The majority of FracTracker’s posts are generally considered articles. These may include analysis around data, embedded maps, summaries of partner collaborations, highlights of a publication or project, guest posts, etc.
Cover of Dangerous and Close report. Click to view report
FracTracker Alliance has been working with the Frontier Group and Environment America on a nationwide assessment of “fracked” oil and gas wells. The report is titled Dangerous and Close, Fracking Puts the Nation’s Most Vulnerable People at Risk. The assessment analyzed the locations of fracked wells and identified where the fracking has occurred near locations where sensitive populations are commonly located. These sensitive sites include schools and daycare facilities because they house children, hospitals because the sick are not able to fight off pollution as effectively, and nursing homes where the elderly need and deserve clean environments so that they can be healthy, as well. The analysis used data on fracked wells from regulatory agencies and FracFocus in nine states. Maps of these nine states, as well as a full national map are shown below.
No one deserves to suffer the environmental degradation that can accompany oil and gas development – particularly “fracking” – in their neighborhoods. Fracked oil and gas wells are shown to have contaminated drinking water, degrade air quality, and sicken both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Additionally, everybody responds differently to environmental pollutants, and some people are much more sensitive than others. In fact, certain sects of the population are known to be more sensitive in general, and exposure to pollution is much more dangerous for them. These communities and populations need to be protected from the burdens of industries, such as fracking for oil and gas, that have a negative effect on their environment. Commonly identified sensitive groups or “receptors” include children, the immuno-compromised and ill, and the elderly. These groups are the focus of this new research.
National Map
National interactive map of sensitive receptors near fracked wells
On September 9, 2016 a pipeline leak was detected from the Colonial Pipeline by a mine inspector in Shelby County, Alabama. It is estimated to have spilled ~336,000 gallons of gasoline, resulting in the shutdown of a major part of America’s gasoline distribution system. As such, we thought it timely to provide some data and a map on the Colonial Pipeline Project.
Figure 1. Dynamic map of Colonial Pipeline route and related infrastructure
The Colonial Pipeline was built in 1963, with some segments dating back to at least 1954. Colonial carries gasoline and other refined petroleum projects throughout the South and Eastern U.S. – originating at Houston, Texas and terminating at the Port of New York and New Jersey. This ~5,000-mile pipeline travels through 12 states and the Gulf of Mexico at one point. According to available data, prior to the September 2016 incident for which the cause is still not known, roughly 113,382 gallons had been released from the Colonial Pipeline in 125 separate incidents since 2010 (Table 1).
Table 1. Reported Colonial Pipeline incident impacts by state, between 3/24/10 and 7/25/16
State
Incidents (#)
Barrels* Released
Total Cost ($)
AL
10
91.49
2,718,683
GA
11
132.38
1,283,406
LA
23
86.05
1,002,379
MD
6
4.43
27,862
MS
6
27.36
299,738
NC
15
382.76
3,453,298
NJ
7
7.81
255,124
NY
2
27.71
88,426
PA
1
0.88
28,075
SC
9
1639.26
4,779,536
TN
2
90.2
1,326,300
TX
19
74.34
1,398,513
VA
14
134.89
15,153,471
Total**
125
2699.56
31,814,811
*1 Barrel = 42 U.S. Gallons
** The total amount of petroleum products spilled from the Colonial Pipeline in this time frame equates to roughly 113,382 gallons. This figure does not include the September 2016 spill of ~336,000 gallons.
Unfortunately, the Colonial Pipeline has also been the source of South Carolina’s largest pipeline spill. The incident occurred in 1996 near Fork Shoals, South Carolina and spilled nearly 1 million gallons of fuel into the Reedy River. The September 2016 spill has not reached any major waterways or protected ecological areas, to-date.
Additional Details
Owners of the pipeline include Koch Industries, South Korea’s National Pension Service and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Royal Dutch Shell, and Industry Funds Management.
For more details about the Colonial Pipeline, see Table 2.
Table 2. Specifications of the Colonial and/or Intercontinental pipeline
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ColonialPipeline-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-09-26 13:35:032021-04-15 15:04:25A Proper Picture of the Colonial Pipeline’s Past
With the advent of hydraulic fracturing to increase production of oil and gas from tight geologic formations, such as shale, the demand for fracking sand (frac sand, or frack sand) has increased drastically in recent years. What does this process look like, you might ask. To help you understand this subsidiary of the oil and gas industry, we’ve compiled all of our frac sand photos into three albums on the topic.
Frac Sand Mining Photo Album
This album contains all of the photos we have amassed of frac sand mining and transportation operations – both from the ground and the sky.
All of these frac sand photos, and more, can also be found on our Energy Imagery page, organized by topic and also location.
