency planner who stated that the company generated plan was not theirs to distribute. Of the three emergency plans received, only one made any specific mention of residents living within close proximity; this response merely stated the number of nearby houses. Excluding GPS coordinates, no plan addressed any other infrastructure specific to the surrounding area, indicating a broad generality to their application.
The fact that six out of nine queried communities in PA were unable or unwilling to provide emergency response plans is highly concerning. These findings, when considered in the broader national context, indicate a significant chance that UNGD specific emergency planning and necessary communication with the public is deficient, particularly on the municipal level.
What Communities Need
Lack of specificity, inter-agency communication, and transparency indicate that the potential of EPCRA to benefit citizens has been largely untapped during the Marcellus Shale boom relative to emergency planning. Residents living within close proximity to UNGD should not only be apprised of emergency risk and strategy before an emergency arises, they should have a clearly accessible venue through which to voice concerns, needs, and recommendations. Furthermore, residents have valid reason to demand greater public oversight of current emergency planning efforts when the overwhelming majority of publicly available emergency plans fail to provide any information useful to a layperson.
Currently, there are communities in which the questionable practice of locating UNGD within a half-mile of elementary schools and other sensitive areas continues. In such areas, every effort must be made to develop, institute, and practice emergency plans prioritizing the concerns, safety, and coordination of local residents. Recommendations for improved transparency include:
Make publicly available site-specific plans,
Hold regular public meetings, and
Prioritize communication between emergency responders and residents during emergency events
We encourage residents who are concerned about what their community is doing for UNGD-specific emergency planning to contact their local emergency responders and attend Local Emergency Planning Committee meetings in their county to advocate for such measures.
About EHP
The Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (EHP) is a nonprofit environmental health organization created to assist and support Washington County residents who believe their health has been, or could be, impacted by natural gas drilling activities. Their Mission is to respond to individuals’ and communities’ need for access to accurate, timely and trusted public health information and health services associated with natural gas extraction.
In October 2014, the FracTracker Alliance performed an analysis showing an estimated 1.2 million people lived within a half mile of oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. We have now updated the analysis, but this time, the unit of measure is one kilometer (0.62 miles).
PA Population Within 1km of Active Oil and Gas Wells
This map shows the estimated population within one kilometer of active oil and gas wells in PA – a total of nearly 2 million Pennsylvanians. To access the full set of tools and details about how the map was made, click here for the full screen version of the map.
Methods
To get as complete a picture as possible of the oil and gas industry in PA, we queried the spud date report to show all wells that were listed as being spudded between January 1, 1800 and November 12, 2015. We used the former date because it appears to be a default for unknown spud dates, and the latter being the date that the data were downloaded for the analysis. Altogether, this yielded 203,887 oil and gas wells throughout the state, but 74,900 (37%) of these lacked location coordinates. All of those missing latitude and longitude data were classified as conventional wells, and many of them were fairly old. We then filtered out wells that were reported as not being drilled, as well as those that were permanently plugged, either by the operator, or by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The resulting set, which we refer to as “active” oil and gas wells, included 106,970 wells, of which 9,042 (8%) are defined as unconventional wells by the state.
To obtain an estimated population, we used the Census Tract level of detail, using official 2010 population figures. We calculated the area within 1 kilometer of active wells in three categories – conventional, unconventional, and all oil and gas wells. The population was then estimated by comparing the area inside the 1 km zone to the entire Census Tract, multiplying that ratio to the population of that tract, and repeating the process for each of the three datasets.
This area calculation was performed in Albers Equal Area projection optimized for the Great Lakes Basin area. Every method of flattening an area of a globe on the map will lead to some type of distortion, but this projection prioritizes area over other factors, and is therefore appropriate for this type of analysis.
Results
An additional year of drilling activity, a more comprehensive date range, and the slight increase of the radius distance has had a significant effect on the estimated population near wells. The 2014 analysis yielded an estimated 1,264,576 within a half-mile of wells, while the current analysis has the figure at 1,965,837, an increase of 55%. Below is a table showing differences between the two analyses:
This chart shows summaries of the current analysis of population within 1 km of wells in PA and an October 2014 version, showing population within a half-mile of wells.
