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.
By Ted Auch, PhD – Great Lakes Program Coordinator
Hydraulic Fracturing “Fracking” at a well-pad outside Barnesville, Ohio operated by Halliburton
The industrial practice of disposing of oil and gas drilling waste into Class II injection wells causes a lot of strife for people on both sides of the fracking debate. This process has exposed many “hidden [geologic] faults” across the US as a result of induced seismicity. It has been linked in recent months and years with increases in earthquake activity in states like Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, and Ohio.
Locally, there is growing evidence in counties – from Ashtabula to Washington – that Ohio Class II injection well volumes and quarterly rates of change are related to upticks in seismic activity (Figs. 1-3). But exactly how much waste are these sites receiving, and where is it coming from? Since it has been a little over a year since last we looked at the injection well landscape here in Ohio, we decided to revisit the issue here.
Figures 1-3. Ohio Class II Injection Well disposal during Q3-2010, Q2-2012, and Q2-2015
The Class II Landscape in Ohio
In Ohio 245+ Class II Salt Water Disposal (SWD) Disposal Wells are permitted to accept unconventional oil and gas waste. Their disposal capacity and number of wells served is by far the most of any state across the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays.
Ohio’s Class II Injection wells have accepted an average of 22,750 barrels per quarter per well (BPQPW) (662,632 gallons) of oil and gas wastewater over the last year. In comparison, our last analysis uncovered a higher quarterly average (29,571 BPQPW) between the initiation of frack waste injection in 2010 and Q2-2015 (Fig. 4). This shift is likely due to the significant decrease in overall drilling activity from 2012 to 2015. Between Q3-2010 and Q1-2016, however, OH’s Class II injection wells saw an exponential increase in injection activity. In total, 109.4 million barrels (3.8-4.6 billion gallons) of waste was disposed in Ohio. From a financial perspective this waste has generated $3.4 million in revenue for the state or 00.014% of the average state budget (Note: 2.5% of ODNR’s annual budget).
The more important point is that even in slow times (i.e., Q2-2015 to the present) the trend continues to migrate from the bottom-left to the top-right, with each of Ohio’s Class II injection wells seeing quarterly demand increases of 972 BPQPW (34,017-40,821 gallons). This means that the total volume coming into our Class II Wells is increasing at a rate of 8.2-9.8 MGs per year, or the equivalent to the water demand of several high volume hydraulically fractured wells.
With respect to the source of this waste, the story isn’t as clear as we had once thought. Slightly more than half the waste came from out-of-state during the first two years for which we have data, but this statistic plummeted to as low as 32% in the last year-to-date (Fig. 5). This change is likely do to the high levels of brine being produced in Ohio as the industry migrates towards the perimeter of the Utica Shale.
Figures 4 and 5
Freshwater Demand and Brine Production
Map of Ohio Utica Brine Production and Class II Injection Well Disposal
Figure 6. Ohio Class II Injection Well disposal as a function of freshwater demand by the shale industry in Ohio between Q3-2010 and Q1-2015
To gain a more comprehensive understanding of what’s going on with Class II wastewater disposal in Ohio, it’s important to look into the relationship between brine and freshwater demand by the hydraulic fracturing industry. The average freshwater demand during the fracking process, accounts for 87% of the trend in brine disposal in Ohio (Fig. 6).
As we mentioned, demand for freshwater is growing to the tune of 405-410,000 gallons PQPW in Ohio, which means brine production is growing by roughly 12,000 gallons PQPW. This says nothing for the 450,000 gallons of freshwater PQPW increase in West Virginia and their likely demand for injection sites that can accommodate their 13,500 gallons PQPW increase.
Conclusion
Essentially, the seismic center of Ohio has migrated eastward in recent years; originally it was focused on Western counties like Shelby, Logan, Auglaize, Darke, and Miami on the Indiana border, but it has recently moved to injection well hotbed counties like Ashtabula, Trumbull, and Washington along the Pennsylvania and West Virginia borders. This growth in “induced seismicity” resulting from the uptick in frack waste disposal puts Ohio in the company of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas. Each of those states have reported ≥4.0 magnitude “man-made” quakes since 2008. Between 1973 and 2008 an average of 21 earthquakes of ≥M3 were reported in the Central/Eastern US. This number jumped to 99 between 2009 and 2013, with 659 of M3+ in 2014 alone according to the USGS and Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory (VTSO). This “hockey stick moment” is exemplified in the below figure from a recent USGS publication (Fig. 7). Figure 8 illustrates the spatial relationship between recent seismic activity and Class II Injection well volumes here in Ohio. The USGS even went so far as to declare the following:
An unprecedented increase in earthquakes in the U.S. mid-continent began in 2009. Many of these earthquakes have been documented as induced by wastewater injection…We find that the entire increase in earthquake rate is associated with fluid injection wells. High-rate injection wells (>300,000 barrels per month) are much more likely to be associated with earthquakes than lower-rate wells.
– From USGS Report High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity
Figures 7 and 8
The sentiment here in Ohio regarding Class II Injection wells is best summed up by Dr. Ray Beiersdorfer, Distinguished Professor of Geology, Youngstown State University and his wife geologist Susie Beiersdorfer who jointly submitted the following quote regarding the North Star (SWIW #10) Class II Injection Well in Mahoning County, which processed 555,030 barrels (21,368,655 gallons) of fracking waste between Q4-2010 and Q4-2011[1].
The operator, D&L, and the ODNR denied the correlation in space and time between the injection of toxic fracking fluids into the well and earthquakes for over eight months in 2011. The well was shut down on December 30 and the largest seismic event, a 4.0 happened at 3:04 p.m. on December 31, 2011. Though the rules say that a “shut-in” well must be plugged after 60 days, this well is still “open” after 1656 days (July 12, 2016). This well must be plugged [and abandoned] to prevent further risks to the health and safety of the Youngstown community… According to Rick Simmers, the only thing holding this up is bankruptcy procedures. It was drilled into a fault, triggered over five hundred earthquakes, including a Magnitude 4.0 that caused damage to homes. [It is likely] that any other use of this well would trigger additional hazardous earthquakes.
Images From Across Ohio
Click on the images below to explore visual documentation and volumes disposed (as of Q1-2016) into Class II Injection wells in Ohio.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ClassIIOhio-Feature.jpg400900Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2016-07-15 14:03:162020-03-12 17:19:05OH Class II Injection Wells – Waste Disposal Trends and Images From Around Ohio
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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.
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.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pipeline-Build-Out-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-06-28 09:29:382020-03-12 17:19:41Infrastructural Challenges: The Direction of Drilling, Pipelines, and Politics in Pennsylvania
Each state has its own definition of what it means for an oil or gas well to be “fracked.” In Pennsylvania, these wells are known as “unconventional,” a definition mostly based on the depth of the target formation:
An unconventional gas well is a well that is drilled into an unconventional formation, which is defined as a geologic shale formation below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic equivalent where natural gas generally cannot be produced except by horizontal or vertical well bores stimulated by hydraulic fracturing.
The count of these unconventional wells in PA stands at 9,760 as of June 14, 2016. Their distribution is widespread across the state, but is particularly focused in the northeast and southwest corners of Pennsylvania.
The industry is not drilling at the same torrid pace as it was between 2010 and 2012, however. The busiest month for drill rigs in the Keystone State was August 2011, with 210 unconventional wells drilled. Last month, there were just 32 such wells.
Figure 1. Unconventional oil and gas permits, wells, and violations in Pennsylvania by quarter. Data source: Pennsylvania DEP
Permits
As Figure 1 captures, the number of permits issued per quarter is always greater than the number of wells drilled during the same time period. Even when drilling activity seems to be entering a bust phase, oil and gas operators continue to plan for future development. Altogether, there are 17,492 permitted locations, meaning there are about 7,700 permitted locations where drilling has not yet commenced.
