Indian Creek - Part of Bears Ears National Monument
Karen Edelstein

Nationally treasured federal lands face threats by oil, gas, and other extractive uses

/by

Should public, federal lands be opened up even further for extracting minerals, oil, and gas for private ventures? FracTracker’s Karen Edelstein discusses the past, present, and potential future of many of America’s cherished natural resources and wonders.

The United States is blessed with some of the most diverse natural landscapes in the world. Through foresight of great leaders over the decades, starting in 1906 — Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Benjamin Harrison, and Jimmy Carter – to name just a few — well over a half billion acres of wilderness have been set aside as national parks, refuges, monuments, and roadless areas. Some of the most famous of these protected areas include the Grand Canyon, Acadia, and Grand Tetons National Parks. In all, the federal government owns 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land that the United States comprises. These federal lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM): 248.3 million acres, the US Forest Service: 192.9 million acres, US Fish and Wildlife Service: 89.1 million acres, and National Park Service: 78.9 million acres. In addition, the US Department of Defense administers 11.4 million acres.

Why are federal lands at risk?

While most people assume that federal wild lands are forever protected from development and commercial exploitation, quite the opposite is true. For most of the past century, federal lands have hunted, fished, logged and grazed by private individuals and enterprises. In addition, and in the cross-hairs of discussion here, is the practice of leasing lands to industrial interests for the purpose of extracting minerals, oil, and gas from these public lands.

Provisions for land conservation and restrictions on oil and gas extraction, in particular, became more stringent since the inception of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. However, environmentalists have watched in horror as the current administration in Washington has gutted the EPA, and installed climate change-deniers and corporate executives in high levels of office throughout a range of federal agencies. Notable is the appointment of Ryan Zinke as US Secretary of the Interior. Zinke, a former businessman, has a long record of opposing environmental viewpoints around extraction of oil, coal, and gas and cutting regulations. The League of Conservation Voters gives his voting record a lifetime score of 4 percent on environmental issues. As recently as this week, Joel Clement–one of Zinke’s senior advisors–resigned his post, citing, Zinke’s poor leadership, wasting of tax-payer dollars, and denial of climate change science.

Early in his tenure as Secretary of the Interior, Zinke initiated a review of 27 national monuments, a move that environmentalists feared could lead to the unraveling of protections on millions of acres of federal land, and also relaxed regulations on oil and gas exploration in those areas. Public comment on the plans to review these national monuments was intense; when the public comment period closed on July 10, 2017, the Interior Department had received over 2.4 million comments, the vast majority of which supported keeping the existing boundaries and restrictions as they are.

Federal lands under threat by Trump Administration


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

The above map shows which sites are under consideration for oil, gas, or coal extraction, or face boundary reduction of up to 88%. Click here to view this map full-screen with a legend, zoom in and click on areas of interest, etc.

Who should be allowed to use these resources?

Ranchers, loggers, and recreational hunters and anglers felt that the 1906 Antiquities Act had been over-interpreted, and therefore advocated for Zinke’s proposal. (The Act was the first U.S. law to provide protection for any general kind of cultural or natural resource.)

However, environmental advocates such as the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and others were adamantly opposed to opening up federal lands resources for extraction, citing the need for environmental protection, public access, and, importantly, concerns that the lands would be more easily transferred to state, local, or private interests. Environmentalists also argue that the revenue generated by tourism at these pristine sites would far exceed that generated by extractive resource activities. Attorneys and staff from NPCA and NRDC argued legislation in effect since the 1970s requires role for Congress in changing the boundaries of existing monuments. The President or his cabinet do not have that sole authority.

The Wilderness Society estimates that already, 90% of the land in the US West, owned by the Bureau of Land Management, is open for oil and gas leasing, while only 10% is set aside for other uses (Figure 2). According to information from Sourcewatch, in 2013, these lands included 12 National Monuments, Parks, Recreation Areas, and Preserves that had active drilling, and another 31 that might see possible drilling in the future.

Source: The Wilderness Society

Figure 2. Percent of land already available for oil and gas leasing in the West. Source: The Wilderness Society

What Zinke has Proposed

True to expectation, in August of 2017, Zinke issued a recommendation to shrink the boundaries of several national monuments to allow coal mining and other “traditional uses” — which appear to include large-scale timbering, as well as potentially oil and gas drilling. Sites include Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah (encompassing more than 3.2 million acres in lands considered sacred to Dine/Navajo people), Cascade-Siskiyou in Oregon, and Gold Butte in Nevada. According to Zinke’s report, Grand Staircase-Escalante contains “an estimated several billion tons of coal and large oil deposits”. Zinke lifted Obama-era restrictions on coal leasing on federal lands this past March, 2017. However, just last week, a federal judge ruled that the current Administration’s efforts to suspend methane emission restrictions from pipelines crossing public lands were illegal. These are merely a few of the Obama-era environmental protections that Zinke is attempting to gut.

Zinke has proposed decreasing the size of Bears Ears National Monument from the current 1.35 million acres to a mere 160,000, a reduction of 88%. The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, made up of thirty Native American tribes, condemned the recommendation as a “slap in the face to the members of our Tribes and an affront to Indian people all across the country.” The Navajo Nation intends to sue the President’s administration if this reduction at Bears Ears is enacted.

Bears Ears National Monument, designated by President Barack Obama, contains tens of thousands of cultural artifacts, and is facing not only a threat of boundary shrinkage, but also a relaxing use restrictions within the Monument area. The current President has referred to Obama’s designation of the monument as “an egregious abuse of power.” Grand Staircase-Escalante was designated by President Bill Clinton, and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument was designated by Clinton and expanded by President Obama.

The recommendation details were not made public in August, however, and only came to light in September through a leaked memo, published in The Washington Post. In the memo, Secretary Zinke noted that the existing boundaries were “arbitrary or likely politically motivated or boundaries could not be supported by science or reasons of resource management.” The memo goes on to say that “[i]t appears that certain monuments were designated to prevent economic activity such as grazing, mining and timber production rather than to protect specific objects.” In addition, Zinke is advocating for the modification for commercial fishing uses of two marine national monuments: the Pacific Remote Islands, and Rose Atoll.

Lacking Specificity

According to the Washingon Post, Zinke:

… plans to leave six designations in place: Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients; Idaho’s Craters of the Moon; Washington’s Hanford Reach; Arizona’s Grand Canyon-Parashant; Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks; and California’s Sand to Snow.

Perplexingly, the report is silent on 11 of the 27 monuments named in the initial proposal. One of which is the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument — over 725,000 square miles of ocean — in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

The report also requests tribal co-management of “cultural resources”  at Bears Ears, Rio Grande del Norte, and Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks. While one could imagine that greater involvement of indigenous people in the federal government’s management of the sacred landscapes to be a potentially positive improvement, the report is silent on the details. More information on tribal co-management and other options can be gleaned from a series of position papers written by the Property and Environment Research Center.

Of other note: Zinke is also suggesting the establishment of three new national monuments, including the 130,000-acre Badger-Two Medicine area in Montana, a sacred site of the Blackfeet Nation. Badger-Two Medicine was the site of a more than 30-year battle to retire 32,000 acres of oil and gas leases. The tribe prevailed, and the leases were canceled in November, 2016.

With potential lawsuits pending about boundary changes, galvanized push-back from environmental and tribal interests on resource management definitions for the targeted monuments, and general unpredictability on policy details and staffing in Washington, the trajectory of how this story will play out remains uncertain. FracTracker will continue to monitor for updates, and provide additional links in this story as they unfold.

Check out National Geographic’s bird’s eye view of these protected areas for a stunning montage, descriptions, and more maps of the monuments under consideration.

Click me

Federal Lands Map Data Sources

National Monuments under consideration for change by Secretary Zinke:
Accessed from ArcGIS Online by FracTracker Alliance, 28 August 2017. Data apparently from federal sources, such as BLM, NPS, etc. Dataset developed by Kira Minehart, GIS intern with Natural Resources Defense Council.0=not currently targeted for policy or boundary change1= targeted for expanded resource use, such as logging, fishing, etc. 2=targeted for shrinkage of borders, and expanded resource use.

National Park Service lands with current or potential oil and gas drilling:
Downloaded by FracTracker Alliance on 9 November 2016, from National Park Service.  Drilling information from here. List of sites threatened by oil and gas drilling from here (23 January 2013).

Badger-Two Medicine potential Monument:
Shapefile downloaded from USGS by FracTracker Alliance on 28 August 2017. This map layer consists of federally owned or administered lands of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For the most part, only areas of 320 acres or more are included; some smaller areas deemed to be important or significant are also included. There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of Federal lands in this map layer. Some established Federal lands which are larger than 320 acres are not included in this map layer, because their boundaries were not available from the owning or administering agency. Complete metadata available here.