If you have photos or videos that you would like to contribute to this growing collection of publicly available information, just email us at info@fractracker.org, along with where and when the imagery was taken, and by whom.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SandMining-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-09-20 16:33:572021-04-15 15:04:26Frac Sand Photos Available on FracTracker.org
FracTracker has been increasingly looking at oil and gas drilling in Colorado, and we’re finding some interesting and concerning issues to highlight. Firstly, operators in Colorado are not required to report volumes of water use or freshwater sources. Additionally, this analysis looked at how wastewater in Colorado is injected, and found that the majority is injected into Class II disposal wells (85%) while recycling wastewater is not common. Open-air pits for evaporation and percolation of wastewater is still a common practice. Colorado has at least 340 zones granted aquifer exemptions from the Clean Water Act for injecting wastewater into groundwater. The analysis also found that Weld County produces the most oil and gas in the state, while Rio Blanco and Las Animas counties produce more wastewater. And finally, Rio Blanco injects the most wastewater of all Colorado counties. Learn more about groundwater threats in Colorado below:
Introduction
Working directly with communities in Weld County, Colorado the FracTracker Alliance has identified issues concerning oil and gas exploration and production in Colorado that are of particular concern to community stakeholder groups. The issues include air quality degradation, environmental justice concerns for communities most impacted by oil and gas extraction, and leasing of federal mineral estates. Analysis of data for Colorado’s Front Range has identified areas where setback regulations are not followed or are inadequate to provide sufficient protections for individuals and communities and our analysis of floodplains shows where oil and gas operations pose a significant risk to watersheds. In this article we focus on the specific threat to groundwater resources as a result of particular waste disposal methods, namely underground injection and land application in disposal pits and sumps. We also focus on the sources of the immense amount of water necessary for fracking and other extraction processes.
Groundwater Threats
Numerous threats to groundwater are associated with oil and gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing. Research from other regions shows that the majority of groundwater contamination events actually occur from on-site spills and poor management and disposal of wastes. Disposal and storage sites and spill events can allow the liquid and solid wastes to leach and seep into groundwater sources. There have been many groundwater contamination events documented to have occurred in this manner. For example, in 2013, flooding in Colorado inundated a main center of the state’s drilling industry causing over 37,380 gallons of oil to be spilled from ruptured pipelines and damaged storage tanks that were located in flood-prone areas. There are serious concerns that the oil-laced floodwaters have permanently contaminated groundwater, soil, and rivers.
Waste Management
In Colorado, wastes are managed several ways. If the wastewater is not recycled and used again in other production processes such as hydraulic fracturing, drilling fluids disposal must follow one of three rules:
Additionally the wastes can be dried and buried in additional drilling pits, with restrictions for crop land. For oily wastes, those containing crude oil, condensate or other “hydrocarbon-containing exploration and production waste,” there are additional land application restrictions that mostly require prior removal of free oil. These various sites and facilities are mapped below, along with aquifer exemptions and other map layers related to water quality.
Figure 1. Interactive map of groundwater threats in Colorado
In 2015, Colorado injected a total of 649,370,514 barrels of oil and gas wastewater back into the ground. That is 27,273,561,588 gallons, which would fill over 41,000 Olympic sized swimming pools. Injected into the ground in deep formations, this water is forever removed from the water cycle.
Allowable injection fluids include a variety of things you do not want to drink:
Produced Water
Drilling Fluids
Spent Well Treatment or Stimulation Fluids
Pigging (Pipeline Cleaning) Wastes
Rig Wash
Gas Plant Wastes such as:
Amine
Cooling Tower Blowdown
Tank Bottoms
This means that federal exemptions to Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations for oil and gas exploration and production have nothing to do with environmental chemistry and risk, and only consider fluid source.
Why the concern?
Why are we concerned about these wastes? To quote the regulation, “it is possible for an exempt waste and a non-exempt hazardous waste to be chemically very similar” (RCRA). Since oil and gas development is considered part of the United State’s strategic energy policy, the entire industry is exempt from many federal regulations, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which protects underground sources of drinking water (USDW).
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has primacy over the UIC permits and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) administers the environmental protection laws related to air quality, waste discharge to surface water, and commercial disposal facilities. Under the UIC program, operators are legally allowed to inject wastewater containing heavy metals, hydrocarbons, radioactive elements, and other toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into groundwater aquifers.
The State of CO Injection Wells
According to the COGCC production reports for the year 2015, there are 9,591 active injection wells with volumes reported to the regulatory agency. Additionally, there are of course distinctions within the UIC rules for different types of injection wells, although the COGCC does not provide comprehensive data to distinguish between these types.