Violations
The number of violations issued by DEP is generally follows the same trends as permits and wells. It is usually the smallest of the three numbers. In the first quarter of 2016, however, is one of a few instances on the chart above where the number of violations issued outpaced wells drilled. There could be any number of reasons for this anomaly; it could have been due to to unusual compliance issued in the field or aggressive regulatory blitzes. It could also be due to some other factor that can’t be determined by the available published data source.
Interestingly, this phenomenon has not occurred since the first quarter of 2010, when the industry was in full swing.
About VpW
One of the best ways to understand the impact of the industry is to look at violations per well (VpW). Unfortunately, there are a number of important caveats to that discussion. First of all, not all items that appear on the compliance report receive their own Violation ID number. It is clear from the DEP workload report that violations are tallied internally by the number of Violation ID numbers. This is as opposed to the number of items on the compliance report. As of June 14, 2016, there were 6,706 rows of data and 5,755 distinct Violation ID numbers that were issued to 2,080 different oil and gas wells. This discrepancy means that about 21% of unconventional wells are issued violations in Pennsylvania. Those that are cited receive an average of 2.8 to 3.2 violations per well, depending on how you count them.
Table 1. Violations per well (VpW) of the 20 companies with the most unconventional wells in PA.
Determining the violations per well by operator comes with additional caveats. The drilled wells data comes from the spud report, which lists the current operator of each of the wells. The compliance report, however, lists the operator that was in charge of the well at the time of the infraction. This poses a problem for analysis, however. The ownership of the wells is quite fluid when taken in aggregate, as companies fold, are bought out, or change their names to something else.
VpW Results
We calculated VpW figures for the 20 operators with the largest inventory of drilled wells wells in Pennsylvania, found in Table 1. In some instances, we were able to reunite operators with violations that were issued under a different name but are in fact the same company. Specifically, we combined Rex Energy’s violations with RE Gas Dev, CONSOL violations with CNX, and Southwestern with SWN Productions, as the company is now known.
SWN’s violation-per-well score appears to be quite low. Their statistic, however, does not take into account wells that it purchased from Chesapeake in 2014, for example. In this transaction, 435 wells changed hands, with an unknown number of those in Pennsylvania. Any violations on these wells that Chesapeake had would stay with that company even as their well count was reduced. Such a change would thereby artificially inflate Chesapeake’s VpW score. On the other hand, SWN is now in possession of a number of wells which might have been problematic during the early stages of operation. Those violations, alternatively, are not associated with SWN, making their inventory of wells appear to be less problematic.
Data Caveats and Takeaways
Alas, we do not live in a world of perfect data. As such, these results must be taken with a grain of salt. Still, we can see that there are some trends that persist among operators that have been active in Pennsylvania for many years. Chief, Cabon, and EXCO, for example, all average more than one violation per well drilled. Chevron, CNX, and RE Gas Development, on the other hand, have much better rates of compliance, on the order of one violation per every five wells drilled.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PAUpdate-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2016-06-22 10:05:472020-03-12 17:20:08Approaching 10K Unconventional Wells in PA
By Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator
Weld County, Colorado, is one of the top producing shale oil and gas regions in the United States, boasting more than 12,000 active horizontal or directional wells, which account for 50% of all horizontal or directional wells in the state. To put this into perspective, the entire state of Pennsylvania has ten times the land area with “only” 9,663 horizontal or directional wells. At the center of Weld County is the city of Greeley, population 92,889. Greeley has experienced dramatic changes in the past decade as extraction companies compete to acquire oil and gas mineral rights. Extensive housing developments on the outskirts of the city are being built to accommodate future well pads on neighboring lots. Meanwhile, a number of massive well pads are proposed within or on the border of city limits.
FracTracker visited Colorado back in November 2015 and met with regional advocacy organizations including Coloradans Against Fracking, Protect our Loveland, Weld Air and Water, and Our Longmont to determine how we could assist with data analysis, mapping, and digital storytelling. FracTracker returned in June 2016 to explore conditions unique to Weld County’s oil and gas fields. During our visit we interviewed residents of Greeley and found that one of their greatest concerns was the dangers of siting oil and gas wells near schools. While there is much more we will be publishing in coming weeks about our visit, this article focuses on one troubling project that would bring gas drilling to within 1,300ft of a public school. The proposal goes before the Weld County Commissioners on Wednesday, June 29th for final approval. As such, we will be brief in pointing out what is at stake in siting industrial oil and gas facilities near schools in Colorado and why residents of Greeley have cause for concern.
Drilling Bella Romero
On June 7th, the Weld County Planning Commission unanimously approved a proposal from Denver-based Extraction Oil & Gas to develop “Vetting 15H”—a 24-head directional well pad in close proximity to Bella Romero Academy, a middle school just outside Greeley city limits. In addition to the 24-head well pad would be a battery of wastewater tanks, separators, and vapor recovery units on an adjacent lot. The permit submitted to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) also states that six more wells may be drilled on the site in the future.
As was detailed in a recent FracTracker article, Colorado regulations require a minimum setback distance of 500ft from buildings and an additional 350ft from outdoor recreational areas. In more populated areas, or where a well pad would be within 1,000ft of high occupancy buildings, schools, and hospitals, drilling companies must apply for special variances to minimize community impacts. Setbacks are measured from the well head to the nearest wall of the building. For well pads with multiple heads, each well must comply with the respective setback requirements.
Bella Romero’s playground with Vetting 15H’s proposed site just beyond the fence.
Vetting 15H would prove to be one of the larger well pads in the county. And while its well heads remain just beyond the 1,000ft setback requirement from Bella Romero buildings, a significant portion of the school’s ballfields are within 1,000ft of the proposed site. When setbacks for the well pad and the processing facility are taken together—something not explicitly demonstrated in the permit—almost the entirety of school grounds are within 1,000ft and the school itself lies only 1,300ft from the pad. The below figures show the images supplied by Extraction Oil & Gas in their permit as well as a more detailed graphic generated by FracTracker.
Youth: A High Risk Population
The difference between 1,000ft and 1,300ft may be negligible when considering the risks of locating industrial scale oil and gas facilities near populated areas. The COGCC has issued 1,262 regulatory violations to drilling companies since 2010 (Extraction Oil & Gas ranks 51st of 305 operators in the state for number of violations). Some of these violations are for minor infractions such as failing to file proper paperwork. Others are for major incidents; these issues most often occur during the construction phases of drilling, where a number have resulted in explosions and emergency evacuations. Toxic releases of air and water pollution are not uncommon at these sites. In fact, the permit shows drainage and potential spills from the site would flow directly towards Bella Romero school grounds as is shown in the figure below.
Vetting 15H post-development drainage map.
A host of recent research suggests that people in close proximity to oil and gas wells experience disproportionate health impacts. Emissions from diesel engine exhaust contribute to excessive levels of particular matter, and fumes from separators generate high levels of volatile organic compounds. These pollutants decrease lung capacity and increase the likelihood of asthma attacks, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (read more on that issue here). Exposure to oil and gas facilities is also linked to skin rashes and nose bleeds.
As we’ve mentioned in our analysis of oil and gas drilling near schools in California, children are more vulnerable to these pollutants. The same amount of contaminants entering a child’s body, as opposed to an adult body, can be far more toxic due to differences in body size and respiratory rates. A child’s developing endocrine system and neural pathways are also more susceptible to chemical interactions. These risks are increased by children’s lifestyles, as they tend to spend more hours playing outdoors than adults and, when at school, the rest of their day is spent at a central location.