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Piecing together the ethane cracker - Graphic by Sophie Riedel
FracTracker Alliance

Piecing Together an Ethane Cracker

/by

How fragmented approvals and infrastructure favor petrochemical development

By Leann Leiter and Lisa Graves-Marcucci

Let’s think back to 2009, when oil and gas companies like Range Resources began drilling the northeast shale plays in earnest. Picture the various stages involved in drilling – such as leasing of land, clearing of trees, boring of wells, siting of compressor stations, and construction of pipelines to gather the gas. Envision the geographic scope of the gas infrastructure, with thousands of wells in Pennsylvania alone, and thousands of miles of pipelines stretching as far as Louisiana.

Figure 1. A pipeline right-of-way snakes behind a residential property in Washington County, PA. Photo credit: Leann Leiter.

Figure 1. A pipeline right-of-way snakes behind a residential property in Washington County, PA. Photo credit: Leann Leiter

Now, picture the present, where a homeowner looks out over her yard and wonders how a lease she signed with Shell several years prior made it possible for the company to run an ethane pipeline across her property and between her house and her garage.

Think forward in time, to 2022, the year when a world-scale ethane cracker is set to go online in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, to begin churning through natural gas liquids from wells in PA and others, producing a variety of disposable plastic products.

At each of these moments in gas development, which of the many stakeholders – industry leaders, local governments, state regulatory agencies, or landowners and residents – were granted a view of the full picture?

The proposed Shell ethane cracker in Beaver County is an illustration of the fragmented nature of gas development. From the extensive web of drilling infrastructure required to supply this massive facility, to several years of construction, this project is a case-study in piecemeal permitting. Such fragmentation creates a serious barrier to transparency and to the informed decision-making that relies upon it.

In the first two articles in this series on the petrochemical development in Beaver County, we focused on ethane cracker emergency scenarios and how the area might prepare. In this article, we draw the lens back to take in the larger picture of this region-altering project and highlight the effects of limited transparency.

The “Piecemeal” Nature of Gas Development

All across the Pennsylvania, proposed industrial development – even coal operations – have historically provided to the public, elected officials, and regulatory agencies the extent or footprint of their planned operations. Nonetheless, the oil and gas industry has in several instances undertaken a practice of developing its extensive infrastructure piece-by-piece. Operators of these facilities first acquire a GP-5 General Permit, which is only available to certain oil and gas operations with “minor” emissions and which allows them to avoid having the permit undergo public notice or comment. These operators then add emissions sources and increases through a series of minor amendments. While they are required to obtain a “major” source permit once their modifications result in major emissions, they avoid the scrutiny required for a major source by this fragmented process.

Unlike most other industrial permitting, the gas industry has enjoyed a much less transparent process. Instead of presenting their entire planned operation at the time of initial permit application, gas operators having been seeking – and receiving – incremental permits in a piecemeal fashion. This process puts local decision makers and the women, men, and children who live, work, and go to school near gas development at a severe disadvantage in the following ways:

  • Without full disclosure of the entirety of the planned project, neither regulatory bodies nor the public can conduct a full and factual assessment of land use impacts;
  • Incremental approvals allow for ever-expanding operations, including issuance of permits without additional public notification and participation;
  • Piecemeal approvals allow operations to continuously alter a community and its landscape;
  • The fragmented approval process prevents consideration of cumulative impacts; and
  • Without full transparency of key components of the proposed operations, emergency planning is hampered or non-existent.

From the Well to the Ethane Cracker

In the fragmented approval process of gas development, the proposed ethane cracker in Beaver County represents a pertinent example. Developers of this massive, multi-year, and many-stage project have only revealed the size and scope in a piecemeal fashion, quietly making inroads on the project (like securing land leases along the route of the pipeline required for the cracker, years in advance of permit approvals for the facility itself). By rolling out each piece over several years, the entirety of the petrochemical project only becomes clear in retrospect.

A World-Scale Petrochemical Hub

While Shell is still pursuing key approval from the PA Department of Environmental Protection, industry leaders treat the ethane cracker as a foregone conclusion, promising that this facility is but one step in turning the area into a “petrochemical hub.”

The cracker facility, alone, will push existing air pollution levels further beyond their already health-threatening state. Abundant vacant parcels around Shell’s cracker site are attractive sites for additional spin-off petrochemical facilities in the coming “new industry cluster.” These facilities would add their own risks to the equation, including yet-unknown chemical outputs emitted into the air and their resulting cumulative impacts. Likewise, disaster risks associated with the ethane cracker remain unclear, because in the piecemeal permitting process, the industry is not required to submit Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency (PPC) Plans until after receiving approval to build.

Figure 2: Visualization shows a portion of the extensive US natural gas interstate pipeline system stretching from the petrochemical hubs in the bayous of the Gulf Coast Basin to Pittsburgh's Appalachian Basin. However, petrochemical development in the northeast may reverse or otherwise change that flow. Visualization created by Sophie Riedel, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Architecture. Data on interstate natural gas supply sourced from Energy Information Administration, Form EIA176 "Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition," 2007.

Figure 2. A portion of the extensive US natural gas interstate pipeline system stretching from the petrochemical hubs in the bayous of the Gulf Coast Basin to Pittsburgh’s Appalachian Basin. However, petrochemical development in the northeast may reverse or otherwise change that flow. Visualization created by Sophie Riedel, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Architecture. Data on interstate natural gas supply sourced from Energy Information Administration, Form EIA176 “Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition,” 2007.

92.3 Miles of Explosive Pipeline

More than just a major local expansion, communities downriver and downwind will be susceptible to the impacts, including major land disturbance, emissions, and the potential for “incidents,” including explosion. The pipeline required to feed the cracker with highly flammable, explosive ethane would tie the tri-state region into the equation, expanding the zone of risk into Ohio and crossing through West Virginia.

Figure 3: The Falcon Pipeline, which would be used to transport ethane to the cracker in Beaver County. At 92.3 miles long, it consists of two “legs,” starting from Scio and Cadiz, Ohio and Houston, PA, respectively, and extending up to the site of Shell’s ethane cracker. Credit: Shell Pipeline Company LP.

Figure 3. The Falcon Pipeline, which would be used to transport ethane to the cracker in Beaver County. At 92.3 miles long, it consists of two “legs,” starting from Scio and Cadiz, Ohio and Houston, PA, respectively, and extending up to the site of Shell’s ethane cracker. Credit: Shell Pipeline Company LP

Renewed Demand at the Wellhead

No one piece of the gas infrastructure stands alone; all work in tandem. According to the  Energy Information Administration (EIA), the new US ethane crackers will drive consumption of ethane up by a 26% by the end of 2018. Gas wells in the northeast already supply ethane; new ethane crackers in the region introduce a way to profit from this by-product of harvesting methane without piping it to the Gulf Coast. How this renewed demand for ethane will play out at fracked wells will be the result of complex variables, but it will undoubtedly continue to drive demand at Pennsylvania’s 10,000 existing unconventional oil and gas wells and those of other states, and may promote bringing new ones online.

quote-from-petchem-report

Figure 4. Excerpt from Executive Summary of IHS Markit Report, “Prospects to Enhance Pennsylvania’s Opportunities in Petrochemical Manufacturing.”

Along with drilling comes a growing network of gathering and transmission lines, which add to the existing 88,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in Pennsylvania alone, fragment wildlife habitat, and put people at risk from leaks and explosions. Facilities along the supply stream that add their own pollution and risks include pump stations along the route and the three cryogenic facilities at the starting points of the Falcon Pipeline (see Fig. 6).

Figure 4: Several yards of the 88,000 miles of gas pipelines cutting through Pennsylvania. Finleyville, PA. Credit: Leann Leiter.

Figure 5. Several yards of the 88,000 miles of gas pipelines cutting through Pennsylvania. Finleyville, PA. Credit: Leann Leiter

The infrastructure investment required for ethane crackers in this region could reach $3.7 billion in processing facilities, pipelines for transmitting natural gas liquids including ethane, and storage facilities. A report commissioned by Team Pennsylvania and the PA Department of Community and Economic Development asserts that “the significant feedstock and transportation infrastructure required” will “exceed what is typically required for a similar facility” in the Gulf Coast petrochemical hub, indicating a scale of petrochemical development that rivals that of the southern states. This begs the question of how the health impacts in Pennsylvania will compare to those in the Gulf Coast’s “Cancer Alley.”

Figure 6. Houston, PA Cryogenic and Fractionation Plant, one of three such facilities supplying feedstock to the proposed Shell ethane cracker. Credit: Garth Lenz, iLCP.

Figure 6. Houston, PA Cryogenic and Fractionation Plant, one of three such facilities supplying feedstock to the proposed Shell ethane cracker. Credit: Garth Lenz, iLCP

Water Impacts, from the Ohio River to the Arctic Ocean

Shell’s facility is only one of the ethane crackers proposed for the region that, once operational, would be permitted to discharge waste into the already-beleaguered Ohio River. This waterway, which traverses six separate states, supplies the drinking water for over 3 million people. Extending the potential water impact even further, the primary product of the Shell facility is plastics, whose inevitable disposal would unnecessarily add to the glut of plastic waste entering our oceans. Plastic is accumulating at the alarming rate of 3,500 pieces a day on one island in the South Pacific and as far away as the waters of the Arctic.

