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 Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Manager of Science and Communications
In August I spent a little over two weeks in Europe, the first of which was for work in Berlin, Germany and Basel, Switzerland. Now that I have had some time to process my travels and am back on a proper sleep schedule, I thought I’d provide a little wrap up of my impressions of Europe and the issue of unconventional drilling.
Berlin, Germany
Berlin, Germany
In Berlin, I was hosted by two innovative organizations: JF&C and Agora Energiewende. JF&C is a consulting company that advises on international markets and sustainable growth. The roundtable held by JF&C was intended to bring together a diverse group of decision-makers in Germany to discuss potential challenges of heavy drilling in Europe — and they did not disappoint. Participants included representatives from the:
BMU Water Management, Waste Management, Soil Conservation department.
The diverse backgrounds of the group led to a heated yet balanced debate on the topic of whether unconventional gas extraction should occur in Germany, as well as the rest of Europe. I was quite impressed by the transparent and matter-of-fact perspectives held by attendees, which as you can see above included governmental, NGO, and industry reps.
My next presentation in Berlin was coordinated by Agora Energiewende. Energiewende refers to Germany’s dedication to transitioning from non-renewable to more sustainable fuels. You can read more about the movement here. This forum was set up in a more traditional format – a talk by me followed by a series of questions from the audience. Many of the attendees at this event were extremely well informed about the field of unconventional drilling, climate change, and economics, so the questions were challenging in many respects. Attendees ranged from renewable energy developers to US Embassy personnel. As a reflection of such diversity, we discussed a variety of topics at this session, including US production trends and ways to manage and prepare databases in the event that heavy drilling commences in Germany and other parts of Europe.
Interestingly, one of the major opponents of this form of gas extraction in Germany, I learned, has been the beer brewers. (They were not able to be at the table that day, sadly enough.) German breweries that adhere to a 4-ingredient purity law referred to as Reinheitsgebot are very concerned and also very politically active. You can read more about beer vs. fracking here, just scroll down that page a bit.
Over decadent cappuccinos the next morning, I met with Green Parliament representatives who wanted to hear firsthand about FracTracker’s experience of drilling in the U.S. Overall, my Berlin tour showed me that many individuals seemed skeptical that unconventional drilling could safely fulfill their energy needs, while also possessing a hearty intellectual craving to learn as much about it as they could.
Basel, Switzerland
Basel, Switzerland
The second part of the week was dedicated to attending and presenting at the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology conference in Basel, Switzerland. I participated in a panel that discussed the potential environmental and public health impacts of unconventional gas and oil drilling, as well as methods for prevention and remediation. The audience was concerned about a lack of regulatory and data transparency and the likelihood that such operations could contaminate ground/drinking water supplies. Based on the number of oil and gas wells impacted by the recent Colorado flooding tragedy, I cannot blame them. Most of these attendees were from academia or non-profits, although not entirely; check out coverage from this Polish radio station. (As mentioned in a previous post, Poland is one of the countries in Europe that has the potential for heavy drilling.)
The amount of knowledge I gained – and shared – from this one week alone is more than could have been possible in a year through phone calls and email exchanges. I am incredibly thankful for our funders’ and FracTracker’s support of this endeavor. Being able to discuss complex issues such as unconventional drilling with stakeholders in person is an invaluable key for dynamic knowledge sharing on an international level.
Links to My Presentations (PDFs): JF&C | Agora | ISEE
A few non-work pictures from the second week of my trip…
Our Ohio intern and I have been working to compile complete water and chemical usage data for Ohio’s horizontal Utica wells. At this point we have an inventory for 248 wells and thought it would be helpful to present our initial analysis.
Water Use
Figure 1. Million gallons per fracked well interval range for 248 horizontal Utica wells. Click to enlarge.
The Ohio Utica wells are using 4.4-4.6 million gallons (±1.6 MG) of water per fracked well1 (Fig. 1). On the low end of the range are the 93,402-533,412 gallons for the Onega Commissioners 14-25H (PDC Energy), Kernich 3-10-2 1H, and Starkey 36-13-4 5H wells in Guernsey, Columbiana, and Carroll Counties, respectively; the latter two are owned by Chesapeake Energy. On the high end are the four 10 MG+ Antero and Anadarko wells in the counties of Monroe, Muskingum, Noble, and Coshocton (Fig. 2).