At the June 7th public hearing Extraction Oil & Gas noted that they intend to use pipelines instead of trucks to transport water and gas to and from Vetting 15H to reduce possible exposures. But, as residents of Greeley noted of other projects where similar promises were made and later rescinded, this is dependent on additional approvals for pipelines. Extraction Oil & Gas also said they would use electric drilling techniques rather than diesel engines, but this would not eliminate the need for an estimated 22,000 trucking runs over 520 days of construction.
Below is a table from the Vetting 15H permit that shows daily anticipated truck traffic associated with each phase of drilling. The estimated duration and operational hours of each activity are based on only 12 wells since construction is planned in two phases of 12 wells at a time. These numbers do not account for the trucking of water for completions activities, however. The figures could be much higher if pipelines are not approved, as well as if long-term trucking activities needed to maintain the site are included in the estimates.
Vetting 15H daily vehicle estimates from permit
At the Top of the Most Vulnerable List
Bella Romero Academy has the unfortunate distinction of being one of the few schools in Colorado in close proximity to a horizontal or directional well amongst 1,750 public and 90 private schools in the state. Based on our analysis, there are six public schools within 1,000ft of a horizontal or directional well. At 2,500ft we found 39 public schools and five private schools. Bella Romero is presently at the top of the list of all schools when ranked by number of well heads located within a 1,000ft buffer. An 8-head well pad is only 800ft across the street from its front door. If the Vetting 15H 24-head well pad was to be constructed, Bella Romero would be far and above the most vulnerable school within 1,000ft of a well. It would also rank 3rd in the state for well heads located within 2,500ft of a school. The tables below summarize our findings of this proximity analysis.
Colorado public schools within 1,000ft of a horizontal or directional well
Colorado public schools within 2,500ft of a horizontal or directional well with 5 or more well heads. There are 39 schools in total
Colorado private schools within 2,500ft of a horizontal or directional well
The following interactive map shows which schools in Colorado are within a range of 2,500ft from a directional and horizontal well. Additional buffer rings show 1,000ft and 500ft buffers for comparison. 1,000ft was selected as this is the minimum distance required by Colorado regulations from densely populated areas and schools without requiring special variances. Environmental advocacy groups are presently working to change this number to 2,500ft. The map is zoomed in to show the area around Bella Romero. Zoom out see additional schools and click on features to see more details. [NOTE: The Colorado school dataset lists Bella Romero Academy as an elementary/middle school. Bella Romero was recently split, with the elementary school moving a few blocks west.]
Drilling near Bella Romero is also arguably an environmental justice issue, as its student population has some of the highest minority rates in the county and are amongst the poorest. According to coloradoschoolgrades.com, Bella Romero is 89% Hispanic or Latino and 3% African American whereas, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Greeley as a whole is 59% White and 36% Hispanic or Latino. 92% of Bella Romero’s students are also from low income families. Furthermore, according to the EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening Tool, which is used by the agency to assess high risk populations and environments, the community surrounding Bella Romero is within the 90-95% percentile range nationally for linguistically isolated communities.
Many of Bella Romero’s students come from low-income communities surrounding Greeley.
Implications
These statistics are significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, oil and gas permitting in Colorado only requires operators to notify residents immediately surrounding proposed well pads. This rule does not include residents who may live further from the site but send their students to schools like Bella Romero. Parents who might comment on the project would need to hear about it from local papers or neighbors, but language barriers can prevent this from occurring. Another factor we witnessed in our June visit to Latino communities in Weld County is that many students have undocumented family members who are hesitant to speak out in public, leaving them with no voice to question risks to their children.
Residents of Greeley speak out at the June 7th Planning Commission meeting
Nevertheless, at the June 7th Planning Commission hearing, Weld County administrators insisted that their decisions would not take race and poverty into consideration, which is a blatant disregard for EPA guidelines in siting industrial development in poor minority communities. Weld County’s Planning Commission claimed that their ruling on the site would be the same regardless of the school’s demographics. By comparison, another proposed Extraction Oil & Gas site that would have brought a 22-head well pad to within 1,000ft of homes in a more well off part of town was denied on a 0-6 vote by the City of Greeley’s Planning Commission earlier this year after nearby residents voiced concerns about the potential impacts. Extraction Oil & Gas appealed the ruling and Greeley City Council passed the proposal in a 5-2 vote pending additional urban mitigation area permit approval. While the Greeley Planning Commission and the Weld County Planning Commission are distinct entities, the contrast of these two decisions should emphasize concerns about fair treatment.
Conclusion
There are very real health concerns associated with siting oil and gas wells near schools. When evaluating this project, county administrators should assess not only the immediate impacts of constructing the well pad but also the long-term effects of allowing an industrial facility to operate so close to a sensitive youth population. There are obvious environmental justice issues at stake, as well. Public institutions have a responsibility to protect marginalized communities such as those who send their children to Bella Romero. Finally, approving the Vetting 15H project would place Bella Romero far at the top of the list for schools in Colorado within 1,000ft of oil and gas wells. School board administrators should be concerned about this activity, as it will undoubtedly put their students’ health and academic performance at risk. We hope that, when the County Commissions review the proposal, these concerns will be taken into account.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/BellaRomeroSchool-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-06-21 13:09:522020-03-11 17:05:19Drilling Bella Romero: Children at Risk in Greeley, Colorado
North America consists of a vast network of inter- and intrastate pipelines that serve a vital role in transporting water, hazardous liquids, and raw materials. There is an estimated 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the nation, and it delivers trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of tons of liquid petroleum products each year. Because the pipeline network fuels the nation’s daily functions and livelihoods by delivering resources used for energy purposes, it is crucial to shed light on this transportation system. This article briefly discusses oil and gas pipelines, what they are, why they exist, their potential health and environmental impacts, proposed projects, and who oversees them.
What are pipelines, and what are they used for?
Pipelines in North Dakota. Photo credit: Kathryn Hilton
The pipeline network in the U.S. is a transportation system used to move goods and materials. Pipelines transport a variety of products such as sewage and water. However, the most common products transported are for energy purposes, which include natural gas, biofuels, and liquid petroleum. Pipelines exist throughout the country, and they vary by the goods transported, the size of the pipes, and the material used to make pipes.
While some pipelines are built above ground, the majority of pipelines in the U.S. are buried underground. Because oil and gas pipelines are well concealed from the public, most individuals are unaware of the existence of the vast network of pipelines.
Extent of U.S. Pipeline System
The United States has the most miles of pipelines than any other country, with 1,984,321 km (1,232,999 miles) in natural gas transport and 240,711 km (149,570 miles) in petroleum products. The country with the second most miles of pipelines is Russia with 163,872 km (101,825 miles), and then Canada with 100,000 km (62,137 miles).
Types of Oil and Gas Pipelines
There are two main categories of pipelines used to transport energy products: petroleum pipelines and natural gas pipelines.
Petroleum pipelines transport crude oil or natural gas liquids, and there are three main types of petroleum pipelines involved in this process: gathering systems, crude oil pipeline systems, and refined products pipelines systems. The gathering pipeline systems gather the crude oil or natural gas liquid from the production wells. It is then transported with the crude oil pipeline system to a refinery. Once the petroleum is refined into products such as gasoline or kerosene, it is transported via the refined products pipeline systems to storage or distribution stations.