Figure 7: View of the Ohio River, downriver from the site of Shell’s proposed ethane cracker. Existing sources of industrial pollution to the river include the American Electric power plants, coal loading docks, barges, coal ash lagoons, and dry coal ash beds shown in this picture, and at least two fracking operations within the coal plant areas. Credit: Vivian Stockman/ohvec.org; flyover courtesy SouthWings.org.

Figure 7. View of the Ohio River, downriver from the site of Shell’s proposed ethane cracker. Existing sources of industrial pollution to the river include the American Electric power plants, coal loading docks, barges, coal ash lagoons, and dry coal ash beds shown in this picture, and at least two fracking operations within the coal plant areas. Credit: Vivian Stockman/ohvec.org; flyover courtesy SouthWings.org.

How does fragmentation favor industry?

The gas and petrochemical industry would likely defend the logistical flexibility the piecemeal process affords them, allowing them to tackle projects, make investments, and involve new players as needed overtime. But in what other ways do the incredibly fragmented approval processes, and the limited requirements on transparency, favor companies like Shell and their region-changing petrochemical projects? And what effect does the absence of full transparency have on local communities like those in Beaver County? We conclude that it:

  • “Divides and conquers” the region. The piecemeal approach to gas development, and major projects like the Shell ethane cracker, deny any sense of solidarity between the people along the pipeline route resisting these potentially explosive channels cutting through their yards, and residents of Beaver County who fear the cracker’s emissions that will surround their homes.
  • Makes the project seem a foregone conclusion, putting pressure on others to approve. For example, before Shell formally announced its intention to build the facility in Potter Township, it rerouted a state-owned road to facilitate construction and increased traffic flow. Likewise, though a key permit is still outstanding with the PA DEP, first responders, including local volunteer firefighters, have already begun dedicating their uncompensated time to training with Shell. While this is a positive step from a preparedness standpoint, it is one of many displays of confidence by Shell that the cracker is a done deal.
  • Puts major decisions in the hands of those with limited resources to carry them out and who do not represent the region to be affected. In the case of the Shell ethane cracker, three township supervisors in Potter Township granted approvals for the project. The impacts, however, extend well beyond Potter or even Beaver county and include major air impacts for Allegheny County and the Pittsburgh area. Effects will also be felt by landowners and residents in numerous counties and two states along the pipeline route, those near cryogenic facilities in Ohio and Pennsylvania, plus those living on the Marcellus and Utica shale plays who will see gas well production continue and potentially increase.

Piecing together an ethane cracker
Piecing together an ethane cracker
Meeting on Shell Ethane Cracker in Pennsylvania
Meeting on Shell Ethane Cracker in Pennsylvania

Figures 8a and 8b. Potter Township Supervisors give the go-ahead to draft approval of Shell’s proposed ethane cracker at a January meeting, while confronted with public concern about deficiencies in Shell’s permit applications. Photos courtesy of the Air Quality Collaborative.

Fragmented Transparency, Compromised Decision-making

The piecemeal, incremental, and fragmented approval processes for the ethane cracker – and other gas-related facilities in the making – create one major problem. They make it nearly impossible for locals, elected officials, and regulatory agencies to see the whole picture as they make decisions. The bit-by-bit approach to gas development amounts to far-reaching development with irreversible impacts to environmental and human health.

We ask readers, as they contemplate the impacts closest to them – be it a fracked well, a hazardous cryogenic facility, the heavily polluted Ohio River, a swath of land taken up for the pipeline’s right-of-way, or Shell’s ethane cracker itself – to insist that they, their elected officials, and regulators have access to the whole picture before approvals are granted. It’s hard to do with a project so enormous and far-reaching, but essential because the picture includes so many of us.

Sincere Appreciation

To The International League of Conservation Photographers, The Ohio Environmental Council, and The Air Quality Collaborative for sharing photographs.

To Sophie Riedel for sharing her visualizations of natural gas interstate pipelines.

To Lisa Hallowell at the Environmental Integrity Project, and Samantha Rubright and Kirk Jalbert at FracTracker, for their review of and and invaluable contributions to this series.

Feature image: Map of US counties and natural gas interstate pipeline system describes the wide-diameter (20-42 inch), high capacity trunklines that carry most of the natural gas that is transported throughout the nation. Visualization created by Sophie Riedel, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Architecture. Data on interstate natural gas supply sourced from Energy Information Administration, Form EIA176 “Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition,” 2007.

PA Oil & Gas Fines feature image
Matt Kelso, BA

Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Fines Analysis

/by

In March 2017, FracTracker Alliance conducted a review of the available Pennsylvania oil and gas fine data released publicly by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to identify trends in industry-related fines over time and by particular operators. In total, the DEP has assessed nearly $36 million in fines to oil and gas extraction and pipeline operators since January 1, 2000. Such fines are associated with over 42,000 violations issued1 by DEP in that time frame, covering 204,000 known oil and gas locations,2 as well as 91,000 miles of pipelines3 within the Commonwealth.

Understanding the Data Structure

The amount of money that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) fines oil and gas (O&G) operations is included in the DEP’s compliance report published on their website. Even though fines data are made available, they are not necessarily straight-forward, and caution must be taken not to over-estimate the total number of assessed fines.

Records of fines are associated with enforcement identification codes on the compliance report. A single fine is often applied to numerous violations, and the full amount of the fine is listed on every record in this subset. Therefore, the total dollar amount of fines assessed to O&G companies appears overstated. For example, if a $400,000 fine were assessed to settle a group of 10 violations, that figure will appear on the report 10 times, for an apparent aggregate of $4,000,000 in fines. To get an accurate representation of fines assessed, we need to isolate fines associated with particular enforcement ID numbers, which are used administratively to resolve the fines.

This process is further complicated by the fact that, on occasion, such enforcement ID numbers are associated with more than one operator. This issue could result from a change in the well’s operator (or a change of the operator’s name), a group of wells in close proximity that are run by different operators, or it might point to an energy extraction company and a midstream company sharing responsibility for an incident. Sometimes, the second operator listed under an enforcement ID is in fact “not assigned.” The result is that we cannot first summarize by operator and then aggregate those subtotals without overstating the total amount of the assessed fines. In all, 62 of the enforcement ID numbers apply to more than one operator, but this figure amounts to less than one percent of the nearly 15,000 distinct enforcement ID numbers issued by DEP.

Conventional & Unconventional Violations & Fines

Oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania are categorized as either conventional or unconventional, with the latter category intended to represent the modern, industrial-scaled operations that are commonly referred to as “fracking wells.” Contrastingly, conventional wells are supposed to be the more traditional O&G wells that have been present in Pennsylvania since 1859. The actual definition of these wells leaves some blurring of this distinction, however, as almost all O&G wells now drilled in Pennsylvania are stimulated with hydraulic fracturing to some degree, and some of the conventional wells are even drilled horizontally – just not into formations that are technically defined as unconventional. For the most part, however, unconventional remains a useful distinction indicating the significant scale of operations.

Table 1. Summary of oil and gas wells, violations, and fines in Pennsylvania

Category Conventional Unconventional (blank) Total
Wells 193,655 10,291 0 203,946
Violations 27,223 6,126 9,026 42,375
Fines $7,000,203 $13,689,032 $21,563,722 $35,949,495*
Fines per Violation 257 2,235 2,389 848
Fines per Well 36 1330  – 176.27
Violations per Well 0.14 0.60  – 0.21
Wells per Violation 7.11 1.68  – 4.81
* The total fine amount issued is not a summary of the three preceding categories, as some of the fines appear in multiple categories

Ninety-five (95)% of the state’s 204,000 O&G wells are classified as conventional, so it should not be surprising to see that this category of wells accounts for a majority of violations issued by the department. However, fines associated with these violations are less frequent, and often less harsh; the $7 million in fines for this category accounts for only 19% of the total assessed penalties. In contrast, the total penalties that have been assessed to unconventional wells in the state are nearly twice that of conventional wells, despite accounting for just 5% of the state’s well inventory

On the 54,412 records on the compliance report, 10,518 (19%) do not indicate whether or not it is an unconventional well. The list of operators includes some well-known conventional and unconventional drilling operators, and hundreds of names of individuals or organizations where O&G drilling is not their primary mode of business (such as municipal authorities and funeral homes). This category also contains violations for midstream operations, such as pipelines and compressor stations. Altogether, 3,795 operators have entries that were not categorized as either conventional or unconventional on the compliance report, and 124 of these operators were issued fines. One additional complication is that some of the violations and fines that fall into this category are cross-referenced in the conventional and unconventional categories, as well.

The resulting impact of these factors is that the blank category obscures the trends for violations and fines in the other two categories. While tempting to reclassify well data in this category as either conventional or unconventional, this would be a tall task due to the sheer number of records involved, and would likely result in a significant amount of errors. Therefore, the FracTracker Alliance has decided to present the data as is, along with an understanding of the complexities involved.