Injecting into the same geological formation or “zone” as producing wells is typically considered EOR, although some of the injected water will ultimately remain in the ground. Injecting into a producing formation is an immediate qualification for receiving an aquifer exemption.
EOR operations require considerably more energy and resources than conventional wells, and therefore have a higher water carbon footprint. If the wastewater is “recycled” as hydraulic fracturing fluid, the injections are exempt from all UIC regulations regardless. These are two options for the elimination of produced wastewater, although much of it will return to the surface in the future along with other formation waters. When the produced waters reach a certain level of salinity the fluid can no longer be used in enhanced recovery or stimulation, so final disposal of wastewater is typically necessary. These liquid wastes may then go to UIC Class II Disposal Wells.
Class II Injection Wells
The wells injecting into non-producing formations are therefore disposal wells, since they are not “enhancing production.” Of the almost 10,000 active injection wells in Colorado there are OVER 670 class II disposal well facilities; 402 facilities are listed as currently active. These facilities may or may not host multiple wells. By filtering the COGCC production and injection well database by target formation, we find that there are over 1,070 wells injecting into non-producing formations. These disposal wells injected at least 66,193,874 barrels (2,780,142,708 gallons) of wastewater in 2015 alone.
Where is the waste going?
A simple life-cycle assessment of wastewater in Colorado shows that the majority of produced water is injected back underground into class II disposal and EOR wells. The percentage of injected produced waters has been increasing since 2012, and in 2015 85% of the total volume of produced water in 2015 was injected.
If we assume that all the volume injected was produced wastewater, this still leaves 60 million barrels of produced water unaccounted for. Some of this volume may have been recycled and used for hydraulic fracturing, but this is rarely the case. Other options for disposal include commercial oilfield wastewater disposal facilities (COWDF) that use wastewater sumps (pits) for evaporation and percolation, as well as land application, to dilute the solid and liquid wastes by mixing them into soil.
Centralized Exploration and Production Waste Management Facilities
Figure 2. Chevron Wastewater Land Application and Pit “Disposal” Facility. Photo by COGCC
As can be seen in the Figure 2 to the right, land application sites are little more than farms that don’t grow anything, where wastewater is mixed with soil. Groundwater monitoring wells around these sites measure the levels of some contaminants. Inspection reports show that sampling of the wastewater is not usually – if ever – conducted. The only regulatory requirement is that oil is not visibly noticeable as a sheen on the wastewater fluids in impoundments, such as the one in Figure 3 below, operated by Linn Operating Inc., which is covered in an oily sheen.
In most other hydrocarbon producing states, open-air pits or sumps are not allowed for a variety of reasons. At FracTracker, we have covered this issue in other states, as well. In New Mexico, for example, the regulatory agency outlawed the use of pits after finding cased where 369 pits were documented to have contaminated groundwater. California is another state that still uses above ground pits for disposal. At sites in California, plumes of contaminants are being monitored as they spread from the facilities into surrounding regions of groundwater. Additionally, these wastewater pit disposal sites present hazards for birds and wildlife. There have been a number of papers documenting bird deaths in pits, and the risk for migratory bird species is of high concern. Other states like California are struggling with the issue of closing these types of open-air pit facilities. Closing these facilities means that more wastewater will be injected in Class II disposal wells.
Figure 3. Linn energy oily wastewater disposal pit
Production and Injection Volumes
The data published by the COGCC for well production and injection volumes shows some unique trends. An analysis of injection and production well volumes shows Class II Injection is tightly connected to exploration and production activities. This finding is not surprising. Class II injection wells are considered a support operation for the production wells, and therefore should be expected to be similarly related. Wastewater injection wells are needed where oil and gas extraction is occurring, particularly during the exploration and drilling phases.
Looking at the graphs in Figures 4-6 below, it is obvious that injection volumes have been consistently tied to production of wastewater. It is also clear that the trend since 2012 shows that an increasingly larger percentage of wastewater is being injected each year. This trend follows the sharp increase in high volume hydraulic fracturing activity that occurred in 2012. During this boom in exploration and drilling activity, recycling of flowback for additional hydraulic fracturing activities most likely accounts for some of the discrepancy in accounting for the fact that 200% more wastewater was produced than was injected in 2012.
When Figure 4 (below) is compared to the graphs in Figures 5 and 6 (further below) it is also interesting to note that produced water volumes in 2015 are at a 5-year low as of 2015, while production volumes of both natural gas and oil are at a 5-year high. Wastewater volumes are linked to production volumes, but there are many other factors, including geological conditions and types of extraction technologies being used, that have a massive affect on wastewater volumes.