Natural gas pipelines transport natural gas from stationary facilities such as gas wells or import/export facilities, and deliver to a variety of locations, such as homes or directly to other export facilities. This process also involves three different types of pipelines: gathering systems, transmission systems, and distribution systems. Similar to the petroleum gathering systems, the natural gas gathering pipeline system gathers the raw material from production wells. It is then transported with large lines of transmission pipelines that move natural gas from facilities to ports, refiners, and cities across the country. Lastly, the distribution systems consist of a network that distributes the product to homes and businesses. The two types of distribution systems are the main distribution line, which are larger lines that move products close to cities, and the service distribution lines, which are smaller lines that connect main lines into homes and businesses.
Right-of-Way (ROW)
Before pursuing plans to build new pipelines, a ROW needs to be secured from private and public landowners, which pipeline companies usually will pay for. ROW are easements that must be agreed and signed upon by both the landowner and pipeline company, and permits pipeline operators to go forth with installing and maintaining pipelines on that land. Pipeline operators can obtain ROW by purchasing the property or through a court-ordered procedure. ROW can be permanent or temporary acquisitions, and needs approval from FERC.
Regulatory Oversight
Depending on the type of pipeline, what it is transferring, what it is made of, and where it runs, there are various federal or state agencies that have jurisdiction over its regulatory affairs.
A. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Interstate pipelines, those that either physically cross state boundaries or carry product that will cross state boundaries, are all permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC is an independent organization within the U.S. Department of Energy that permits interstate electricity and natural gas infrastructure. The FERC’s authority lies within various acts of energy legislation, beginning with the Natural Gas Act of 1938 to the more recent Energy Policy Act of 2005. The U.S. President appoints its four commissioners. Other agencies such as the Dept. of Transportation, regional authorities such as the River Basin Commissions, and the Army Corps of Engineers may also be involved. FERC approves the location, construction, operation, and abandonment of interstate pipelines. They do not have jurisdiction over the siting of intrastate natural gas pipelines nor hazardous liquids.
B. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA)
Under the U.S. Department of Transportation, the PHMSA oversees, develops, and enforces regulations to ensure the safe and environmentally sound pipeline transportation system. There are two offices within the PHMSA that fulfill these goals. The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety develops regulations and standards for classifying, handling, and packaging hazardous materials. The Office of Pipeline Safety develops regulations and risk management approaches to assure safe pipeline transportation, and ensures safety in the design, construction, operation and maintenance, and spill response of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipeline transportation. Below are some regulations enforced by PHMSA:
1. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 or Pipeline Safety Act 2011
This act reauthorizes PHMSA to continue with the examination and improvement of the pipeline safety regulations. It allows PHMSA to:
Provide the regulatory certainty necessary for pipeline owners and operators to plan infrastructure investments and create jobs
Improve pipeline transportation by strengthening enforcement of current laws and improving existing laws where necessary
Ensure a balanced regulatory approach to improving safety that applies cost-benefit principles
Protect and preserve Congressional authority by ensuring certain key rule-makings are not finalized until Congress has an opportunity to act
2. Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations: Public Awareness Programs
Enforced by PHMSA, the Public Awareness Program mandates that pipeline companies and operators to develop and implement public awareness programs that follow guidance provided by the American Petroleum Institute.
Under this regulation, pipeline operators must provide the public with information on how to recognize, respond, and report to pipeline emergencies.
3. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968
This act authorizes the Department of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation of flammable, toxic, or corrosive natural gas, or other gases, as well as transportation and storage of liquefied natural gas.
The PHMSA also designed an interactive national pipeline mapping system for the public to access and utilize. However, the map can only be viewed one county at a time, it does not include distribution or gathering lines, and when you zoom in too far, the pipelines disappear. In fact, the site warns that the map should not be used to determine accurate locations of pipelines, stating that the locations can be incorrect by up to 500 ft. PHMSA argues that these restrictions exist in the interest of national security.
C. United States Army Corps of Engineers
Permits must be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if a pipeline is to be constructed through navigable bodies of water, including wetlands. State environmental regulatory agencies, such as PA’s Department of Environmental Protection, are also involved in the approval process of pipeline construction through waterways and wetlands.
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Although pipeline transportation of natural gas and petroleum is considered safer and cheaper than ground transportation, pipeline failures, failing infrastructure, human error, and natural disasters can result in major pipeline disasters. As such, previous incidents have been shown to cause detrimental effects to the environment and the public’s safety.
A. Land Use and Forest Fragmentation
Construction staging area and the right-of-way of Columbia’s 26″ Pipeline. Photo credit: Sierra Shamer
In order to bury pipelines underground, an extensive amount of forest and land is cleared out to meet the pipe’s size capacity. States, such as Pennsylvania, that consist of rich ecosystem due to their abundance of forests, are at critical risk of diminishing habitats for plant species, and are at risk of the eradication of certain animal species. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) aimed to quantify the amount of land disturbance in Bradford and Washington counties in PA as a result of oil and gas activity including pipeline implementation. The USGS report concluded that pipeline construction was one of the highest sources of increasing forest patch numbers. Bradford County, PA had an increase of 306 patches, in which 235 were attributable to pipeline construction. Washington County increased by 1,000 patches, in which half was attributable to pipeline construction.
B. Compressor Stations
Compressor stations play an important role in processing and transporting the materials that pass through the pipeline. However, compressor stations present significant environmental health hazards. Even when the process of drilling and fracking is completed, compressor stations remain in the area to keep the gas in pipelines continually flowing. The stationary nature of this air pollution source means that a combination of pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), formaldehyde, and greenhouse gases are continually being released into the atmosphere. These pollutants are known to produce deleterious health impacts to the respiratory system, nervous system, or lung damage. In addition to pollutants emitted, the noise level generated by compressor stations can reach up to 100 decibels. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports hearing loss can occur by listening to sounds at or above 85 decibels over an extended period of time.
C. Erosion and Sedimentation
Heavy rainfall or storms can lead to excessive soil disruption, in turn increasing opportunities for erosion and sedimentation to occur. Erosion can uncover pipelines buried underground, and rainfall of more than 5 inches (13 cm) can move or erode berms, and also disrupt mounds of soil used to protect against flooding. Soil erosion increases underground pipelines’ vulnerability to damage from scouring or washouts, and damage from debris, vehicles, or boats.
D. Eminent Domain
Eminent domain allows state or federal government bodies to exercise their power to take private property from residents or citizens for public use and development. In some cases, private companies have exercised power to seize land for their own profit. Owners of the property are then given a compensation in exchange for their land. However, landowners may end up spending more than they receive. In order to receive compensation, owners must hire their own appraiser and lawyer, and they are also not usually compensated for the full value of the land. Furthermore, property values decrease once pipelines are established on their land, making it more difficult to sell their home in the future.
E. Spills and Leaks
Poorly maintained and faulty pipelines that transport liquefied natural gas or crude oil may pose high health and environmental risks should the fluids spill or leak into the soil. Crude oil can contain more than 1,000 chemicals that are known carcinogen to humans, such as benzene. The release of the potentially toxic chemical or oil can infiltrate into the soil, exposing communities to fumes in the atmosphere as well as contaminating groundwater and surface water. Not only are the incidents costly to control and clean up, the chemical or oil spills can also have long lasting impacts to the environment and the public. A ruptured pipeline that leaked 33,000 gallons of crude oil in Salt Lake City, Utah in 2010 exposed residents in a nearby community to chemical fumes, causing them to experience drowsiness and lethargy. After being commissioned in 2010, the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline had reported 35 leaks and spills in its first year alone. In April 2016, the Keystone pipeline leaked 17,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota. Older pipelines are more likely to leak than newer ones, so this issue will only increase as pipeline infrastructure ages.