Most Heavily Fined Operators

Despite the numerous caveats listed above, we can get a clear look at the aggregated fines issued to the various O&G operators in the state by constructing our queries carefully. Table 2 shows the top 12 recipients of O&G-related fines assessed by DEP since 2000. Ten of these companies are on the extraction side of the business, and the total number of well permits issued4 to these companies since 2000 are included on the table. By looking at the permits instead of the drilled wells, we discover the operator that was originally associated with the drilling location, whereas the report of drilled wells associates the current operator associated with the site, or most recent operator in the event that the location is plugged and abandoned.

Stonehenge Appalachia and Williams Field Services operate in the midstream sector. Combining the various business name iterations and subsidiaries would be an enormous task, which we did not undertake here, with the exception of those near the top of the list. This includes Vantage Energy Appalachia, which was combined with records from Vantage Energy Appalachia II, and the compliance history of Rice Energy is the sum of three subsidiaries, the drilling company Rice Drilling B, and two pipeline companies, Rice Midstream Holdings and Rice Poseidon Midstream.

Table 2. Top 12 operators that have been assessed oil and gas-related fines by DEP since 2000

Operator Total Fines Conventional Permits Unconventional Permits Violations Fines / Violation Fines / Permit
Range Resources Appalachia LLC $5,717,994 2,104 2,206 819 $6,982 $1,327
Chesapeake Appalachia LLC $3,120,123 18 3,072 754 $4,138 $1,010
Rice Energy* $2,336,552 442 165 $14,161 $5,286
Alpha Shale Res LP $1,681,725 3 62 31 $54,249 $25,873
Stonehenge Appalachia LLC $1,500,000  – – 294 $5,102 –
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp $1,407,275 19 902 726 $1,938 $1,528
CNX Gas Co LLC $1,274,330 1,613 677 387 $3,293 $556
WPX Energy Appalachia LLC $1,232,500 347 159 $7,752 $3,552
Chevron Appalachia LLC $1,077,553 2 604 113 $9,536 $1,778
Vantage Energy Appalachia LLC** $1,059,766 3 300 35 $30,279 $3,498
Williams Field Services Co, LLC $872,404  – – 158 $5,522 –
XTO Energy Inc $739,712 1,962 461 383 $1,931 305
* Fines for Rice Energy here represent the sum of three subsidiaries, the drilling company Rice Drilling B, and two pipeline companies, Rice Midstream Holdings and Rice Poseidon Midstream.

** Fines for Vantage Energy Appalachia were combined with records from Vantage Energy Appalachia II.

Predictably, many of the entries on this list are among the most active drillers in the state, including Range Resources and Chesapeake Appalachia. However, Alpha Shale Resources has the dubious distinction of leading the pack with the highest amount of fines per violation, as well as the highest amount of fines per permit. Fitting in with the theme, the story here is complicated by the fact that Alpha had a joint venture with Rice, before selling them their stake in a group of wells and midstream operations that were fined $3.5 million by DEP.5 On this compliance report, the fines from this incident are split between the two companies.

Fines Issued Over Time

It is worth taking a look at how O&G related fines have varied over time, as well (Figure 1, shown in millions of dollars). Numerous factors could contribute to changes in trends, such as the number of available DEP inspectors,6 the amount of attention being paid to the industry in the media, differing compliance strategies employed by various political administrations, or changes in practices in the field, which could in turn be impacted by significant fines issued in the past.

PA Oil & Gas Fines Analysis chart

Figure 1. O&G Fines Issued by DEP, 2000 through 2016

The notable spike in fines issued from 2010 to 2012 corresponds with the peak of unconventional drilling in the state – 4,908 of these industrial scaled wells were drilled during those three years, amounting to 48% of all unconventional wells in PA. In contrast, only 504 unconventional wells were drilled in 2016, or around a quarter of the total for 2011. In this context, the reduction in fines since the early part of the decade seems reasonable.

The association with the number of unconventional wells falls apart a bit in the years 2013 to 2014, however. These two years saw an average of 1,293 unconventional wells drilled, but the fines issued amounted to only 35% of the 2011 total.

Considerable strides have been made in the public accessibility of oil and gas data available from the PA DEP since FracTracker started requesting and reviewing this information in 2009. Still, there are many gaps in the datasets, such as geolocation details for 10 of the 20 largest fines issued by the department. FracTracker hopes external analyses like this one will help to close such gaps and identify operators who, too, need to improve their compliance records.

References & Footnotes

  1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Oil and Gas (O&G) Compliance Database.
  2. PA DEP O&G Spud Database. Note: Starting date 1/1/1800 captures unknown spud (wells drilled) dates.
  3. Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration (PHMSA) Pipeline Data Mart Reports.
  4. PA DEP Permits Issued Database.
  5. State Impact PA. (2016). Rice Energy fined $3.5 million for wellsite and pipeline violations.
  6. PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center. (2017). Fracking Failures 2017, Oil and Gas Industry Environmental Violations in Pennsylvania.

Oil & Gas Fines White Paper

This analysis is also available for download in a printer-friendly, white paper format:

Download White Paper (PDF)

2017 PA Oil & Gas Fines Analysis by FracTracker Alliance

Cover Photo by Pete Stern, Loyalsock, PA

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

FracTracker Alliance

Revolving Doors & the PA Natural Gas Industry

/by

By Susan Volz, FracTracker Alliance Intern

The result of this year’s presidential election has sent shock waves through all levels of government. Many are now wondering what the next four years will look like in terms of funding and policy decisions. Just a few days after the inauguration, the next administration’s cabinet choices have many worried. For example, the person President-Elect Trump has selected to lead the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Myron Ebell, has connections to the fossil fuel industry, suggesting national energy policy may embrace fossil fuel development. Of equal concern are the industry connections of former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and former Texas governor Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy.

While these transformations are happening at the federal level, Pennsylvania has its own long history of revolving doors between government and industry that deserve attention. Examination of data collected by citizen advocate, Dorina Hippauf, as well as my own independent research, shows a state government with extensive ties to the oil and gas industry. This relationship is a concern given that state responses to national energy policy and climate change will become particularly important in coming years.

The Governor’s Office

Former Governor Ed Rendell, who served from 2003-2011, has multiple ties to the natural gas industry and was governor during the initial stages of the shale gas boom in PA. During this time, Governor Rendell leased 130,000 acres of state land to gas extraction companies (he later imposed a ban on leasing state lands). After leaving office, Rendell joined Element Partners, an equity firm with investments in the gas industry. Currently, Rendell is Co-chair of Building America’s Future, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials advocating for investment in the nation’s infrastructure. As recently as August 2016, Rendell has said he makes no apologies and remains a “strong advocate” of unconventional gas extraction, also stating that weaknesses in regulation were “cured” in 2010.

Pennsylvania’s shale gas industry saw its beginnings under Governor Rendell, but the industry truly boomed under Governor Tom Corbett. Corbett, a Republican, served a single term from 2011 to 2015. One of Corbett’s first acts as governor was to sign Act 13, which revised oil and gas laws and implemented the controversial impact fee in lieu of a severance tax. Corbett overturned Rendell’s ban on leasing public lands to gas companies. Corbett accepted $1.8 million in campaign contributions from gas companies. These contributions came not only from the companies themselves but also individual contributions from industry executives. Many of the companies that donated to Corbett’s campaign also found themselves appointed to the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission.

Pennsylvania’s current Governor, Democrat Tom Wolf, campaigned on a platform of tougher restrictions on natural gas companies, as well as a 5% severance tax. However, the severance tax has failed to be implemented due to contentious budget negotiations with the Republican-held General Assembly. There were also concerns during Wolf’s campaign when it was revealed he had received $273,000 in donations from members of the gas industry. Many environmental advocates called on Wolf to return the funds.

Another important point to consider in these transitions is that, as elected officials move through various offices, their staffers often move with them or are appointed to influential positions. For example, K. Scott Roy served as Rendell’s chief of staff while in Harrisburg. After leaving politics, Roy joined Range Resources, one of the largest gas extraction companies in Pennsylvania. In the past he has also served as Treasurer for the Marcellus Shale Coalition.

The DEP: Regulating in the Public Interest?

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the state agency responsible for enforcing and regulating the natural gas industry in PA. However, research shows a consistent thread of secretaries with ties to the oil and gas industry dating as far back as secretaries James Seif (1995-2001) and David Hess (2001-2003). Both joined lobbying firms after leaving government. Seif joined Ridge Global, LLC, a lobbying firm founded by former governor Tom Ridge, which has had contracts with the Marcellus Shale Coalition, and where Seif currently serves as Principal of Energy and Environment. Hess joined Crisci, a lobbying firm with many gas companies as clients, where he is currently the Director of Policy and Communication at Crisci.

Katie McGinty was appointed by Governor Rendell and served from 2003 to 2008. Since leaving the agency she has worked for a number of energy-related companies including NRG Energy (operator of natural gas plants),  Element Partners (the same firm Ed Rendell joined), and has been senior vice-president at Westen Solutions (a consulting firm with several natural gas companies as clients). During her Senate campaign, McGinty faced criticism for the significant campaign donations she received from the natural gas industry, as well as her employment past. McGinty was succeeded by John Hanger, who served from 2008 to 2011. Hanger left the DEP to join the law and lobbying firm Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott, LLC, which is a member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. One of their clients is the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA).