Figure 4. Colorado wastewater volumes by year (barrels)
The graphs in Figures 5 and 6 below show different trends. Gas production in Colorado has remained relatively constant over the last five years with a sharp increase in 2015, while oil production volumes have been continually increasing, with the largest increase of 49% from 2014 to 2015, and 46% the year prior.
Figures 5-6
Colorado’s Front Range, specifically Weld County, is increasing oil production at a fast rate. New multi-well well-pads are being permitted in neighborhoods and urban and suburban communities without consideration for even elementary schools. Weld County currently has 2,169 new wells permitted within the county. The figure is higher than the next 9 counties combined. The other top three counties with the most well permits are 2. Garfield (1,130) and 3. Rio Blanco (189), for perspective. Additionally, 74% of pending permits for new wells are located in Weld County.
How Counties Compare
The top 10 counties for oil production are very similar to the top 10 counties for both produced and injected volumes, although there are some inconsistencies (Table 1). For example, Las Animas County produces the second largest amount of produced wastewater, but is not in the top 10 of oil producing counties. This is because the majority of wells in Las Animas County produce natural gas. Natural gas wells do not typically produce as much wastewater as oil wells. The counties and areas with the most oil and gas production are also the regions with the most injection and surface waste disposal, and therefore surface water and groundwater degradation.
Table 1. Top 10 CO counties for gas production, oil production, wastewater production, and injection volumes in 2015.
Gas Production
Oil Production
Wastewater Production
Injection Volumes
Rank
County
Gas1
County
Oil2
County
Water2
County
Water2
1
Weld
568,919,168
Weld
112,898,400
Rio Blanco
113,132,037
Rio Blanco
138,502,742
2
Garfield
556,855,359
Rio Blanco
4,412,578
Las Animas
45,868,907
Weld
50,360,796
3
La Plata
322,029,940
Gardield
1,744,900
Weld
37,665,571
Garfield
29,022,147
4
Las Animas
78,947,042
Araahoe
1,661,204
Garfield
34,704,673
La Plata
23,211,646
5
Rio Blanco
57,284,876
Lincoln
1,194,435
Washington
25,075,998
Washington
15,105,886
6
Mesa
32,200,936
Cheyenne
1,192,162
La Plata
23,352,861
Las Animas
13,706,555
7
Yuma
25,960,947
Adams
664,530
Cheyenne
9,326,944
Cheyenne
10,309,413
8
Archuleta
13,648,006
Moffat
419,893
Moffat
7,712,323
Logan
5,930,937
9
Moffat
13,610,219
Washington
413,603
Logan
5,606,828
Mesa
5,611,075
10
Gunnison
4,805,541
Jackson
407,537
Morgan
4,197,849
La Plata
4,992,391
1. Units are in MCF = Thousand cubic feet of natural gas;
2. Units are in Barrels
Aquifer Exemptions
Operators are given permission by the U.S. EPA to inject wastewater into groundwater aquifers in certain locations where groundwater formations are particularly degraded or when operators are granted aquifer exemptions. Aquifer exemptions are not regions where the groundwater is not suitable for use as drinking water. Quite the contrary, as any aquifer with groundwaters above a 10,000 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS) threshold are fast-tracked for injection permits. When the TDS is below 10,000 ppm operators can apply for an exemption from SDWA (safe drinking water act) for USDWs (underground sources of drinking water), which otherwise protects these groundwater sources. An exemption can be granted for any of the following three reasons. The formation is:
hydrocarbon producing,
too deep to economically access, or
too “contaminated” to economically treat.
Since the first requirement is enough to satisfy an exemption, most class II wells are located within oil and gas fields. Other considerations include approval of mineral owners’ permissions within ¼ mile of the well. On the map above, you can see the ¼ mile buffers around active injection wells. If you live in Colorado, and suspect you live within the ¼ mile buffer of an injection well, you can input an address into the search field in the top-right corner of the map to fly to that location.
Sources of Water
The economic driver for increasing wastewater recycling is mostly influenced by two factors. First, states with many class II disposal wells, like Colorado, have much lower costs for wastewater disposal than states like Pennsylvania, for example. Additionally, the cost of water in drought-stricken states makes re-use more economically advantageous.
These two factors are not weighted evenly, though. On the Colorado front range, water scarcity should make recycling and reuse of treated wastewater a common practice. The stress of sourcing fresh water has not yet become a finanacial restraint for exploration and production. Water scarcity is an issue, but not enough to motivate operators to recycle. According to an article by Small, Xochitl T (2015) “Geologic factors that impact cost, such as water quality and availability of disposal methods, have a greater impact on decisions to recycle wastewater from hydraulic fracturing than water scarcity.” As long as it is cheaper to permit new injection wells and contaminate potential USDW’s than to treat the wastewater, recycling practices will be largely ignored. Even in Colorado’s arid Front Range where the demand for freshwater frequently outpaces supply, recycling is still not common.