Natural gas pipelines have also been shown to leak methane, a major component in natural gas, at levels that far exceed what is estimated. Not only does methane contribute to climate change, it puts surrounding communities at risk of gas explosions, and exposes them to dangerously high levels of methane in the air they breathe.
F. Explosions
Pipeline warning sign in Texas. Photo credit: Ecologic Institute US
Explosions are also common with faulty pipelines that leak natural gas. Unlike oil or liquid spills, which generally spread and infiltrate into the soil, gas leaks can explode due to the hydrocarbon’s volatility. A recent pipeline explosion in Westmoreland County, PA, for example, caused a man to incur severe burns, as well as caused dozens of homes to be evacuated. Another pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California resulted in 8 people dead, 6 missing, and 58 injured. Thirty-eight homes were also destroyed and 70 others were damaged. This explosion exposed the haphazard system of record keeping for the tens of thousands of miles of gas pipelines, shoddy construction, and inspection practices.
Upcoming Proposed Projects
An estimated 4,600 miles of new interstate pipelines will be completed by 2018. Below are just a few major projects that are currently being proposed or are in the process of obtaining a permit.
This pipeline will include 194 miles throughout the state of Pennsylvania. It will be constructed to cut through portions of 10 different PA counties, including Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Clinton, and Lycoming. This project will require a 125-foot ROW, and will traverse through 52 areas designed as “protected land” in Pennsylvania. This proposed project is still in review by FERC – a decision is expected late 2016 or early 2017.
Spectra Energy (Houston), DTE Energy (Detroit), and Enbridge Inc. (Canada) are partnering to build a $2 billion gas line that would travel from eastern Ohio to Michigan to Ontario. Already applied with FERC and will start construction early 2017. It proposed a 255-mile pipeline and will be 36-inch wide line.
This pipeline will expand the existing pipeline’s capacity from 70,000 barrels a day to 345,000. It has plans to deliver propane, butane, ethane, and other natural gas liquids across state to Delaware, Berks, and Lebanon counties in PA. Currently, the construction is delayed due to push back and permits acquisition.
This project was intended to expand an existing pipeline by 420 miles from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania and passing through New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Recently in April 2016, Kinder Morgan decided to suspend further development of this proposed pipeline.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline had initial plans to establish 550 miles of pipeline from West Virginia to North Carolina, and to cut through dozens of Chesapeake headwater streams, two national forests, and across Appalachian Trail. Their permit to construct this pipeline was denied by the US Forest Service on January 2016; thus, delaying the project at the moment.
With approval by FERC, Spectra Energy has begun 37 miles of pipeline construction through New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. The pipeline location is particularly worrisome because it is critically close to the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Ruptures or leaks from the pipeline can threaten the public’s safety, and even result in a power plant meltdown. Spectra Energy has also submitted two additional proposals: the Atlantic Bridge and Access Northeast. Both projects will expand the Algonquin pipeline to reach New England, and both are still in the approval process with FERC.
The Constitution pipeline had initially planned to include 124 miles from Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, New York, and was denied by NY State in April 2016.
Preview of North America proposed pipelines map. Click to view fullscreen.
Further Questions
Please email us at info@fractracker.org if there are any unanswered questions you would like us to answer or include.
Update: this article was edited on June 21, 2016 due to reader feedback and suggestions.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pipeline-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-06-14 16:01:022020-03-12 13:32:32An Introduction to Oil and Gas Pipelines
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.
CA Crude by Rail, from the Bakken Shale and Canada’s Tar Sands to California Refineries By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator & Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement
Refineries in California plan to increase capacity and refine more Bakken Shale crude oil and Canadian tar sands bitumen. However, CA’s refinery communities that already bear a disparate amount of the burden (the refinery corridor along the north shore of the East Bay) will be more impacted than they were previously. New crude-by-rail terminals will put additional Californians at risk of accidents such as spills, derailments, and explosions. Additionally, air quality in refinery communities will be further degraded as refineries change to lower quality sources of crude oil. Below we discuss where the raw crude oil originates, why people are concerned about crude-by-rail projects, and what CA communities are doing to protect themselves. We also discuss our GIS analysis, showing the number of Californians living within the half-mile blast zones of the rail lines that currently are or will be supported by the new and existing crude by rail terminal projects.
Sources of Raw Crude Oil
Figure 1. Sources of crude oil feedstock refined in California over time (CA Energy Commission, 2015)
California’s once plentiful oil reserves of locally extracted crude are dwindling and nearing depletion. Since 1985, crude extraction in CA has dropped by half. Production from Alaska has dropped even more, from 2 million B/D (barrels per day) to around 500,000 B/D. The 1.9 million B/D refining capacity in CA is looking for new sources of fuels. Refineries continue to supplement crude feedstock with oil from other sources, and the majority has been coming from overseas, specifically Iraq and Saudi Arabia. This trend is shown in figure 1.
Predictions project that sources of raw crude oil are shifting to the energy intensive Bakken formation and Canadian Tar Sands. The Borealis Centre estimates an 800% increase of tar sands oil in CA refineries over the next 25 years (NRDC, 2015). The increase in raw material from these isolated locations means new routes are necessary to transport the crude to refineries. New pipelines and crude-by-rail facilities would be necessary, specifically in locations where there are not marine terminals such as the Central Valley and Central Coast of CA. The cheapest way for operators in the Canadian Tar Sands and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale to get their raw crude to CA’s refinery markets is by railroad (30% less than shipping by marine routes from ports in Oregon and Washington), but this process also presents several issues.
CA Crude by Rail
More than 1 million children — 250,000 in the East Bay — attend school within one mile of a current or proposed oil train line (CBD, 2015). Using this “oil train blast zone” map developed by ForestEthics (now called Stand) you can explore the various areas at risk in the US if there was an oil train explosion along a rail line. Unfortunately, there are environmental injustices that exist for communities living along the rail lines that would be transporting the crude according to another ForestEthics report.
The specific focus of the map in Figure 2 is the five proposed and eight existing crude-by-rail terminals that allow oil rail cars to unload at the refineries. The eight existing rail terminals have a combined capacity of 496,000 barrels. Combined, the 15 terminals would increase CA’s crude imports to over 1 million B/D by rail. The currently active terminals are shown with red markers. Proposed terminals are shown with orange markers, and inactive terminals with yellow markers. Much of the data on terminals was taken from the Oil Change International Crude by Rail Map, which covers the entire U.S.
The same type of facility is currently operating in the East Bay’s refinery corridor in Richmond, CA. The Kinder Morgan Richmond terminal was repurposed from handling ethanol to crude oil, but with no public notice. The terminal began operating without conducting an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or public review of the permit. Unfortunately, this anti-transparent process was similar to a tactic used by another facility in Kern County. The relatively new (November 2014) terminal in Taft, CA operated by Plains All American Pipeline LLC also did not conduct an EIR, and the permit is being challenged on the grounds of not following the CA Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
EIRs are an important component of the permitting process for any hydrocarbon-related facility. In April 2015 in Pittsburg, for example, a proposed 50,000 B/D terminal at the WesPac Midstream LLC’s railyard was abandoned due to community resistance and criticism over the EIR from the State Attorney General, along with the larger proposal of a 192,000 B/D marine terminal.
Crude-by-rail terminals bring with them not only the threat of derailments and the risk of other such accidents, but the terminals are also a source of air emissions. Terminals – both rail and marine – are major sources of PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). The Sacramento Valley Railroad (SAV) Patriot rail oil terminal at a business park on the former McClellan Air Force Base property actually had its operating permit withdrawn by Sacramento air quality regulators due to this issue (read more). The terminal was unloading and reloading oil tanker cars.