Perhaps the most infamous DEP secretary was Michael Krancer (2011-2013), who once notoriously said, “At the end of the day, my job is to get gas done.” Prior to joining the DEP, Krancer worked for Blank Rome, a law and lobbying firm that represents gas companies and is also a member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, where he now currently works once again. Krancer also served as a member of the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, the panel that advised Governor Corbett on unconventional gas drilling regulations. Krancer’s father, Ronald, was also a significant contributor to Corbett’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign. After Krancer left the DEP, Corbett appointed Christopher Abruzzo, who served for about a year, followed by Dana Ankust, who also served a single year.

When Tom Wolf took office in 2015, he appointed John Quigley to head the DEP. Due to his past working with environmental advocacy group PennFuture, there was optimism that Quigley’s appointment would take the DEP in a different direction. Quigley had also previously served as secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Council sued the Commonwealth to try and stop the leasing of state lands to gas companies. Quigley testified that he had felt pressure to allow the lease of public land. Quigley dramatically resigned as secretary of the DEP in May, 2016, as a result of a leaked email voicing frustration with environmental advocacy groups and gridlock in the General Assembly. Quigley is an interesting counterpoint to the trend of DEP secretaries being influenced by the shale gas industry — an environmental advocate entering a political arena hostile to the DEP’s mission.

If one looks deeper at the DEP, there is further evidence of the revolving door between the oil and gas industry and the agency. For example, Barbara Sexton served as executive deputy secretary before leaving to join Chesapeake Energy, where she is currently Director of Government Relations. Another former deputy secretary, John Hines, left the agency to work for Shell. Michael Arch, who was an inspection supervisor, left to work for PIOGA. And finally, L. Richard Adams was formerly the DEP watershed manager before joining Chief Oil and Gas.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that multiple aspects of the Pennsylvania state government have historical and presently revolving-door relationships with the oil and gas industry. In a sense, this situation is not entirely surprising. PA is one of the largest natural gas producing states in the country, and the rhetoric of energy policy sells natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper, domestically-produced alternative to coal or oil. Historically, states have acted as “laboratories of policy,” as the federal government has been slow to pass legislation addressing energy and climate change. The incoming Trump administration has shown itself to be enthusiastic about expanding the fossil fuel market. However, it’s impossible to predict what changes will happen to the EPA and federal regulations. Such unpredictability makes states all the more important in shaping environmental protection policy in the next few years. We need to be aware of these revolving doors so we can be prepared for what’s coming in the future.

AG Pruitt testifies before a congressional committee on issues surrounding energy and the environment
Guest Author

“Polluting Pruitt:” A Wolf to Guard the Hen House?

/by

Guest article by Dakota Raynes, Co-Organizer of Stop Fracking Payne County (OK)

President Trump recently tapped Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), even though Pruitt is a self-proclaimed “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.” Pruitt is currently opposing investigation of Exxon Mobile’s handling of climate-change science based on the belief that climate change science is not yet settled and “debate should be encouraged in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress.” Senate confirmation hearings regarding Pruitt’s nomination are currently ongoing – many questions have focused on Pruitt’s legacy as AG of OK and what that tells us about actions he might take as head of the EPA.

Pruitt’s Past as AG

Elected in 2010, Pruitt’s six-year tenure illuminates the full extent of the troubling stances he takes. For instance, he has fought against the overturn of DOMA, same-sex marriage rights, granting legal status to undocumented immigrants, the Affordable Care Act, access to safe and affordable birth control and abortions, and Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform. These actions demonstrate Pruitt’s inability to accept or implement procedures, policies, and programs supported by a majority of US residents, members of the nations’ highest courts, and even his own colleagues.

A Focus on Environmental Issues

More specifically related to environmental issues, he has openly criticized the EPA in congressional hearings and op-ed pieces. Due to his belief that the EPA frequently abuses its authority, Pruitt’s office has filed 14 antiregulatory lawsuits against the EPA. Investigative reporters uncovered that in 13 of these cases co-litigators included companies that had contributed significant amounts of money to Pruitt and/or Pruitt-affiliated political action committees (PACs). He also routinely joins lawsuits against other states. For example, Pruitt and five other Attorneys General challenged a California law banning the sale of eggs laid by hens living in cramped conditions, but a US District Judge ruled they lacked legal standing because they were representing the economic interests of a few industrial egg producers rather than the interests of their broader constituents.

Several such lawsuits are still pending, which legal experts and others claim presents a conflict of interest should Pruitt become the new Director of the EPA. When asked specifically about this issue during Senate confirmation hearings, Pruitt refused to recuse himself from the lawsuits, saying he would leave such a decision up to the EPA’s legal counsel team. Notably, across the course of his six-years as AG, Pruitt’s office has distributed more than 700 news releases announcing the office’s actions, his speeches and public appearances, and efforts to challenge federal regulations. More than 50 of these releases promoted the office’s efforts to sue the EPA, but not once has a release described actions the office has taken to enforce environmental laws or to hold violators accountable for their actions.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

In OK, Pruitt has made many choices, that when viewed together, strongly suggest that his loyalties reside with the industries that have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his election campaigns rather than with the people he is sworn to protect. Here is a short list of the most troubling examples:

  • Pruitt’s predecessor had filed suit against Tyson, Cargill, and a number of other poultry producers in OK due to inappropriate disposal of an estimated 300,000 tons of animal waste per year, which was causing toxic algae blooms along the Illinois River. But shortly after his election, Pruitt dropped the case, citing a need for more research. Some have questioned whether his decision was impacted by the fact that the poultry industry had donated at least $40,000 to his campaign that year.
  • He also quickly dismantled the Attorney General’s in-house environmental protection unit, a team of four attorneys and a criminal investigator, and replaced it with the state’s first “federalism unit,” which was created to litigate against overreach by the federal government, mostly the EPA. Pruitt has repeatedly made it clear that he believes states should handle environmental issues, regardless of the fact that environmental issues frequently cause problems that cross geopolitical boundaries such as state lines (OK’s induced seismicity issue1 is a key example, more information about induced seismicity can be found here).
  • In 2013, he created a coalition of 9 Attorneys General, major energy CEOs, and their lawyers and brought them all to OK for a strategizing session regarding how to stop government and citizen responses to the ills of the oil and gas industry; it was an all-expenses paid event funded by Mercatus, a right-wing think tank favored by the Koch brothers.
    1. Notably, the energy industry is Pruitt’s second largest campaign contributor. When he came up for re-election in 2013, he chose Harold Hamm (CEO of Continental Resources, one of the largest oil companies in OK) to co-chair his campaign. Shortly after winning reelection in 2014, Pruitt joined forces with key industry players including Oklahoma Gas and Electric and the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (chaired by Hamm) to file several antiregulatory lawsuits, which include attempts to block the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the US rule.
    2. Pruitt has also served as leader of the Republican Association of Attorneys General, which has collected at least $4.2 million in donations from fossil-fuel related companies since 2013.
  • Recently, local investigative reporters discovered that Pruitt’s office failed to follow a state law requiring state agencies to disclose spending on outside attorneys. Their examination illuminated that Pruitt has spent more than $1 million on legal fees since FY2012 – a total that does not include costs directly related to lawsuits against the EPA or the Affordable Care Act.

Induced-Seismicity and Wastewater Disposal

OK Map of Recent Earthquakes for Pruitt article

Map of Oklahoma Class II Injection Wells and Volumes 2011 to 2015 (Barrels). Click image to explore a full screen, dynamic map.

Oklahoma recently became the earthquake capital of the world due to a phenomenon referred to as injection-induced seismicity. While OK has not historically been known as a seismically active area, thousands of tremors have shaken the state since the shale gas boom began.

Several researchers have used geospatial analysis to demonstrate how these quakes are caused by the high-pressure injection of oil and gas industry wastes such as the flowback and produced water created by the unconventional oil and gas production process known as hydraulic fracturing. The map above shows where injection wells (tan dots) are located and where earthquakes (green dots) occurred from 2011-2015.

Oklahomans have been harmed by the implicitly pro-fracking stance Pruitt has taken, as evidenced by his lack of action regarding induced seismicity – as well as air, water, and soil contamination due to oil and gas industry activities. Several people, including Johnson Bridgewater (Director of OK Chapter of the Sierra Club) have noted that:

There are various places where the attorney general’s office could have stepped in to fix this overall problem…Its job is to protect citizens. Other states were proactive and took these issues on…[yet] Pruitt has been completely silent in the face of a major environmental problem for the state and its taxpayers.

Specifically, the AG’s office could have responded to the legal question of whether the state could limit or ban transport of fracking-related wastewater, sent by other states for disposal in underground injection wells in OK.

He also did nothing to address the phenomenally low earthquake insurance claim approval rate; after the 5.8M quake shook Pawnee in September of 2016, 274 earthquake damage claims were filed but only 4 paid out. Estimates of statewide approval rates generally suggest that approximately 1% of claimants receive funds to aid repairs.