Fresh Water Use
The majority of water used for hydraulic fracturing is freshwater, and much of it is supplied from municipal water systems. There are several proposals for engineering projects in Colorado to redirect flows from rivers to the specific municipalities that are selling water to oil and gas operators. These projects will divert more water from the already stressed watersheds, and permanently remove it from the water cycle.
The Windy Gap Firming Project, for example, plans to dam the Upper Colorado River to divert almost 10 billion gallons to six Front Range cities including Loveland, Longmont, and Greeley. These three cities have sold water to operators for fracking operations. Greeley in particular began selling 1,500 acre-feet (500 million gallons) to operators in 2011 and that has only increased . The same thing is happening in Fort Lupton, Frederick, Firestone, and in other communities. Additionally, the Northern Integrated Supply Project proposes to drain an additional 40,000 acre feet/year (13 billion gallons) out of the Cache la Poudre River northwest of Fort Collins. The Seaman Reservoir Project by the City of Greeley on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River proposes to drain several thousand acre feet of water out of the North Fork and the main stem of the Cache la Poudre. And finally, the Flaming Gorge Pipeline would take up to 250,000 acre feet/year (81 billion gallons) out of the Green and Colorado Rivers systems, among others.
Other Water Sources
Unfortunately, not much more is known about sources and amounts of water for used for fracking or other oil and gas development operations. Such a data gap seems ridiculous considering the strain on freshwater sources in eastern Colorado and the Front Range, but regulators do not require operators to obtain permits or even report the sources of water they use. Legislative efforts to require such reporting were unsuccessful in 2012.
Now that development and fracking operations are continuously moving into urban and residential areas and neighborhoods, sourcing water will be as easy as going to the nearest fire hydrant. Allowing oil and gas operators to use municipal water sources raises concerns of conflicts of interest and governmental corruption considering public water systems are subsidized by local taxpayers, not well sites.
Conclusions
In Colorado, exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas continues to increase at a fast pace, while the increase in oil production is quite staggering. As this trend continues, the waste stream will continue to grow with production. This means more Class II injection wells and other treatment and disposal options will be necessary.
While other states are working to end the practices that have a track record of surface water and groundwater contamination, Colorado is issuing new permits. Colorado has issued 7 permits for CEPWMF’s in 2016 alone, some of them renewals. While there aren’t any eco-friendly methods of dealing with all the wastewater, the use of pits and land application presents high risk for shallow groundwater aquifers. In addition, sacrificing deep groundwater aquifers with aquifer exemptions is not a sustainable solution. These are important considerations beyond the obvious contribution of carbon dioxide and methane to the issue of climate change when considering the many reasons why hydrocarbon fuels need to be eliminated in favor of clean energy alternatives.
By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator & Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement, FracTracker Alliance
Cover photo by COGCC
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chevronwastewaterpit_Coverphoto.jpg400900Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2016-09-20 09:01:182021-04-15 15:04:27Groundwater Threats in Colorado
Over the past half year, FracTracker staffer Karen Edelstein has been working with a New York State middle school teacher, Laurie Van Vleet, to develop a series of interdisciplinary, multimedia story maps addressing energy issues. The project is titled “Energy Decisions: Problem-Based Learning for Enhancing Student Motivation and Critical Thinking in Middle and High School Science.” It uses a combination of interactive maps generated by FracTracker, as well as websites, dynamic graphics, and video clips that challenge students to become both more informed about energy issues and climate change and more critical consumers of science media.
Edelstein and VanVleet have designed energy-related story maps on a range of topics. They are targeted at 6th through 8th grade general science, and also earth science students in the 8th and 10th grades. Story map modules include between 10 and 20 pages in the story map. Each module also includes additional student resources and worksheets for students that help direct their learning routes through the story maps. Topics range from a basic introduction to energy use, fossil fuels, renewable energy options, and climate change.
The modules are keyed to the New York State Intermediate Level Science Standards. VanVleet is partnering with Ithaca College-based Project Look Sharp in the development of materials that support media literacy and critical thinking in the classroom.
Explore each of the energy-related story maps using the links below:
Screenshot from Energy Basics story map – Click to explore the live story map
This unique partnership between FracTracker, Project Look Sharp, and the Ithaca City School District received generous support from IPEI, the Ithaca Public Education Imitative. VanVleet will be piloting the materials this fall at Dewitt and Boynton Middle Schools in Ithaca, NY. After evaluating responses to the materials, they will be promoted throughout the district and beyond.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/StoryMap-Feature.jpg400900Karen Edelsteinhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKaren Edelstein2016-09-12 13:08:302020-03-12 17:11:04Energy-Related Story Maps for Grades 6-10
An Ottawa, IL resident’s letter to U.S. Silica regarding how the firm’s “frac” sand mines adjacent to Starved Rock State Park will alter the local economy.