FracTracker’s recent report, Emissions in the Refinery Corridor, shows that the refineries in this region are the major point source for emissions of both cancer and non-cancer risk drivers in the region. These air pollution sources get worse, however. According to the report by NRDC, changing the source of crude feedstock to increased amounts of Canadian Tar Sands oil and Bakken Shale oil would:
… increase the levels of highly toxic fugitive emissions; heavy emissions of particulate, metals, and benzene; result in a higher risk of refinery accidents; and the accumulation of petroleum coke* (a coal-like, dusty byproduct of heavy oil refining linked to severe respiratory impacts). This possibility would exacerbate the harmful health effects faced by the thousands of low-income families that currently live around the edges of California’s refineries. These effects are likely to include harmful impacts to eyes, skin, and the nervous and respiratory systems. Read NRDC Report
The contribution to climate change from accessing the tar sands also needs to be considered. Extracting tar sands is estimated to release on average 17% average more green-house gas (GHG) emissions than conventional oil extraction operations in the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of State. (Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change on a global scale.) The refining process, too, has a larger environmental / public health footprint; refining the tar sands to produce gasoline or diesel generates an average of 81% more GHGs (U.S. Dept of State. Appendix W. 2015). In total this results in a much larger climate impact (NRDC, NextGen Climate, Forest Ethics. 2015).
Local Fights
People opposed to CA crude by rail have been fighting the railway terminal proposals on several fronts. In Benicia, Valero’s proposal for a rail terminal was denied by the city’s Planning Commission, and the project’s environmental impact report was denied, as well. The city of Benicia, however, hired lawyers to ensure that the railway projects are built. The legality of railway development is protected regardless of the impacts of what the rails may be used to ship. This legal principle is referred to as “preemption,” which means the federal permitting prevents state or local actions from trying to limit or block development. In this case, community and environmental advocacy groups such as Communities for a Better Environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Stanford-Mills Law Project all agree the “preemption” doctrine doesn’t apply here. They believe preemption does not disallow the city or other local governments from blocking land use permits for the refinery expansion and crude terminals that unload the train cars at the refinery. The Planning Commission’s decision is being appealed by Valero, and another meeting is scheduled for September, 2016.
The fight for local communities along the rail-lines is more complicated when the refinery is far way, under the jurisdiction of other municipalities. Such is the case for the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery, located on California State Highway 1 on the Nipomo Mesa. The Santa Maria refinery is requesting land use permits to extend track to the Union Pacific Railway that transits CA’s central coast. The extension is necessary to bring the rail cars to the proposed rail terminal. This project would not just increase traffic within San Luis Obispo, but for the entirety of the rail line, which passes directly through the East Bay. The project would mean an 80-car train carrying 2 million gallons of Bakken Crude would travel through the East Bay from Richmond through Berekely and Emeryville to Jack London Square and then south through Oakland and the South Bay. This would occur 3 to 5 times per week. In San Luis Obispo county 88,377 people live within the half-mile blast zone of the railroad tracks.
In January, the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department proposed to deny Phillips 66 the permits necessary for the rail spur and terminals. This decision was not easy, as Phillips 66, a corporation ranked Number 7 on the Fortune 500 list, has fought the decision. The discussion remained open with many days of meetings, but the majority of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission spoke in favor of the proposal at a meeting Monday, May 16. There is overwhelming opposition to the rail spur project coming from 250 miles away in Berkeley, CA. In 2014, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted to oppose all transport of crude oil through the East Bay. Without the rail spur approval, Phillips 66 declared the Santa Maria refinery would otherwise transport oil from Kern County via 100 trucks per day. Learn more about this project.
GIS Analysis
GIS techniques were used to estimate the number of Californians living in the half mile “at risk” blast zone in the communities hosting the crude-by-rail lines. First, we estimated the total population of Californians living a half mile from the BNSF and UP rail lines that could potentially transport crude trains. Next, we limited our study area to just the East Bay refinery corridor, which included Contra Costa and the city of Benicia in Solano County. Then, we estimated the number of Californians that would be living near rail lines if the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery crude by rail project is approved and becomes operational. The results are shown below:
Population living within a half mile of rail lines throughout all of California: 6,900,000
Population living within a half mile of rail lines in CA’s East Bay refinery communities: 198,000
Population living within a half mile of rail lines along the UP lines connecting Richmond, CA to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery: 930,000
By Brook Lenker, Executive Director, FracTracker Alliance
Frac sand mining is a growing threat to the agricultural landscapes of the upper Midwest and a health risk to those who live near the mines. With a general slowdown in the oil and gas industry, sand mining may seem a lessening concern in the universe of extraction impacts, but a recent visit to Wisconsin during Earth Week suggested otherwise.
Frac Sand Mining Presentations
Dr. Auch presenting in Wisconsin on frac sand mining issues
I joined my colleague, Dr. Ted Auch, on an informative cross-state tour that started in Milwaukee. We were presenters at the Great Lakes Water Conservation Conference where representatives from breweries around the region and across the country came together to discuss their most precious commodity: clean and abundant water. Extraction affects both the quantity and quality of water – and our insights opened many eyes. Businesses like microbreweries with a focus on sustainability and a strong environmental ethic recognize the urgency and benefit of the renewable energy transformation.
From Milwaukee, we headed west to Madison and the University of Wisconsin where Caitlin Williamson of the Wisconsin Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology organized the first of two forums entitled “Sifting the Future: The Ecological, Agricultural, and Health Effects of Frac Sand Mining in Wisconsin.” We were joined by Kimberlee Wright of Midwest Environmental Advocates to address an engaged audience of 35 people from the campus and greater community. Thanks to Wisconsin Eye, a public affairs network, the entire program was videotaped.
Brook Lenker presenting at Sifting the Future event in Wisconsin
A long drive to Eau Claire revealed rolling farmland, wooded hills, and prodigious wetlands home to waterfowl and the largest cranberry industry in the nation. At the Plaza Hotel, we met Cheryl Miller of the Save the Hills Alliance, the grantor enabling us to study the regional footprint of sand mining, and Pat Popple, advocate extraordinaire and our host for the second “Sifting the Future” event. The good folks at Public Lab were also in town to facilitate citizen monitoring of silica dust from the mining process, including a free workshop and training that weekend.
The evening program attracted 50 people from as far away as Iowa and Minnesota. Their interest in and knowledge of sand mining issues was impressive, and many were heavily involved in fighting local mines. Dr. Crispin Pierce spoke of his research about airborne particulates around frac sand operations, complementing both FracTracker presentations – mine emphasizing the broad array of environmental and public health perils related to oil and gas extraction and Ted’s examining the scale and scope of sand mining, demand for proppant, and the toll of the industry on agricultural productivity, forests and the carbon cycle.
Mining Photos
During the five day trip, sand mines were visited and documented, their incongruent and expanding presence marring the countryside. Some of them can be seen in this photo gallery:
On Earth Day, while driving east to return to Milwaukee, Sandhill cranes, a timeless symbol of the Wisconsin wild, poked the rich prairie soils searching for food. Joined by Autumn Sabo, a botanist and researcher who assisted our Wisconsin work, we detoured to the nearby Aldo Leopold Center visiting the simple shack that inspired Mr. Leopold to write Sand County Almanac. Considering the reason for my travel, the irony was thick. Ecological consciousness has come a long way, but more evangelism is sorely needed.
Aldo Leopold Center, Wisconsin
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WITour-Feature.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2016-05-05 15:36:252020-03-11 17:07:10Earth Week in Wisconsin
Emissions from Refineries and other Sources By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator & Kirk Jalbert, Manager of Community Based Research & Engagement
Key Takeaways
Refineries and petrochemical industry in the Bay Area’s refinery corridor are responsible for the majority of the risk-driving point source emissions in this region.