Lastly, there are a number of class action lawsuits against a variety of industry actors regarding earthquake damages, yet Pruitt’s office has not entered any of these as an intervenor even though AGs in other states have done so.

Pruitt not at fault?

Photo Credit: JIM BECKEL/The Oklahoman

Earthquake damage. Photo Credit: Jim Beckel/The Oklahoman

Pruitt was recently called out by investigative reporters who used open-records requests to reveal that letters, briefs, and lawsuits that he submitted were written in whole or in part by leading energy firms such as Devon (another of OK’s largest oil and gas companies). Pruitt’s response was that he had done nothing wrong, nothing even potentially problematic. Rather, he said, of course he was working closely with industry and isn’t that what he should be doing. Some would argue that as AG what he should be doing is working closely with the people of Oklahoma, especially those whose homes, lives, and livelihoods have crumbled under the weight of attempting to repair earthquake damage due to industry activities.

Historical AG Influence

It is important to remember, though, that what’s happening with Pruitt is not isolated. Rather, as several long-time reporters have noted, increased attention to developing beneficial relationships with AGs is a result of historical processes.

About 20 years ago more than 40 state AGs banded together to challenge the tobacco industry, which led to a historic $206 billion settlement decision. Later, Microsoft, the pharmaceutical industry, and the financial services industry each faced similar multistate challenges regarding the legality or illegality of particular business practices.

As some AGs began hiring outside law firms to investigate and sue corporations, industry leaders realized that AGs’ actions were far more powerful and immediate than those of legislative bodies. So, they began a heretofore unprecedented campaign to massively increase their influence at this level.

Several people have critiqued the ways in which such actions undermine democratic processes, prompt troubling questions about ethics, and negatively impact attorney generals’ abilities to fulfill their duties to the state and its residents.

A Mission at Risk

Those of us on the frontlines here in OK have seen just how powerful such coalitions can be, how much sway they can have on local and state officials, how they destabilize people’s faith and trust in the systems that are supposed to protect them, and how coalitions undercut people’s hope and desire to be civically engaged. The mission of the US Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. If confirmed to lead the EPA, it is very likely Pruitt will prioritize his relationships with industry over the health and welfare of the people and environment he’s directed to protect.

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.
Pipeline build out - Photo by Sierra Shamer - Oil and gas pipeline
FracTracker Alliance

Infrastructural Challenges: The Direction of Drilling, Pipelines, and Politics in Pennsylvania

/by

Sierra Shamer, Visiting Scholar, FracTracker Alliance

While neighboring states New York and Maryland work to regulate the natural gas industry, Pennsylvania makes way for a pipeline build-out and continued unconventional oil and gas drilling. The industry, legislature, and state agencies claim that continued natural gas development is necessary, can be carried out safely, and will provide money, jobs, and energy to Pennsylvania. However, the price is increasingly evident, and the realization of these claims is yet to come.

PA residents are quickly learning that pipelines come with a cost; their permitting, construction, and supporting facilities infringe on private property rights, cause water and air pollution, and threaten public safety. On Friday April 29th in Westmoreland County, for example, Spectra Energy’s Texas Eastern 30″ gas pipeline exploded, severely burning one man, destroying his home, and damaging homes nearby. The local fire chief recounted his awe at the explosion. For him, it was “… like you were looking down into hell.” These costs prompt communities to consider whether the advertised benefits of pipelines will actually outweigh the costs. Active grassroots resistance has emerged throughout the state, and as it grows, it is consistently met with industry aggression and state repression.

This article provides an overview of the pipeline build-out in Pennsylvania, the political and economic environment promoting it, growing community activism, and, how the industry and state respond. An interactive map of existing and proposed pipelines in PA is featured at the end of the article.

The Shale in Pennsylvania

Pipeline build-out: Extent of the Utica (brown) and Marcellus (orange) shale formations.

Extent of the Utica (brown) and Marcellus (orange) shale formations. Click to expand.

The existing interstate pipeline network moves domestic and imported oil and gas to consumers and markets within North America. These pipelines extend from regions of conventional drilling to domestic and foreign energy markets. The recent development and expansion of unconventional drilling provides access to energy reservoirs that could not be extracted before. Within the past five years, the US overtook Russia to become the largest producer of natural gas in the world.

The Marcellus and Utica shale formations exist below the Appalachian Mountains in the northeast U.S. and into Canada. The Marcellus lies beneath Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, and New York. The Marcellus is now the largest region of natural gas production in the United States. Geologists estimate that 4-8,000 ft. underground, over 600 trillion cubic ft. of natural gas is accessible. The Utica formation lies underneath the Marcellus, extending north into Ontario and New York, and south into Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Geologists estimate over 38 trillion cubic ft. of natural gas is accessible – in some locations over 10,000 feet underground.

Extraction in Pennsylvania

Almost 10,000 unconventional wells in Pennsylvania produce millions of cubic feet of gas each day. This rapid extraction flooded the market, causing natural gas prices to drop dramatically. Marcellus production also outpaced the capacity of the current pipeline network. The location and flow direction of existing pipelines is not ideal for transporting Marcellus gas to markets with higher demand. Additionally, well productivity drops 70% within the first year, so new wells must be drilled to keep the gas flowing. However, the low price of gas reduced revenues, and the cost of drilling new wells remains high. Combined, these factors have paused drilling activity throughout the state. In order to overcome this, gas companies are proposing construction of new pipelines and expansions of existing ones, resulting in the current pipeline build-out.

The Economics of Pipelines

Obama discussing LNG

The dominant narrative, promoted by industry and state, weaves a story of economic prosperity gained by drilling the Marcellus, eclipsing concerns of pipeline necessity and safety. Each pipeline project claims an economic impact in dollar amounts and jobs. Williams claims that their proposed Atlantic Sunrise pipeline will “increase economic activity by $1.6 billion in project regions” and create job opportunities. Sunoco Logistics claims that the Mariner East pipeline will “add $4.2 billion to Pennsylvania’s economy, supporting more than 30,000 jobs during the construction period and … 300-400 permanent jobs.” Often, the specifics of money and jobs are not explained, and when construction begins, communities are invaded by out of state workers and left with little economic benefit.

Response to this buildout arises at all levels. Support pours down from federal and state government while resistance pushes up from the grassroots. The EPA and Obama administration work to shut down coal and promote natural gas, claiming it’s a “bridge fuel” to renewable energy. Pennsylvania’s legislature and Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) have battled over drilling regulations, and the push for pipelines presents a different set of challenges. While some consider the build-out necessary to maintain the natural gas industry in PA, others, such as Phil Rinaldi, envision ways in which pipelines can bring money to the state.

Philadelphia Energy Hub

Aware that interstate pipelines carry Pennsylvania shale to out-of-state markets, Phil Rinaldi, the CEO of Philadelphia Energy Solutions (PES) views the shale boom as an opportunity to maintain resource and revenue in state. In 2013 he established the Greater Philadelphia Energy Action Team (GPEAT), a group of over 80 industry, manufacturing, labor, and government stakeholders. Their objective is to capitalize on shale by promoting pipeline construction and bringing energy-intensive manufacturing to the Greater Philadelphia area. In March of this year, the GPEAT released a report titled, “A Pipeline for Growth: Fueling Economic Revitalization with Marcellus and Utica Shale Gas.” This reports details strategies to hasten the transformation of Philly into the “energy hub” of the East by inviting chemical manufacturing industries, and supporting pipeline projects to Philadelphia.

At Ground Level

2016: Columbia 26" pipeline construction near a home in Northern Maryland (Photo: Sierra Shamer)

2016: Columbia 26″ pipeline construction near a home in Northern Maryland (Photo: Sierra Shamer)

At a ground level, impacted communities, public health professionals, and environmental organizations face a ravenous industry. Unaccountable for property takings, fair compensation, and pollution, it as an industry that disregards public health and ecosystems within the shalefields. As a result, grassroots and advocacy groups organize and mobilize throughout Pennsylvania to amplify the voices of impacted residents and communities and to hold the industry and government accountable to the people.

Although pipelines bring large revenues for companies, industry, and the state, the story on the ground is different. New pipelines are either constructed on existing land easements, or new ones must be purchased from landowners along the proposed right-of-way. Pipeline operators have one goal: to find the most direct and least complicated route from supply to demand. While this lower their bottom line, new pipeline routes often disregard nearness to homes, schools, and other populated areas, and cause significant damage to farmland and ecosystems.

Frontline Communities

Pipeline companies often have the power of eminent domain, the ability to take possession of land in court if the property owner refuses a contract. Negotiating fair agreements requires landowners to hire their own appraiser and lawyer, which is not an option for everyone. Unlike drilling wells, landowners do not receive royalties for the pressurized gas flowing underneath their property, facing instead declines in property values and an inability to sell their home. As a result, landowners are left undercompensated, their land forcibly taken away in an unjust process.