Starved Rock State Park
As is so often the case, we find that those things we have taken most for granted are usually the things we miss most when they are gone. The list of what our nation has lost to industrial and commercial concerns couldn’t possibly be compiled in a single article. The short-sighted habits of economic progress have often led to long-term loss and ecologic disaster. That is why it took a man like Abraham Lincoln, a man of long-term vision and wisdom, to sign into existence our first national park, preserving for antiquity what surely would have been lost to our American penchant for development and overuse.
With that in mind, I have always found it amazing how the gears of our own local and state governments have continually chosen the economic path of least resistance and allowed the areas surrounding Starved Rock State Park to be ravaged and destroyed for what is, ultimately, minimal gain. I am no expert but I suspect it could be argued that a full 1/3 of LaSalle County’s economic engine is funded by the simple existence of Starved Rock State Park. Beyond the 2 million plus visitors to the park each year, it cannot be forgotten that nearly every municipality in LaSalle County has directly or indirectly benefited from the countless number of businesses that prosper from the magnetism of the park’s tranquil canyons.
As the 4-year battle with Mississippi Sand over development of the Ernat property has proved, there are many rational souls who truly acknowledge the importance of maintaining a healthy and productive park environment. With the recent sale of the Ernat property to U.S. Silica, we are again confronted with the prospect of irrational development of the eastern boundaries of Starved Rock State Park.
Given the gravity of these decisions, I would like to share a letter recently sent on behalf of many of those who have fought so hard and so long for preservation of that same eastern boundary. This letter was sent to Brian Shinn, CEO of U.S. Silica Holdings, INC. (SLCA) in Frederick, Maryland nearly a month ago, and we have yet to receive a response. In sharing this information on FracTracker’s website, I hope this letter will contribute to further discussion among our local representatives over a far more long-term vision of what LaSalle County wishes to be and what qualities, both environmental and economic, that it wishes to maintain and protect:
Letter to US Silica
Dear Mr. Shinn,
I am writing this letter on behalf of dozens of LaSalle County, Illinois residents who have, for the past several years, been intimately involved in the active pursuit of rational use and conservation of our local natural environment. As I am sure you are aware, the debate over use of the Ernat property as a functional sand mining operation has been a long and hard-fought battle. Years of litigation by the Sierra Club and other local environmental groups helped stall it’s development by Mississippi Sand, and have now led to the sale of the Ernat acreage to U.S. Silica. As irrational as the previous proposals were, the sale putting that acreage under your control has not lessened our concerns over the damaging use of that property as it relates to historic Highway 71 and the entire Starved Rock State Park area.
Obviously, sand mining operations have been a long-standing component of LaSalle County economics. Decades of mining under U.S. Silica supervision have not substantially reduced the quality of life for county residents or the natural environment as a whole. However, as can be specified by many local experts, the development and spoilage of the Ernat property will most certainly have longstanding and drastic impacts on both the ecology of Starved Rock State Park and the economic engine that it sustains. Starved Rock State Park attracts over 2 million visitors each year, with an estimated half million visitors using the Hwy. 71 entrance paralleling the Ernat farm as their main gateway into the park. The Ernat property’s river frontage has long been the tranquil eastern entry into the Illinois Canyon area, as well as an active nesting site for countless birds amidst bountiful wetlands and flat, open prairies. The Ernat property’s shared access to Horseshoe Creek has also made it essential to the entire Illinois Canyon ecosystem within the park. In short, any development of this property will most certainly have long-term negative impacts on both the economics and ecology of the Illinois River Basin.
In writing this letter, we are hoping that U.S. Silica, under your guidance, may consider the opportunity to preserve this indispensable parcel of land and examine ways in which U.S. Silica might make this land available as a gift or negotiated property to the state of Illinois. It would certainly be an important addition to the entire Starved Rock State Park area. I have included the signatures of many of our own local coalition. We hope you will consider the long-term impacts that this development would have to one of Illinois premier natural areas. Thank you.
Inspiring Action
I hope those who have signed this letter will be inspired to further action, and those who have not will reconsider their years of inaction. The natural heritage and local economies of our entire Illinois River Basin are depending on it.