One thing you will notice in this figure is that simply adding up the number of people who live in areas near unconventional and conventional drilling will not get you to the 1,965,837 figure we’ve presented. This is because some people live within the specified distance of both types of wells.
Additionally, it is impossible to say how many people live near the oil and gas wells that lack location data, as we obviously can’t map these wells. The majority of these wells may be in the areas that are already represented in the buffer zones, or they may extend that distance significantly.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PA-KM-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2015-11-23 11:26:282020-03-12 17:37:22Nearly 2 Million Pennsylvanians Live Within a Kilometer of Oil & Gas Wells
Pennsylvania’s Drake Well is known for sparking the first oil boom in the United States in 1859. In more recent history, the industry has resurrected hydrocarbon extraction in the Commonwealth through unconventional oil and gas drilling – or fracking. Between 2002 and October 28, 2015, at least 16,826 of these high-impact wells have been approved statewide, and 9,508 drilled.
While standard maps can be useful to show the reach of the industry in aggregate, they aren’t the best way to show how drilling activity has changed over time. Luckily, we have other tools in the toolbox to show the trend. See drilling by year in this time sequence map below.
PA Unconventional Drilling Time Sequence Map
This representation starts slowly, just as the industry did in the state. Activity begins to pick up around 2008. In later years, watch exploration expand throughout the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. Eventually the activity concentrates in the northeastern and southwestern portions in the state.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PAViewer-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2015-11-05 17:03:292020-03-12 17:37:38Time Sequence Map of PA Drilling Available
By Ted Auch, Kyle Ferrar, and Samantha Rubright with Max Gruenig
Fourteen days is not nearly enough time to fully understand the complex differences between oil and gas drilling issues and policies in the United States and several European Union countries. The EU’s drilling policies, geography, and the industry’s level of activity are quite distinct from those of the States in some cases. Still, as part of the Our Energy Solutions project, four staff from FracTracker Alliance and Ecologic Institute attempted to understand and share as many lessons-learned in Europe as we could in the first two weeks of September. Our interest covered all aspects of oil and gas development, but focused on those relating to the use of stimulation techniques (hydraulic fracturing – fracking) in unconventional reservoirs. Even with significant differences between the US and EU, there is still much to be gleaned in sharing our regulatory approaches, community concerns, and environmental challenges.
“Chaos is merely order waiting to be deciphered” ― José Saramago, The Double
London, England Meetings
The House of Commons meeting was held in Parliament, just below London’s Big Ben. Photo by Sam Rubright
Our European tour started in London with Ecologic Institute’s Max Gruenig. The first stop was a meeting with University of Salford Professor of Regeneration and Sustainable Development Erik Bichard outside of The Palace of Westminster. Erik has worked extensively to understand and chronicle common threads that weave together community response(s) to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) proposals. Much of Erik’s research in the UK has focused on the efforts of the leading shale gas extraction company in the EU, Cuadrilla Resources, to employ hydraulic fracturing technologies, as well as local oppositions to this development. The major points of contention are in Lancashire County, Northwest England and Balcombe in West Sussex. Erik pointed to the fact that Cuadrilla admitted their claims that the 4% decline in UK energy cost was a result of Lancashire oil and gas exploitation were significantly overstated. Such manipulative statements appear to be cut directly from North American energy’s playbook.
House of Commons meeting, London. Photo by Sam Rubright
We then attended a spirited Fracking with Nature Meeting at The House of Commons hosted by 21st Century Network and convened by MP Cat Smith (photo right). Many, if not all, of the attendees were concerned about the negative impacts of fracking and oil and gas development in general, but perhaps the event’s purpose self-selected for those attendees. We found the conversations to be very advanced considering that the UK has not seen nearly the same level of oil and gas activity as the US. Most questions centered on the potential for fracking to negatively impact ground water, followed by the induction of earthquakes. Air quality was not discussed as often, despite the serious risks that oil and gas air pollutants pose to health, and the frequency and severity of ambient degradation reported in the US. With the UK’s move to cut subsidies for renewables and a push toward fracking, these concerns may soon become a reality.