Landowners along the right-of-way are the most immediately impacted, but neighbors and communities are affected as well. Each pipeline has a “potential impact radius” or “hazard zone,” the area within which an explosion causes immediate destruction. Residents within this distance experience a decrease in their property values, but currently have no legal recourse for compensation. Pipelines also require numerous compressor stations, facilities that operate 24-7 to maintain the pressure of the gas within the pipeline. Compressor stations are industrial, air polluting facilities that release greenhouse gases, neurotoxins, cancer causing agents, and other pollutants that negatively impact human health and the environment. Residents living near compressor stations experience various respiratory, sinus, and nervous system health issues. These are caused by both everyday operation and periodical gas blowdowns – facility operations when large amounts of methane and other chemicals are released directly into the air for station maintenance or emergencies.

Pipeline Regulation

FERC holds Public Meetings for the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (Photo: Justin Engle/The Daily Item)

FERC holds Public Meetings for the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline (Photo: Justin Engle/The Daily Item)

In Pennsylvania, no single agency is responsible for permitting, monitoring, or regulating pipelines. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permits interstate pipelines, those that cross state boundaries or carry product that does. Pipelines within the state are under the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission (PUC), the DEP, and/or the Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).

Typically, the PUC is responsible for pipelines that provide directly to consumers. However, in 2011 Act 127 gave the PUC authority to permit and inspect gathering lines, those that move gas from well pads to larger transmission pipelines. All gathering lines have national safety standards except Class 1, those with no more than ten buildings within 220 yards. The PUC maintains a registry of the location, size, and length of gathering lines, but is only includes length for Class 1.  Over 12,000 miles of Class 1 pipelines currently exist in PA, a number expected to quadruple by 2030.

Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force

The complex regulation and unprecedented increase in proposals prompted Governor Wolf to create the Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force (PITF) in 2015. Headed by former Secretary of the DEP, John Quigley, the Task Force included regulatory agencies, industry representatives, and government officials. Their mission: to “engage stakeholders in a collaborative process to achieve a world-class pipeline infrastructure system” and to develop “policies, guidelines, and tools to assist in pipeline development.” The DEP offered live stream of meetings, provided public information, and opportunity for public input in an attempt to be transparent.

Task Force meetings eventually resulted in a final report, outlining challenges and providing suggestions for pipeline construction. First, the Task Force recommended an increase meaningful public participation and the development of long term maintenance plans to ensure safety. Second, they suggested reducing environmental impact by improving pipeline siting and construction and maximizing efficient permitting. Finally, they recommended enhancing the workforce and economic development from pipeline projects.

The Task Force openly acknowledged problems of the pipeline build-out, stating that “permits are not reviewed for the cumulative and long term impacts at a landscape level…they do not necessarily avoid sensitive lands, habitats, and natural features, nor are the impacts to natural and cultural resources, landowners, and communities…always minimized or mitigated.” Despite this, the administration and the Task Force maintain that pipelines can be built responsibly.

Community Opposition and Criticism

2016: Landowners and supporters protest the Constitution Pipeline in Northeast PA. (Photo: DC Media Group)

2016: Landowners and supporters protest the Constitution Pipeline in Northeast PA. (Photo: DC Media Group)

Challenges to the pipeline build-out exist in many forms. Landowners challenge the bullying, harassment, and eminent domain condemnations of pipeline companies. Communities criticize the acceptance of industry funding and pipelines by local representatives. Additionally, grassroots groups and environmental non-profits challenge the minimal regulation, permitting process, and lack of public participation allowed by the DEP, and the FERC “rubber stamp” permitting process.

Awareness and opposition grow with each proposal, condemnation, rupture, and explosion. This rapid construction is compromising pipeline quality and public safety, according to a report conducted by the Pipeline Safety Trust. They found that pipelines built after 2010 had higher rates of failure than those in decades past. Whistleblowers who worked for Spectra Energy have attested to the neglect of proper inspection in the haste to construct pipelines. Spectra’s Texas Eastern pipeline, completed in 1981, was built in a decade when pipelines failed at one-sixth the rate they do today. However, their preliminary investigation indicates that the explosion in Salem Township was likely the result of corrosion due to a “possible flaw in the coating material applied to the weld joints.”

The FERC is a regular target of criticism. Funded through fees received by the companies and industries it oversees, FERC rarely denies permits for pipelines. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has filed a lawsuit against the FERC challenging the constitutionality of its decision-making.

The DEP’s dedication to protecting Pennsylvania’s environment from the natural gas industry at large is continuously questioned due to its infrastructure permitting, negligent response to water contamination complaints, and unwillingness to hold companies accountable. The DEP’s poor record on drilling regulation continues with regard to the pipeline build-out.

Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force

The Task Force is criticized for its overwhelming industry influence and lack of public inclusion. Of the 48 Infrastructure Task Force members, 56% are tied to the oil and gas industry. Specifically, 92% of the non-governmental members have industry ties. In fact, potential opposition to the build-out was intentionally absent. PA resident and documentary filmmaker Scott Cannon of the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition (GDAC) was invited to the PITF, only to receive a letter rescinding his invitation a few days later. Additionally, concerned residents were allowed 2 minutes to make a statement, a limit strictly enforced by Secretary Quigley. While affected landowners recounted their fight for their livelihoods, the roundtable of apathetic Task Force members stared blankly. These problems resulted in escalating activist presence increasing from comments and protests outside the DEP building, to meeting disruptions and arrests.

Residents and activists weren’t the only ones unhappy with the PIFT. Cindy Ivey, representative for Williams, and Sarah Battisti, with SouthWest Energy, spoke of their frustrations. The fact that interstate pipeline projects are regulated by federal agencies, and state level organizations have a minor role caused tension in the group. According to Ivey, these issues are “hard things to try to explain gracefully.” Additionally, Battisti added that the 184 recommendations in the report wouldn’t “impact any of us in the near future.”

Despite recommendations of the Task Force, the DEP continues to issue permits that neglect cumulative impacts and complete environmental review. Unlike New York, which denied the 401 Water Quality certificate and prevented the construction of Constitution pipeline, the PA DEP granted the 401 certificate to the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline. As a result, it is under appeal by environmental groups, who argue that it violates the Clean Water Act and the Pennsylvania Code.

PA’s Political Climate

Fracking and the Revolving Door in Pennsylvania Regulations

Unfortunately, meaningful updates to oil and gas regulations in Pennsylvania are consistently challenged. Although Act 13 passed in 2012, critical components were appealed repeatedly, specifically the issue of local zoning authority of oil and gas infrastructure. Lawmakers who oppose any restriction on the industry dominate the current legislature. Recently, the House panel voted a second time to block increased DEP oil and gas regulations, in the making since 2011.

Frustrations in the process peaked when John Quigley resigned as secretary of the DEP after sending a profane email chastising environmental groups for their lack of support. Weeks later, Governor Wolf signed a bill that eliminates current regulations, aiming to start new and in agreement with the legislature. As a result, many environmentalists feel that the Governor has consistently compromised on the environment, putting the lives of PA residents at risk.

Political Campaigns

The relationship between the state and the drilling industry is evident and problematic in Pennsylvania. The Marcellus Money project has tracked campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the natural gas industry, revealing over $8 million in political contributions and $46 million for lobbying efforts. In 2013 the Public Accountability Initiative released a report revealing the “revolving door” between state government and the oil and gas industry. The report identifies individuals who have moved from the public sector to industry jobs or vice versa, and how often this occurs over the course of their careers.

NPR StateImpact Pennsylvania created an interactive webpage called, “Blurred Lines” that provides a visual exploration of the “revolving door.” As you scroll through the years, individuals slide back and forth between the private and public sector. Additionally, lawmakers have, for a third time, earmarked fiscal code legislation to fund an industry-supported non-profit Shale Alliance for Energy Research PA, (SAFER PA).

State Agencies

Financial gains from drilling support other aspect of the public sector as well. The DCNR’s annual budget became increasingly reliant upon revenues from gas leases within public lands. In 2013, oil and gas lease royalties and other payments provided one-third of the DCNR’s budget. Act 13 implemented a mandatory impact fee whereby the PUC collects money from companies based on the number of oil and gas wells in the state. This money is directed to local municipalities based on the number of wells within their boundaries. However, while 60% of the fee total goes directly to impacted counties, the remaining 40% can go anywhere in PA. While impact fees totaled over $233 billion dollars in 2014, 2016 is expected to be the lowest amount yet due to the decline in drilling activity. This statistic is one of many that highlights the risk of relying on a fluctuating resource.

Governmental and Industry Responses

US_Marshal_Holleran

2016: Armed U.S. Marshall escort the tree cutting crew for the Constitution pipeline on Megan Holleran’s property (Photo: Alex Lotorto)

Response to community opposition of pipeline projects is often militaristic in nature and exaggerated by the industry and the state. The oil and gas industry views community opposition to infrastructure as an “insurgency.” In 2011, it was revealed that the Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency manual is used as a tactical reference. The Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition was classified as a terrorist threat by the PA Office of Homeland security, who hired the Institute of Terrorism Research and Response to track activists provide weekly information on a bulletin sent to law enforcement and gas companies. In 2012, state law enforcement, the FBI, the PA Office of Homeland Security, and the oil and gas industry established the Marcellus Shale Operators’ Crime Committee (MSOCC). This committee actively targeted activists and environmentalists in their homes.