Sincerely,
Paul Wheeler
Only when the last tree has died… and the last river been poisoned… and the last fish been caught… will we realize we cannot eat money.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/StarvedRock-McCray-Feature.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2016-08-29 16:47:202020-03-11 16:46:26How Frac Sand Mining is Altering an Economy Dependent on Starved Rock State Park, IL
How annual incomes in the shadow of oil refineries compare to state and regional prosperity
Figure 1. North American Oil Refinery Capacity
Typically, we analyze the potential economic impacts of oil refineries by simply quantifying potential and/or actual capacity on an annual or daily basis. Using this method, we find that the 126 refineries operating in the U.S. produce an average of 100,000-133,645 barrels per day (BPD) of oil – or 258 billion gallons per year.
In all of North America, there are 158 refineries. When you include the 21 and 27 billion gallons per year produced by our neighbors to the south and north, respectively, North American refineries account for 23-24% of the global refining capacity. That is, of course, if you believe the $113 dollar International Energy Agency’s 2016 “Medium-Term Oil Market Report” 4.03 billion gallon annual estimates (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1. Oil Refinery Capacity in the United States and Canada (Barrels Per Day (BPD))
Prince George & Moose Jaw Refining in BC and SK, 12-15K BPD
Pemex’s Ciudad Madero Refinery, 152K BPD
—
High
Exxon Mobil in TX & LA, 502-560K BPD
Valero and Irving Oil Refining in QC & NS, 265-300K BPD
Pemex’s Tula Refinery, 340K BPD
—
Median
100,000 BPD
85,000 BPD
226,500
109,000
Total Capacity
16.8 MBPD
1.8 MBPD
1.4 MBPD
22.1 MBPD
Census Tract Income Disparities
However, we would propose that an alternative measure of a given oil refinery’s impact would be neighborhood prosperity in the census tract(s) where the refinery is located. We believe this figure serves as a proxy for economic justice. As such, we recently used the above refinery location and capacity data in combination with US Census Bureau Cartographic Boundaries (i.e., Census Tracts) and the Census’ American FactFinder clearinghouse to estimate neighborhood prosperity near refineries.
Methods
Our analysis involved merging oil refineries to their respective census tracts in ArcMAP 10.2, along with all census tracts that touch the actual census tract where the refineries are located, and calling that collection the oil refinery’s sphere of influence, for lack of a better term. We then assigned Mean Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2014 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) values for each census tract to the aforementioned refinery tracts – as well as surrounding regional, city, and state tracts – to allow for a comparison of income disparities. We chose to analyze mean income instead of other variables such as educational attainment, unemployment, or poverty percentages because it largely encapsulates these economic indicators.
In today’s world, the enormous gap in the distribution of wealth, income and public benefits is growing ever wider, reflecting a general trend that is morally unfair, politically unwise and economically unsound… excessive income inequality restricts social mobility and leads to social segmentation and eventually social breakdown…In the modern context, those concerned with social justice see the general increase in income inequality as unjust, deplorable and alarming. It is argued that poverty reduction and overall improvements in the standard of living are attainable goals that would bring the world closer to social justice.
Environmental regulatory agencies like to separate air pollution sources into point and non-point sources. Point sources are “single, identifiable” sources, whereas non-point are more ‘diffuse’ resulting in impacts spread out over a larger geographical area. We would equate oil refineries to point sources of socioeconomic and/or environmental injustice. The non-point analysis would be far more difficult to model given the difficulties associated with converting perceived quality of life disturbance(s) associated with infrastructure like compressor stations from the anecdotal to the empirical.
Results
Primarily, residents living in the shadow of 80% of our refineries earn nearly $16,000 less than those in the surrounding region – or, in the case of urban refineries, the surrounding Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Only residents living in census tracts within the shadow of 25 of our 126 oil refineries earn around $10,000 more annually than those in the region.
On average, residents of census tracts that contain oil refineries earn 13-16% less than those in the greater region and/or MSAs (Figure 2). Similarly, in comparing oil refinery census tract incomes to state averages we see a slightly larger 17-21% disparity (Figure 3).
Digging Deeper
Figure 4. United States Oil Refinery Income Disparities (Note: Larger points indicate oil refinery census tracts that earn less than the surrounding region or city.)
Oil refinery income disparities seem to occur not just in one region, but across the U.S. (Figure 4).
The biggest regional/MSA disparities occur in northeastern Denver neighborhoods around the Suncor Refinery complex (103,000 BPD), where the refinery’s census tracts earn roughly $42,000 less than Greater Denver residents1. California, too, has some issues near its Los Angeles’ Valero and Tesoro Refineries and Chevron’s Bay Area Refinery, with a combined daily capacity of nearly 600 BPD. There, two California census associations in the shadow of those refineries earn roughly $38,000 less than Contra Costa and Los Angeles Counties, respectively. In the Lone Star state Marathon’s Texas City, Galveston County refinery resides among census tracts where annual incomes nearly $33,000 less than the Galveston-Houston metroplex. Linden, NJ and St. Paul, MN, residents near Conoco Phillips and Flint Hills Resources refineries aren’t fairing much better, with annual incomes that are roughly $35,000 and nearly $33,000 less than the surrounding regions, respectively.