We later met with one of the speakers at the House of Commons meeting, Damien Short LLB, MA, PhD, Director of the University of London’s Human Rights Consortium[1] and the Extreme Energy Initiative.[2] NGO’s, we learned, are on the forefront of the issue, debating the need to prioritize community health over corporate profits. They have had quite a lot of success on this front, despite Tory projections.[3] The past state of UK politics under the direction of PM David Cameron, was supportive of extractive industries and corporate interests, blocking any attempt to introduce regulations. Even with the defeat of David Cameron’s administration, new “fast-tracking” rules to accelerate permits for fracking passed in August.[4] The overwhelming victory of democratic socialist Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the opposition Labour Party – means that the tenure of the current fracking moratoria in North Yorkshire, as well as in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland[5] could be brief.
Our time in London was filled with several other meetings, including one with Greenpeace UK’s new fracking coordinator, Hannah Martin. During our meeting she indicated that while Greenpeace was sympathetic to the views and tactics of Mr. Corbyn, they were concerned that his election would further divide Labour. In her opinion this change could allow the oil and gas sympathetic – and united – Tories to expedite their vision for fracking in the UK.
Regardless of the similarities between community concerns and industry tactics, however, one difference between the UK and US was crystal clear; no matter their view on the use of fracking, Brits support a substantial Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT) rate to the tune of 50-60%. The PRT will fall to 35% in January, 2016, however. This latter figure is a sizeable decrease but would still be 40% higher than the average in the US. California for example, the fourth largest producing state, does not and has never levied a severance tax.[6] Unfortunately, the UK is seeing similar conflict of interest issues and deliberate attempts to de-democratize the rule-making around fracking, as demonstrated in a recent move to prevent a proper parliamentary debate about drilling under protected areas in the UK.
Brussels, Belgium Workshop and Meeting
Geert, Max, Kyle, and Ted after our meeting with the European Commission in Brussels. Photo by Sam Rubright
The next phase of OES Europe took us to Brussels to host a community workshop and meet with members of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment. Both events brought to light many concerns and questions about drilling’s safety.
The European Commission is currently drafting a best available techniques reference document (BREF) regarding hydrocarbon extraction for the European Union to consider in December 2015. The recommendations will build upon the “Minimum Principles,” published in January, 2014.[7] Representatives from the European Commission asked us about a variety of concerns that have arisen from drilling in the US, and how Europe might have similar or different experiences. The Commission was most interested in environmental health risks and research focused on exposure to air pollutants, as well as other degraded environmental media (drinking water, soil, etc.). We also shared figures about water consumption, land use, and waste management. It was immediately apparent that the lack of high quality publicly accessible data in the US is making it very difficult for the Commission to make well-informed decisions or policy recommendations. This meeting was arranged by Geert De Cock, of Food and Water Europe, and – interestingly – was one of the first times that the European Commission met with non-industry representatives. (Several major oil and gas players have offices near the European Commission’s in Brussels.)
Rotenburg (Wümme), Germany Workshop
Max presenting during the Rotenburg Germany workshop, Sept 2015. Photo by Kyle Ferrar
Our next stop in Germany was Rotenburg. Lower Saxony also has a long lineage of drilling, with the first well drilled in 1953 and the majority of natural gas development dating back to the mid 1980’s. Currently, this is an area were unconventional oil and gas drilling (fracking) is being heavily proposed and lobbied.
This workshop was by far the most well attended event. A variety of groups and stakeholders, including the town’s mayor, were in attendance and extremely well informed about environmental and public health risks that drilling could pose. They’ve been dealing with a series of environmental health concerns for some time, including high mercury levels in drilling waste and cancer clusters of questionable origin. A systematic statistical analysis has even suggested that cases of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma are higher in an area heavy with oil and gas wells and development.
See maps below for more information about drilling in Germany and Europe at large.
Unconventional gas production, conventional gas drilling, fracking and test boring in Europe
Map by Gegen Gasbohren (Against Gas Drilling)
A dynamic map similar to the one above was created by us to show simply where unconventional drilling is occurring in the UK and Netherlands: View FracTracker’s map fullscreen
Rotenburg Field Tour
The following morning we set out with a local advocate, Andreas Rathjens, to tour over eight different oil and gas drilling sites and facilities in and around Rotenburg. This area is vey rural and a major agriculture hub, hosting 162k people, 200k cows, and 600k pigs according to our guide.