The Chevron Richmond refinery has the largest refining capacity and emits the most hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
The Tesoro refinery in Martinez and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most HAPs per barrel of oil (based on refining capacity).
The Valero refinery in Benicia, the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most criteria air pollutants (CAPs).
If refineries increase their capacity and process more crude, the emissions of these various pollutants will invariably increase.
New emissions rules need to prioritize ambient air quality and hold the Air District and elected officials accountable for policies that increase risk.
Overview of the Bay Area’s Refinery Corridor
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is revising the rules for facilities that emit a variety of hazardous pollutants into the air. The current draft of the new rules could actually increase the amount polluters are allowed to emit. The communities at risk are speaking out to support policies that would reduce the amount of air pollutants rather than increase the limits. In support of these communities, the FracTracker Alliance has focused on analyzing the sources of air pollutants in the region. The East Bay Oil Refinery Corridor is located along the North Shore of the East Bay, stretching from Richmond, CA east to Antioch, CA. The region has been named a “sacrifice zone” for the heavy concentration of petrochemical industrial sites. In addition to the five refineries along the north coast, these communities host a variety of other heavy industries and waste sites. The locations of these facilities have been mapped previously by the FracTracker Alliance, here. In the report we found that people of color, specifically African Americans, are disproportionately represented in the community demographics. Novel results indicate that Hispanic students may be disproportionately impacted by the presence of the petrochemical industry. In this post, we continue the analysis of risk in the region by providing an analysis of the contributions to air pollution from these facilities.
Regulations
Refineries and other sources of air pollution are regulated by the U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA regulates two classes of pollutants:
Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) – including sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter; and
Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which includes a list of 594 carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals that pose a risk to those exposed.
In addition, California regulates green-house-gas (GHG) emissions, and refineries are the second largest industrial source of GHGs. These regulations get applied when facilities need to obtain a permit for a new source of air pollution, or if a facility is making a structural change that could significantly affect emissions. Facilities are required to use “Maximum Available Control Technology” as it relates to industry best practices to control emissions. With these existing engineering controls, refinery emissions are released into the air from the multiple sources/processes shown below in Figure 1. Notice that a large amount of emissions are simply from “Leaks.”
Figure 1. Breakdown of emissions from petroleum refineries (US EPA, 2011)
The new rules drafted by the BAAQMD to regulate emissions from the East Bay Oil Refinery Corridor would not cap emissions at any level. The current proposal outlines limits on emissions per barrel, promoting efficiency rather than focusing on emissions reductions. Air quality in the refinery corridor could be improved only if this approach was proposed in conjunction with emission limits or reductions. But as the currently proposed rules stand, emissions could actually increase. Enforcement procedures for infractions are also limited. If a refinery’s emissions violate the per barrel standards, the refinery has a whole 3 years to address the violation. Also, these new rules come at a time when refineries are moving to increase the volume of crude coming in from other regions, such as Canada’s tar sands and the Bakken Shale. These regions produce much lower “quality” crude oil, with much higher emissions. This all amounts to more air pollution rather than less.
Community and environmental activist groups such as the Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition have raised specific issues with the proposed rules as they stand. First, they allow for increase emissions when Air District data forecasts increasing refinery emissions, despite declining local and domestic fuels demand. Refining the lower quality crude is more energy intensive, which also results in increased emissions. In order to offset the increased emissions, CBE reports that refineries can just increase total refining production to decrease per barrel averages. This would in affect increase emissions to meet regulatory requirements. In addition, transporting the crude via new shipping routes would put additional communities at elevated risk of railway accidents (CBE, 2015).
Ambient Air Quality
Air quality in the Bay Area has been continuously improving over the last few decades, but these refinery communities are still at a significantly higher risk of dying from heart disease and strokes. The largest disparity is felt by the African-American populations. Data for Richmond, CA shows they are 1.5 times more likely to die from these diseases than the Contra Costa county average (Casanova, Diemoz, Lifshay, McKetney, 2010). Emissions reductions not only favor the local communities such as the refinery corridor that are most impacted, but also all of the downwind communities, specifically the Central Valley. The Air District’s 2012 report of PM provides a summary of these trends. PM is an important because it is “the air pollutant that causes by far the greatest harm to public health in the bay area. It is a useful indices because there is a linear correlation between increasing ambient concentrations and mortality. Figure 2 shows the progress the Bay Area has made, overall. This graph is based on regional monitors and not those in the refinery communities, where improvements have not been as drastic. In Figure 3 below, the graph shows major pollutant drivers of seven health risks and how health impacts have been reduced over this time period. What we see from the bar graph, is that non-diesel anthropogenic point sources of PM contribute the most to risk for the majority of health endpoints considered. Across the entire bay area, refineries account for 6% of all PM (BAAQMD, 2012).
An overview of other chemicals associated with the petrochemical industry in ambient air and their resulting health effects are outlined in tables 1-3 below. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but these are chemicals of primary concern, specific to petroleum refinery emissions, and are known risk drivers for the region.
Figure 2. Measurements of PM, averaged across the entire bay area, over time – showing an overall improvement in air quality.
Figure 3. Contribution of different species of air pollution to health impacts. The analysis is specific to the bay area and compares health risks estimates from the past (1980s) to estimates in 2012.
Table 1. Health impacts from criteria air pollutants
Criteria Air Pollutants
Compound
Health Effect
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
Array of adverse respiratory effects, airway inflammation in healthy people, increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Harmful health effects associated with the reduction of oxygen delivery to the body’s organs (heart and brain) and tissues
Particulate Matter
Increased respiratory symptoms, irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing, decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease
Table 2. Health impacts from hazardous air pollutants known to be emitted from petroleum refineries
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Compound
Acute
Chronic
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes
Neurological effects, Irritation of the eye, skin and respiratory tract
Blood disorders (reduced number of red blood cells and aplastic anemia), cancer.
1,3-Butadiene
Irritation of the eyes, throat and respiratory tract
Cardiovascular effects, leukemia, cancer
Naphthalene
Hemolytic anemia, damage to the liver, neurological effects
Cataracts, damage to the retina, hemolytic anemia, cancer
PAHs
Skin disorders, depression of the immune system
Skin disorders (dermatitis, photosensitization), depression of the immune system, damage to the respiratory tract, cataracts, cancer
Table 3. Health impacts from other pollutants emitted from petroleum refineries
Other Pollutants
Compound
Mechanism
Health Effect
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Combine with NOx in sunlight to create ozone
Significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal. Healthy people during periods of moderate exercise, symptoms include chest pain, coughing, nausea, and pulmonary congestion
Compounds with high global warming potential contribute to climate change
Increase in average temperatures, higher levels of ground-level ozone, increased drought, harm to water resources, ecosystems and wildlife, health risk to sensitive populations
North Coast Emissions
With these gains in ambient air quality it is hard to fathom why regulators would consider allowing refineries to increase emissions inventories. For this analysis, the focus was to map and compare emissions inventories from numerous industrial sites, with a particular focus on the petroleum refineries.
Current refinery capacities as of 2014 are shown in Figure 4, below. The Richmond Chevron has the largest refining capacity in the region, by far. Refining capacity is the maximum amount of crude oil the refinery is allowed to refine, according to their permit. Refining capacity numbers are used in place of actual refined crude volumes for this analysis, because actual crude volumes are considered proprietary information and are not published by the California Energy Commission (CEC).