Landowners who refuse to sign easements face an uphill battle against companies, law enforcement, and the state as they advocate for their rights. Megan Holleran of Susquehanna County lost her family’s maple syrup trees to Williams’ proposed Constitution pipeline. After protesting and challenging in court, the judge upheld eminent domain and prohibited the family from being within 150 feet from the right-of-way. Further, armed U.S. Marshalls escorted and guarded the tree cutting crew against peaceful protest. Additionally, in Huntingdon County, Elise and Ellen Gerhart faced tree clearing of their woods for Sunoco’s Mariner East pipeline. Once again, armed police escorted tree cutting crews and made several arrests of protesters, who faced bails of up to $200,000.

Pipeline Build-Out Map

The map below shows the existing major pipeline infrastructure in Pennsylvania and proposed pipelines, with the option of also viewing the unconventional wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale. For more information on pipeline regulation and public information, please view our Intro to Pipelines resource page. It includes details about current and proposed pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and throughout the country. Additionally, the intro links to a map of all proposed pipeline projects in North America.


View map full screen | How FracTracker maps work

While it is clear that companies go to every length to construct pipelines, it is equally clear that state agencies, courts, and law enforcement support pipeline development. The direction of drilling, pipelines, and politics in the state of Pennsylvania serves the bottom line of the natural gas industry. This is evidenced by the proposed pipeline built-out, state support, and state suppression of public backlash. However, continued challenges to public health and environment will only serve to increase the resilience and strength of community opposition.

FracTracker Alliance

Defining Environmental Justice in Pennsylvania

/by

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

Missing the Mark in Oil & Gas Communities

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

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

PA Environmental Justice Map

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

Click to Enter the Interactive Article

environmental justice map

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

FracTracker Alliance

Colorado Setbacks, One Step Forward?

/by

By Sierra Shamer, Visiting Scholar, FracTracker Alliance

longmont

OurLongmont.org sign supporting the city’s ban on fracking

In 2012, citizens of Longmont, Colorado voted to increase setback distances of oil and gas infrastructure from occupied buildings. As well pads and storage facilities crept closer to homes, schools, and playgrounds, concerns of air, water, and noise pollution steadily grew. These regulations to protect public health and safety in Longmont culminated in an outright ban of hydraulic fracturing / directional drilling within their boundary. This prompted the state regulatory agency, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to sue the town, arguing that only the state has the power to regulate energy development. While the suit was dropped, the ban was overruled in 2014 in the Boulder District Court, determining that the city did not have the authority to prohibit what is permitted throughout the state. The city motioned for a Stay Pending Appeal and it was granted by the court – the ban on fracking in Longmont will stay in effect until the case is settled.

In response to these local challenges of oil and gas expansion, the COGCC passed new setback rules. However, with loopholes, exceptions, and an increasing awareness of public health and safety threats, Coloradans have continued to demand increased and enforced setback distances. This article highlights the issue of setback regulations in Colorado, featuring a map of Weld County that exemplifies the statewide expansion of fracking wells into communities.

Colorado Setbacks Regulation

The COGCC passed new setback rules for oil and gas facilities in February of 2013 with a stated purpose of decreasing the “potential adverse health and safety risks to the public and the environment, including spills, odors, noise, dust, and lighting.” Prior rules permitted drilling within 150 feet of occupied buildings in a rural area and within 350 feet in an urban area. A COGCC report in October 2013 stated that 600 oil and gas locations were located within 500 feet of occupied buildings, 26% of the total. The new regulations increased the minimum setback distance to 500 feet, adding a 350-foot setback from outdoor recreational areas such as playgrounds or sports fields, and a 1,000-foot setback from high occupancy building such as schools or hospitals. It also included 1,000-foot buffer distances from these outdoor areas and buildings within which facilities are permitted but require increased on-site mitigation to prevent air, noise, and water pollution. These rules took effect on August 1, 2013.

Setback Success?

Colorado’s setback rules have been criticized by organizations, activists, landowners, and researchers who argue that the loopholes and exemptions allowed by the COGCC make the rules ineffective, and even if they were enforced, the modest increase in setback distance would not adequately protect citizens from negative impacts. Exceptions to the rules, shown in the table below, are included the regulations and are available for the majority of setback distances identified, allowing oil and gas facilities to continue development in close proximity to communities. The Western Resource Advocates, a conservation organization in Colorado, identifies two commonplace built-in exceptions to the 500-foot minimum setback rule: the “Beware Thy Neighbor” exception, allows surface landowners the ability to allow wells within setback distances, and the “Expansion Exception,” which allows active well pads the ability to expand even if they are within the new setback distances. If exceptions are granted, the facility must include additional mitigation measures to lessen air and noise pollution and safeguard against potential spills due to the proximity of communities.

Exceptions to Setback Rules CO

Source: COGCC

In 2015, the University of Denver and the Sierra Club conducted a review of compliance with these setback regulations, finding that 181 permits approved after the rules were enacted lacked legally required information. These permits will result in 951 wells, 1221 oil and condensate tanks, and 932 separators throughout the state, concentrated in counties like Garfield, La Plata, and Weld that have the most widespread oil and gas development. This review identified that in Weld County, permits for 798 wells, 1140 tanks, and 800 separators lacked critical information the COGCC required.

In February of this year, a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives evaluated the adequacy of setbacks in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Colorado. The researchers concluded that the current s setbacks are insufficient to protect public health and safety, leaving communities vulnerable. Further, they claim while that there is no defined setback that will ensure the safety of a population, all three states should adopt larger setbacks distances and increased mitigation measures.

Continued Demands

Armed with health and safety information, evidence of COGCC lack of enforcement, and the lived experiences of Coloradans, communities and groups are organizing around ballot initiatives. These initiatives would become part of the state constitution, and would to increase setback distances and secure the ability of local governments to determine where development occurs within their boundaries. Unlike the internal rules and regulations determined by the COGCC, these additions to the state constitution would offer no exceptions.

The Western Colorado Congress (WCC) a group that organizes communities around threats to environmental and public health, advocated in 2013 for 1,000-foot setbacks from homes and 1,500-foot setbacks from schools. They continue to push for increased distances and support ballot initiatives that allow local governmental control of oil and gas development. Current ballot initiatives, created by Coloradans Resisting Extreme Energy Development (CREED) demand local government control of oil and gas infrastructure and 2,500-foot setbacks from homes, schools, outdoor recreation areas, and sources of drinking water. This setback distance is based on a Colorado health study, concluding that people living with a half-mile of wells had an increased risk of illness than those further away.

Weld County: A Closer Look

Weld County has experienced dramatic oil and gas development, with increasing infrastructure permitted closer and closer to residents’ homes and communities. Currently, there are over 12,200 directional wells in Weld County and over 35,300 wells in total. The map below uses data accessed from the COGGC on April 7th, 2016 and address points data from Weld County. The address points are located within the center of homes, and while setbacks distances are measured from the center of the well pad to the nearest wall of the building, the address points still demonstrate the proximity and danger of encroaching infrastructure. The map identifies directional wells permitted within the designated setback of 500 feet and the buffer zone of 1,000 feet and pending directional wells within proposed 1,000 and 2,500-foot setbacks. Address points within these setbacks are identified, and if you select the Directional Lines layer, the underground directional well lines become visible.

Map of wells and setbacks in Weld County, CO

View map full screen | How FracTracker maps work

The state, the COGCC, and the industry oppose these initiatives, arguing that it will hinder the economic development of Colorado and threaten state control of regulation. Industry advocates have claimed that a 2,500-foot setback would eliminate 87% of new operations in Weld County. This strong opposition often results in such initiatives being dropped or voted out, a reality that occurred earlier this month when two of three initiatives relating to oil and gas were voted down the state house of representatives.

Currently, 48% of addresses (around 53,700) in Weld County are within 2,500 feet of at least one directional well, and 9% are within 1,000 feet. Since August 2013, 16 directional wells have been permitted within 500 feet of buildings, and 207 have been permitted within 1,000 feet. Regarding new operations in Weld County, of the 379 pending directional wells, 319 of them are within 2,500 feet of homes – around 84% – slightly less than the industry claimed, but close. However, is important to note that many pending wells are planned on existing well pads, constructed prior to the new rules, and can be given exceptions. Additionally, the technology of directional drilling allows greater flexibility. When viewing the directional lines on the map, it is clear that wells can be drilled in any direction from a well pad, suggesting that companies could place surface wells further away from homes and still access the underground resource.

Moving Forward With Setbacks

Demands for protection from oil and gas encroachment are steadily increasing. The group, Coloradans Against Fracking, a large coalition of organizations, has endorsed the 2016 ballot initiatives put forward by CREED. It is clear that the state can accept continuous challenges to oil and gas development, particularly if rules and regulations are neglected at the expense of public health and safety.

Feature image by Western Colorado Congress (WCC).

Florida resolutions against oil drilling
Karen Edelstein

Florida resolutions opposing unconventional oil drilling

/by

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator

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

History

Florida well. Source: www.naplesnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Resolutions Map

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

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

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

Sources