In recent years Germany has received very positive scores for its environmental policies and shift toward renewables. However, this tour highlighted some of the country’s lingering and poorly-regulated drilling history, which experienced a sharp increase in development here in the 1980’s. The pictures below will give you an idea of the issues that German residents are is still seeing from the country’s older oil and gas drilling operations. Click to enlarge the photos:
This pit is used to capture rainwater and runoff from the well pad. Since runoff from the pad will carry with it any contaminants spilled on the site, runoff must be quarantined for removal and proper disposal. Unfortunately, these tanks are rarely pumped and drained, and the runoff instead spills into local streams in small watersheds. Such is the case with this tank, with the spillway visible in the lower left corner of the photo.
This site was recently renovated to improve the drainage off of the wellpad. The drainage leads to an excavated waste pit used as an overflow catchment.[8] In these types of waste pits pollutants evaporate into the air and percolate into groundwater sources. The waste from drilling in this region is known for its high levels of mercury.
Andreas showing us the site where he says 80,000 metric tonnes of solid drilling waste was mixed with residential waste and then disposed of in a field on a hilltop. Residents have tested the site and found troubling levels of arsenic and radioactive elements, but to Andreas’ knowledge no governmental or company testing has been done to-date.
Andreas and community members all conveyed their support of domestic energy production but said they were disappointed in how the oil and gas industry has conducted itself historically in the region. They are very frustrated with how difficult it is to get their concerns heard, a sentiment echoed in many boomtowns across the US. One local politician even discussed the intentionally misleading statements made by the German state governments around environmental health issues. These residents are dedicated and driven despite the barriers, however. They are investigating and studying the problems directly at times, as well as searching for other technologies that can help improve their methods – such as the use of drones to measure air quality.
Badbergen, Lower Saxony, Germany Workshop
Fracking-freies Artland hosted our next workshop in Badbergen Germany. In addition to our presentation about drilling experiences in the US, these community gatekeepers led a presentation summarizing the work and struggles that have been occurring in their region due to both historic and modern drilling. The level of community engagement and activism here was quite impressive, mirroring that of NY State’s anti-drilling groups. These members help to inform the rest of the community about environmental and drilling issues, as Exxon is now considering fracking here again.[9]
Schoonebeek Tour, Netherlands
Our final border crossing brought us to the Schoonebeek region in the Netherlands. While the Groningen gas field is by far the largest of the fields in this Western European country, Schoonebeek is the only active field being drilled unconventionally in the Netherlands.
Interestingly, the entire field was recently shut down by NAM Shell/Exxon JV to fix this wastewater pipeline. It was discovered that the pipeline was leaking wastewater in nine places due to corrosion caused by the high sulfur content of the wastewater.
Upon starting our tour we were informed of the fact that the Dutch have an even higher extraction tax than the UK! The Netherlands retains a 50% State Profit Share for revenue and taxes the remaining production at a rate of 20% on the first $225,000 in revenue and “25% on the excess.” In comparison, the highest production tax rate on oil and gas drilling in the US is in Alaska at 35%. Most states have significantly lower severance taxes.[10]
Political support for higher taxes on the extractives industry may be explained by the fact that the state owns all subsurface mineral rights in these European countries. Regardless of other influences on perception, such high taxes disproves the notion here in the US that energy companies “won’t do business in a state [or country] with a newly-enacted punitive severance tax.” What do the states do with this extra revenue? The Netherlands and many Northern European countries have invested these monies for the rainy day when the oil and gas supply is depleted or extraction is no longer justifiable. The best examples are Norway’s $850 billion Government Pension Fund and Netherland’s $440 billion pension fund or $169,000 and $26,000 per capita, respectively.
Additional support for severance taxes is likely due to these countries’ history with oil and gas exploration. They are familiar with the boom-bust cycles that come with the initial expectations and long-term reality on the ground. When the music stops, Europeans are determined not to be the ones left standing.