The Richmond refinery has a raw crude (atmospheric crude is the technical term) refinement capacity over twice as large as the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery, and almost 40% larger than the Tesoro (Golden Eagle) refinery, which is the second largest in the region. According to the newly proposed rules, this would allow the Richmond refinery to emit the most pollutants.
The raw total emissions data is shown in Figure 5. The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo contributes the least to ambient air quality degradation. The Chevron Richmond refinery processes 40 – 100% more than the four other refineries, and emits 10 – 570% more than the other refiners. This large difference in capacity and emissions means that Chevron Richmond is more efficient than some, but much less efficient than others. To understand the efficiency differences between the refineries, the total HAPs emissions were adjusted by the refining capacity, shown below in Figure 6. With this data we can rank the refining efficiency specifically for HAPs emissions, based on facility capacity. The Tesoro refinery in Martinez and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most HAPs per barrel oil (based on refining capacity). From highest emitter to lowest emitter per barrel of crude, the facilities can be ranked:
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co LLC (Golden Eagle Refinery in Martinez)
Shell Oil Products (Martinez Refinery)
Chevron Products Co Richmond Refinery
Valero Refining Co – California Benicia Refinery
Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery (Rodeo Refinery)
Figure 4. Operating capacity of refineries. The bars show the maximum amount of crude the refineries are allowed to process daily, in barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons).
Figure 5. Total amount of HAPs emissions from East Bay refineries
Figure 6. Relative HAPs emitted from each refinery adjusted by the crude capacity
These refineries along with the other industrial sites in the region have been mapped below in Figure 7. The data has been displayed to show the HAPs emissions from these facilities. The amounts of emissions are shown with graduated circles. The larger the circle, the higher the emissions. The cumulative summation of HAPs is a good value for comparing between facilities with diverse emission inventories (the list of all species of emitted pollutants), but different HAP chemicals have very different effects, both in magnitude and in health impacts. Different chemicals will affect different body systems, as described above in Tables 1-3 above. We have therefore incorporated individual chemical data into the map as well (Figure 7, below). The data displayed shows the total sum of HAPs emitted (in lbs/year) from petrochemical industrial facilities in the region. Explore the map to see emission sources for a selection of important pollutants. Smaller industrial sites/sources have been left out of the map.
Figure 7. Map of the East Bay’s Refinery Corridor with emissions data
View Map Fullscreen | How Our Maps Work
If you open the map into its own page, you can toggle between individual chemical emissions from these facilities. Use the layers tab to change the chemicals displayed. For more information on the individual chemicals, continue reading below.
This unique selection of pollutants was chosen by identifying the highest health risk drivers in the region. They are known to increase both cancer and non-cancer risk for residents in the bay area. The graphs that follow show the emissions inventories reported by each refinery. The refineries are organized on the X –axis according to increasing refining capacity, as they are in Figure 4, above.
Analysis of the graphs show that the Richmond Chevron facility is a largely responsible for 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, naphthalene, hydrogen cyanide, PAH’s, vanadium, lead and nickel compounds. The Tesoro refinery is mostly responsible for almost all of the 1,3-butadiene, and most responsible for hydrogen sulfide and VOCs. Shell is mostly responsible for the ethylbenzene, much of the mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions, and the most VOCs. Valero in Benicia is responsible for much of the 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, all BTEX compounds, the most nickel compounds, and the most oxides of nitrogen. And finally, the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo with the lowest operating capacity also had the lowest emissions in almost every case except lead, which was very large compared to all refineries except Chevron Richmond. The Valero refinery in Benicia, the Tesoro refinery in Martinez, and the Shell refinery in Martinez emit the most criteria air pollutants (CAPs), including PM2.5 (particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 um), sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen.
Figure 8 – 22. Emissions totals of various air pollutants from East Bay refineries
Marine Terminals
Emissions from marine terminals are also a significant source of HAPs and particulate matter. In the map in Figure 7, the marine terminals are shown with yellow markers. Their relative contributions of total hazardous pollutants are much less than the refineries and other sources, but when we look at specific risk drivers, such as 1,3-butadiene and benzene, we find that their contributions are quite sizable. Marine terminals are also a key component for the refineries looking to access more low-grade crude. Increasing the refining capacity of the refinery will also increase the emissions from the terminals.
The Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery in Martinez, CA was recently approved for a 30-year lease on a new marine terminal. The new terminal will allow Tesoro to switch to processing lower-cost, lower-quality crude oil from California, Bakken crude, and Canadian tar sands. When crude is transported via ocean liner, besides the issue of air pollution there is the additional risk of an ocean spill. Tom Griffith, Martinez resident and co-founder of the Martinez Environmental Group and founding member of the Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition recently summed up the threat, saying:
When you take a close look at what is going on in the marine oil terminals along the refinery corridor from Richmond to Stockton, it’s chilling to imagine what could happen if a huge oil tanker carrying tar sands crude crashed in the Bay! (Earthjustice, 2015)
Incidents
Figure 23. Fires at Chevron Richmond Refinery 2012. Photo by John Sebastian Russo for the SF Chronicle
Like oil spills from tankers, there are other risks of industrial accidents for refineries that need to be considered. Accidents or incidents may occur that result in a sudden, large release of air pollution. Looking at the emissions data, the Richmond Chevron refinery with the largest production capacity may seem to be an efficient station compared to the other refineries. However, an explosion and large fire in 2012 there sent 15,000 community members to local hospitals with respiratory distress. The SF Chronicle’s coverage of the story can be found here. (Fire shown in photo right.) The incident resulted from pipes corroding and failing, and the facility failing to make the decision to shut down the process. The resulting plume of smoke is shown in the cover photo of this article. Other major explosions and fires have occurred in the recent past, as well, including a flaring incident in 2014, a fire in 2007, and two other explosion and fire events in 1999 and 1989.
Of course these events are not unique to the Chevron refinery. The Tesoro Golden Eagle refinery has a reputation of being the most dangerous refinery in the country for occupational hazards, and has one of the worst track records of violations.
Conclusions
If refineries increase their capacity and process more crude, the emissions of these various pollutants will invariably increase. Increased emissions elevate risk for surrounding communities, and in the bay area these communities already bare a disparate burden. Additionally, many of the pollutants will be transported with the prevailing wind that blows from the coast up the river delta and into the central valley. In FracTracker’s recent analysis of impacted communities in the refinery corridor, maps of air quality showed that the refinery communities are some of the most impacted in the entire bay area.
What we find in this report is that the refineries and petrochemical industry in the refinery corridor are responsible for the majority of the risk-driving emissions in this region. When the risk and total emissions are averaged for the entire Bay Area, the risk outcomes are much less than for those living in the communities hosting the industries. New emissions rules should prioritize contributions of emissions to ambient air pollution loads. The biggest issue with using a “per barrel” emissions limit is that it prioritizes the refining capacity rather than mitigating the existing health impacts. These types of policy decisions deal directly with risk management. The Air Management District must decide what amount of cancer and disease are acceptable to keep the refineries in the communities. An upper limit on emissions makes it easier to set a risk limit, an upper bound for health impacts. The upper limit also holds the Air Management District and elected officials accountable for their policy decisions.
BAAQMD. 2012. Summary of PM Report. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Accessed 4/15/16.
** Feature image of the Richmond Chevron Refinery courtesy of D.H. Parks
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Chevron_2012_Cover.jpg400900Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2016-04-29 14:33:532020-03-13 08:40:32Air Pollution in the Bay Area’s Refinery Corridor
By Sierra Shamer, Visiting Scholar, FracTracker Alliance
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.
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.
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).
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Setbacks-Shamer-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2016-04-26 12:02:072020-03-12 17:30:05Colorado Setbacks, One Step Forward?