Click on the images below to explore each of the top disparate areas near oil refineries in the U.S. in more detail. Lighter shades indicate census tracks with a lower mean annual income ($).
Conclusion
Clearly, certain communities throughout the United States have been essentially sacrificed in the name of Energy Independence and overly-course measures of economic productivity such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The presence and/or construction of mid- and downstream oil and gas infrastructure appears to accelerate an already insidious positive feedback loop in low-income neighborhoods throughout the United States. Only a few places like Southeast Chicago and Detroit, however, have even begun to discuss where these disadvantaged communities should live, let alone how to remediate the environmental costs.
Internally Displaced People
There exists a robust history of journalists and academics focusing on Internally Displaced People (IDP) throughout war-torn regions of Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia – to name a few – and most of these 38 million people have “become displaced within their own country as a result of violence.” However, there is a growing body of literature and media coverage associated with current and potential IDP resulting from rising sea levels, drought, chronic wildfire, etc.
The issues associated with oil and gas infrastructure expansion and IDPs are only going to grow in the coming years as the Shale Revolution results in a greater need for pipelines, compressor stations, cracker facilities, etc. We would propose there is the potential for IDP resulting from the rapid, ubiquitous, and intense expansion of the Hydrocarbon Industrial Complex here in the United States.
Mariner East 2 (ME 2) is a $2.5 billion, 350 mile-long pipeline that, if built, would be one of the largest pipeline construction projects in Pennsylvania’s history—carving a fifty-foot wide path through 17 counties. A project of Sunoco Logistics, ME 2 would have the capacity to transport 275,000 barrels a day of propane, ethane, butane, and other hydrocarbons from the shale fields of Western Pennsylvania and neighboring states to an international export terminal in Marcus Hook, located on the Delaware River.
ME 2 has sparked a range of responses from residents in Pennsylvania, however, including concerns about recent pipeline accidents, the ethics of taking land by eminent domain, and the unknown risks to sensitive ecosystems. Below we explore the watersheds that could be impacted by this proposed pipeline.
Watershed Impacts
While some components of Sunoco’s ME 2 proposal are approved, the project requires more permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) before construction can begin. Among those are permits to build through and under stream and wetlands. Many of the waters threatened by ME 2 are designated by the Commonwealth as “exceptional value” (EV) or “high quality” (HQ) and are supposed to be given greater protections from harm. Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permits, also known as “Chapter 105” permits, are required for any building activities that would disrupt any body of water, including wetlands and streams. Sunoco applied for these so-called “Chapter 105” permits in the summer of 2015, but its applications were rejected as incomplete several times.
The below map shows the ME 2 route as of May 2016 relative to the watersheds and streams it will cross. Zoom into the map to see additional layers. Note that this is the most accurate representations of ME 2’s route we have seen to date. MWA provided the shapefiles for ME 2’s route to FracTracker Alliance and continues its investigations into potential watershed impacts.
In total, ME 2’s path will include 1,227 stream crossings, 570 wetland crossings, and 11 pond crossings. Of the 1,227 stream crossings, 19 are EV and 318 are HQ, meaning that 337 crossings will disturb what DEP refers to as “special protection” waters. In addition, there are 129 exceptional value wetlands being crossed. These numbers were compiled by Mountain Watershed Association (MWA) from Sunoco’s permitting applications. MWA also identified 2 HQ streams in Washington County, and 3 HQ streams in Blair County, that are proposed to be crossed that are not acknowledged as being HQ in Sunoco’s permits.
Public Comment Period Open
People living along the proposed route are sometimes in the best position to see what the route looks like from the ground, where wetlands and streams are, and what kinds of wetlands and streams they are. The DEP is accepting public comments on Sunoco’s ME 2 Ch. 105 permit application through Wednesday, August 24. Each DEP regional office receives separate Ch. 105 applications depending on where the pipeline routes through different counties. Those wishing to comment on the project can do so through the DEP regional office websites: DEP Southwest Region, DEP South-central Region, DEP Southeast Region. For guidance on how to write comments on permits, see MWA’s Pipeline Project Information & Talking Points.
Written by Kirk Jalbert, PhD, MFA – Manager of Community-Based Research & Engagement, FracTracker Alliance
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Mariner-East-2-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-08-23 09:55:022020-03-12 17:14:44Mariner East 2 and Watershed Risks