About the Our Energy Solutions Project
This trip to Europe and our previous expeditions to Florida, North Carolina, Argentina, and Uruguay are part of a larger, collaborative project with Ecologic Institute US called Our Energy Solutions. OES is creating an informed global community of engaged citizens, organizations, businesses, governments, and stakeholders to develop ideas and solutions to keep our society moving forward while preserving our planet for the future. Learn more at: ourenergysolutions.org.
On a more personal note, our sincerest thanks goes out to the many groups and individuals that we met on our Europe tour, including those we did not directly mention in this article. We are forever indebted to all of the people with whom we met on these OES trips for sharing their time and knowledge with us.
Endnotes and References
Dr. Short is currently advising local anti-fracking groups in the UK and county councils on the human rights implications of unconventional (extreme) energy extraction processes such as fracking.
Much of the ammunition used by the anti- or undecided fracking community in the UK – and the EU writ large – is coming from proofs of concept in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and North Dakota.
A practice that is supposedly now being investigated for soil contamination issues.
Exxon originally wrote in the local/regional paper that there was to be no unconventional shale drilling (fracking), but now the company is reconsidering.
Please note that the cited article was last updated in 2012. Some tax rates have changed since the time that the article was published, but the table still adequately represents an estimation of production taxes by state.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/OES-Europe-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2015-10-28 15:30:592020-03-12 13:45:14A Fresh Look at Oil and Gas Drilling from Europe
FracTracker Alliance worked with Public Herald this spring to update and map oil and gas complaints filed by citizens to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) as of March 2015. The result is the largest release of oil and gas records on water contamination due to fracking in PA. Additionally, Public Herald’s investigation revealed evidence of Pennsylvania state officials keeping water contamination related to fracking “off the books.”
The mission of Public Herald, an investigative news non-profit formed in 2011, is two-fold: truth + creativity. Their work uses investigative journalism and art to empower readers and hold accountable those who put the public at risk. For this project, Public Herald aims to improve the public’s access to oil and gas information in PA by way of file reviews and data digitization. Public Herald maintains an open source website called #fileroom, where people can access a variety of digital information originally housed on paper within the PA DEP. This information is collected and synthesized with the help of donors, journalists and researchers in a collective effort with the community. To date, these generous volunteers have already donated more than 2,000 hours of their time collecting records.
The site includes complaints, permits, waste, legal cases, and gas migration investigations (GMI) conducted by the PA DEP. Additionally, there is a guide on how to conduct file reviews and how to access information through the “Right-to-Know” law at the PA DEP. They have broken down complaints and permits by county; wastes and GMI categories by cases, all of which include test results from inspections; and correspondence and weekly reports.
Some partners and contributors to the file team include Joshua Pribanic as the co-founder and Editor-in Chief, Melissa Troutman as co-founder and Executive Director, John Nicholson, who collects and researches for several databases, Nadia Steinzor as a contributor through Earthworks, and many more. Members of FracTracker working on this project include Matt Kelso, Samantha Rubright, and Kirk Jalbert.
#fileroom’s update expands the number of complaint data records collected to 18 counties – and counting!
Ohio waterways face headwinds in the form of hydraulic fracturing water demand and waste disposal
By Ted Auch, PhD – Great Lakes Program Coordinator, and Elliott Kurtz, GIS Intern and University of Michigan Graduate Student
In just 44 of its 88 counties, Ohio houses 1,134 wells – including those producing oil and natural gas and Class II injection wells into which the industry’s waste is disposed. Last month we wrote about Ohio’s disturbing fracking waste disposal trend and the disproportionate influence of neighboring states. (Prior to that Ariel Conn at Virginia Tech outlined the relationship between Class II Injection Wells and induced seismicity on FracTracker.) This time around, we are digging deeper into how water demand is related to Class II disposal trends.
Ohio’s Utica oil and gas wells are using 7 million gallons of freshwater – or 2.4-2.8 million more than the average well cited by the US EPA.1 Below we explore the inter-county differences of the water used in these oil and gas wells, and how demand compares to residential water demand and wastewater production.
Please refer to Table 1 at the end of this article regarding the following findings.
Utica Shale Freshwater Demand
Data indicate that there may be serious threats to Ohio’s water security on the horizon due to the oil and gas industry.
The counties of Guernsey and Monroe are next up with water demand and waste water generation at rates of 14.6 and 10.3 million gallons per year. However, the 11.4 million gallons of freshwater demand and fracking waste produced by these two counties 114 Utica and Class II wells still accounts for roughly 81% of residential water demand.
The wells within the six-county region including Meigs, Washington, Athens, and Belmont along the Ohio River use 73 million gallons of water and generate 51 million gallons of wastewater per year, while the hydraulic fracturing industry’s water-use footprint ranges between 48 and 17% of residential demand in Coshocton and Athens, respectively. Class II Injection well disposal accounts for a lion’s share of this footprint in all but Belmont County, with injection well activities equaling 77 to 100% of the industry’s water footprint (see Figure 1 for county locations and water stress).
Figure 1. Primary Southeast Ohio counties experiencing Utica Shale and Class II water stress
The next eight-county cohort is spread across the state from the border of Pennsylvania and the Ohio River to interior Appalachia and Central Ohio. Residential water demand there equals 428 million gallons, while the eight county’s 92 Utica and 90 Class II wells have accounted for 15 million gallons of water demand and disposal. Again the injection well component of the industry accounts for 5.8% of the their 7.7% footprint relative to residential demand. The range is nearly 10% in Vinton and 5.3% in Jefferson County.
The next cohort includes twelve counties that essentially surround Ohio’s Utica Shale region from Stark and Mahoning in the Northeast to Pickaway, Hocking, and Gallia along the southwestern perimeter of “the play.” These counties’ residents consume 405 million gallons of water and generate 329 million gallons of wastewater annually. Meanwhile the industry’s 69 Class II wells account for 53 million gallons – a 2.8% water footprint.
Finally, the 11 counties with the smallest Utica/Class II footprint are not suprisingly located along Lake Erie, as well as the Michigan and Indiana border, with water demand and wastewater production equalling nearly 117 billion gallons per year. Meanwhile the region’s 3 Utica and 18 Class II wells have utilized 59 million gallons. These figures equate to a water footprint of roughly 00.15%, more aligned with the 1% of total annual water use and consumption for the hydraulic fracturing industry cited by the US EPA this past June.
Future Concerns and Projections
Industry will see their share of the region’s hydrology increase in the coming months and years given that injection well volumes and Utica Shale demand is increasing by 1.04 million gallons and 405-410 million gallons per quarter per well, respectively. The number of people living in these 42 counties is declining by 0.6% per year, however, 1.4% in the 10 counties that have seen the highest percentage of their water resources allocated to Utica and Class II operations. Additionally, hydraulic fracturing permitting is increasing by 14% each year.2
Table 1. Residential, Utica Shale, and Class II Injection well water footprint across forty-two Ohio Counties (Note: All volumes are in millions of gallons)
2. Auch, W E, McClaugherty, C, Gallemore, C, Berghoff, D, Genshock, E, Kurtz, E, & Jurjus, R. (2015). Ramification of current and future production, resource utilization, and land-use change in the Ohio Utica Shale Basin. Paper presented at the National Environmental Monitoring Conference, Chicago, IL.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/InjectionWells-Feature.jpg400900Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2015-08-11 10:42:442020-03-12 14:04:43Threats to Ohio’s Water Security
In February 2014, the FracTracker Alliance produced our first version of a national well data file and map, showing over 1.1 million active oil and gas wells in the United States. We have now updated that data, with the total of wells up to 1,666,715 active wells accounted for.
Density by state of active oil and gas wells in the United States. Click here to access the legend, details, and full map controls. Zoom in to see summaries by county, and zoom in further to see individual well data. Texas contains state and county totals only, and North Carolina is not included in this map.
While 1.7 million wells is a substantial increase over last year’s total of 1.1 million, it is mostly attributable to differences in how we counted wells this time around, and should not be interpreted as a huge increase in activity over the past 15 months or so. Last year, we attempted to capture those wells that seemed to be producing oil and gas, or about ready to produce. This year, we took a more inclusive definition. Primarily, the additional half-million wells can be accounted for by including wells listed as dry holes, and the inclusion of more types of injection wells. Basically anything with an API number that was not described as permanently plugged was included this time around.
Data for North Carolina are not included, because they did not respond to three email inquiries about their oil and gas data. However, in last year’s national map aggregation, we were told that there were only two active wells in the state. Similarly, we do not have individual well data for Texas, and we use a published list of well counts by county in its place. Last year, we assumed that because there was a charge for the dataset, we would be unable to republish well data. In discussions with the Railroad Commission, we have learned that the data can in fact be republished. However, technical difficulties with their datasets persist, and data that we have purchased lacked location values, despite metadata suggesting that it would be included. So in short, we still don’t have Texas well data, even though it is technically available.
Wells by Type and Status
Each state is responsible for what their oil and gas data looks like, so a simple analysis of something as ostensibly straightforward as what type of well has been drilled can be surprisingly complicated when looking across state lines. Additionally, some states combine the well type and well status into a single data field, making comparisons even more opaque.
Top 10 of 371 published well types for wells in the United States.
Among all of the oil producing states, there are 371 different published well types. This data is “raw,” meaning that no effort has been made to combine similar entries, so “gas, oil” is counted separately from “GAS OIL,” and “Bad Data” has not been combined with “N/A,” either. Conforming data from different sources is an exercise that gets out of hand rather quickly, and utility over using the original published data is questionable, as well. We share this information, primarily to demonstrate the messy state of the data. Many states combine their well type and well status data into a single column, while others keep them separate. Unfortunately, the most frequent well type was blank, either because states did not publish well types, or they did not publish them for all of their wells.
There are no national standards for publishing oil and gas data – a serious barrier to data transparency and the most important takeaway from this exercise…
Wells by Location
Active oil and gas wells in 2015 by state. Except for Texas, all data were aggregated published well coordinates.
There are oil and gas wells in 35 of the 50 states (70%) in the United States, and 1,673 out of 3,144 (53%) of all county and county equivalent areas. The number of wells per state ranges from 57 in Maryland to 291,996 in Texas. There are 135 counties with a single well, while the highest count is in Kern County, California, host to 77,497 active wells.
With the exception of Texas, where the data are based on published lists of well county by county, the state and county well counts were determined by the location of the well coordinates. Because of this, any errors in the original well’s location data could lead to mistakes in the state and county summary files. Any wells that are offshore are not included, either. Altogether, there are about 6,000 wells (0.4%) are missing from the state and county files.
Wells by Operator
There are a staggering number of oil and gas operators in the United States. In a recent project with the National Resources Defense Council, we looked at violations across the few states that publish such data, and only for the 68 operators that were identified previously as having the largest lease acreage nationwide. Even for this task, we had to follow a spreadsheet of which companies were subsidiaries of others, and sometimes the inclusion of an entity like “Williams” on the list came down to a judgement call as to whether we had the correct company or not.
No such effort was undertaken for this analysis. So in Pennsylvania, wells drilled by the operator Exco Resources PA, Inc. are not included with those drilled by Exco Resources PA, Llc., even though they are presumably the same entity. It just isn’t feasible to systematically go through thousands of operators to determine which operators are owned by whom, so we left the data as is. Results, therefore, should be taken with a brine truck’s worth of salt.
Top 10 wells by operator in the US, excluding Texas. Unknown operators are highlighted in red.
Texas does publish wells by operator, but as with so much of their data, it’s just not worth the effort that it takes to process it. First, they process it into thirteen different files, then publish it in PDF format, requiring special software to convert the data to spreadsheet format. Suffice to say, there are thousands of operators of active oil and gas wells in the Lone Star State.
Not counting Texas, there are 39,693 different operators listed in the United States. However, many of those listed are some version of “we don’t know whose well this is.” Sorting the operators by the number of wells that they are listed as having, we see four of the top ten operators are in fact unknown, including the top three positions.
Summary
The state of oil and gas data in the United States is clearly in shambles. As long as there are no national standards for data transparency, we can expect this trend to continue. The data that we looked for in this file is what we consider to be bare bones: well name, well type, well status, slant (directional, vertical, or horizontal), operator, and location. In none of these categories can we say that we have a satisfactory sense of what is going on nationally.
Click on the above button to download the three sets of data we used to make the dynamic map (once you are zoomed in to a state level). The full dataset was broken into three parts due to the large file sizes.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015Update-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2015-08-03 14:19:532020-07-21 10:30:051.7 Million Wells in the U.S. – A 2015 Update
Figure 1: Newly drilled unconventional wells in Pennsylvania peaked in 2011.
Unconventional oil and gas drilling is well established in Pennsylvania, with over 9,200 drilled wells, an additional 7,200 permitted locations that have not yet been drilled, and 5,300 violations all happening since the turn of the millennium. It took a while for the industry to gather steam, with just one unconventional well drilled in 2002, and only eight in 2005. But by 2010, that figure had ballooned to 1,599 wells, which was greater than the previous eight years combined. There were 1,956 wells drilled in 2011, representing the peak for unconventional drilling activity in Pennsylvania (Figure 1).
None of the three full years since then, however, have seen more than 70% of the 2011 total. Halfway through 2015, the industry is on pace to drill only 842 unconventional wells statewide, which would be the lowest total since 2009, and only 43% of the 2011 total.
Pennsylvania Shale Viewer. Click here to access the full screen view with a legend, layer details, and other tools.
Taken cumulatively, the footprint on the state is immense, as is shown in the map above, and impacts remain for some time. Of Pennsylvania’s 9,234 unconventional wells 8,187 (89%) are still active. Only 474 wells have been permanently plugged so far, with 570 given an inactive status, and one well listed as “proposed but never materialized,” despite being included on the spud report.
Permits & Violations
The number of permits and violations issued have been declining over the past five years as well.
Figure 2: Five years of unconventional oil and gas activity in Pennsylvania, July 2010 through June 2015.
Figure 2 shows the monthly totals of permits, wells, and violations over the last 60 months. Linear trendlines were added to the chart to give a visual representation of changes over time if we ignore the noise of the peaks and troughs of activity, which is an inherent attribute of the industry. Each of the three trendlines has a negative slope1, showing downward trends in each category.
In fact, permits for new wells are declining more rapidly than the drilled wells, and violations issued are declining at a still faster rate. Over the course of five years, these declines are substantial. In July 2010, the smoothed totals that are “predicted” by the trendline show 304 permits issued, 159 wells drilled, and 128 violations issued per month. 60 months later, one would expect 213 permits, 81 wells drilled, and just 12 violations issued2.
Location of Drilling Activity
The oil and gas industry has been more selective about where unconventional wells are being drilled in recent years, as well. Altogether, there are unconventional wells in 39 different counties, with 32 counties seeing action in both 2010 and 2011. That number is down to 22 for both 2014 and the first half of 2015. There has been drilling in 443 different municipalities since 2002, with a maximum of 241 municipal regions in 2011, which shrank to 161 last year, and just 88 in the first half of 2015.
Summary of unconventional wells drilled in each Pennsylvania county by year, through June 30, 2015. Click here to access the full screen view with a legend, layer details, and other tools
Clicking on any of the counties above will show the number of unconventional wells drilled in that county by year since the first unconventional well was spudded in Pennsylvania back in 2002. The color scheme shows the year that the maximum number of unconventional wells were drilled in each county, with blues, greens, and yellows showing counties where the activity has already peaked, oranges showing a peak in 2014, and red showing a peak in 2015, despite only six months of activity. 30 of the 39 counties with unconventional wells in the state saw a peak in activity in 2013 or before.
Notes
The equations for the three trendlines are as follows:
Permits: y = -1.5128x + 303.81
Wells: y = -1.2939x + 158.95
Violations: y = -1.9334x + 127.53
The lowest actual value for each category are as follows:
Permits: 117, in July 2012
Wells: 43, in February 2015
Violations: 16, in August 2014.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PA-Down-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2015-07-08 14:44:562020-07-21 10:30:04Unconventional Drilling Activity Down In Pennsylvania