Excluding Carroll County – where this water usage is equivalent to 63% of the county’s per capita annual water usage – the Utica wells have used 1.2 billion gallons of water or 3.2% of the population’s annual water demands2. When the state’s additional permitted wells come online they will require an additional 2.5 billion gallons of freshwater…
Put another way, Ohio Utica water usage in five years – assuming 25-52 permits per month3 – will amount to 6.1-12.8 billion gallons per year.
Figure 2. Ohio’s drilling, drilled, and producing Utica wells and average water usage per well interpolation. Click to enlarge.
The volume of material injected into each well is 80±6% freshwater (4.1 million gallons) and 7±4% recycled water (373,783 gallons) (Figs. 3 & 4, below). Of the top 20 wells utilizing the highest percent of freshwater, Anadarko and Antero operate 14 of the wells. With respect to recycled water, the only corporation utilizing recycled water is Chesapeake accounting for all 152 wells, with a range of 13,471 4– 966,412/1,015,826 gallons5 recycled water (Fig. 2, right). A quarter of Ohio’s drilled, drilling, or producing wells – along with the other 12 firms we have data for – do not utilize any recycled waters, however. Currently Ohio’s Utica wells are producing 1.4-11.1 or 1.7-1,063 barrels of brine per barrel of oil depending on whether you choose to incorporate into your calculations the eight wells that have only reported brine numbers to date all of which speaks to its place on nascent Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) league tables. Learn more>
Chemical Utilization
Utica wells are using Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) ranges of 0.12-0.36% per well. However, due to the fact that the strength of this reagent is not required for each well knowing the percentage of HCl – which is one of six “Strong Acids”6 – is relatively useless; HCl’s molarity/concentration determines its corrosive and acidifying capabilities as defined by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry’s (IUPAC) Gold Book. As such, requiring firms to report the concentration of the HCl utilized on a per well basis should be a component of the reporting process especially given that these percentages translate to 5,351-16,350 gallons of HCl per well– nontrivial amounts by anyone’s standards.
Frac Sand
Ohio’s Utica wells have used 703,080 tons of sands with a market value of $46.87 million7. See Table 1 for a more detailed breakdown.
The per-well origin of these frac sands is an additional unknown variable that would assist in understanding the flows of materials into the state and within the state given that:
Ohio is home to one of the major players in the north American frac sands industry Fairmount Minerals;
the origin and texture of frac sands determine their ability to result in silicosis – already 10 times higher in hydraulic fracturing workers – on and around fracking operations; and
states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin (Click here for 2012 Wisconsin DNR “Silica Sand Mining in Wisconsin” report) and to a lesser degree Kansas, Iowa, and Illinois are claiming that their frac sands are smaller, more uniform, and rounder.
Just like the concentration of HCl, we need to have access to frac sands sourcing in order to fully understand the industry’s footprint and trajectory outside of the “shale plays.”
Table 1. Summary sand usage and chemistry statistics for 248 horizontal Utica wells
Constituent
Mean
Median
+/-
Figure 3. Percent freshwater per fracked well interval range (248 horizontal Utica wells). Click to enlarge.
Figure 4. Percent recycled water per fracked well interval range (248 horizontal Utica wells). Click to enlarge.
To put these volumes in perspective, a complete inventory (n= 411) of neighboring West Virginia horizontal wells, we find that their wells are using 5.39-5.49 MGs per well with 85.8-88.0% freshwater and 8.00-9.28% recycled water – or 9.2-11.0 freshwater-to-recycled water ratios. Additionally, WV wells are using 0.76-0.094% HCl and 8.38-10.29% sands. Meanwhile across sixteen Michigan wells, water usage is quite variable with an average between 369,349 and 4.23 MGs, along with 87.85-90.69% freshwater, 0.56-0.79% HCl, and 8.05-8.80% sands.
Assuming 90 gallons of water usage per capita per day. Reference: USGS
The 25 and 52 permits per month values are the monthly average since the first permits were issued here in Ohio in September 2010 and the 2013 monthly Ohio average, respectively.
Fligiel 29-12-5 12H well
Lozier 14-15-5 8H and Bucey Bucey 3H wells, respectively.
Sulfuric Acid H2SO4 is the only common acid that is stronger.
Assuming 4-8 million pounds per lateral well. References: ICIS and OAIMA
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/OHJ_UticaWaterUsage2-scaled.jpg19411500Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2013-09-19 11:03:122020-07-21 10:41:33Utica well water and chemical usage in-depth: Part I
Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threats Analysis (PRETA) Air: Hazardous Air Pollutants
Although now we are an independent non-profit, FracTracker.org actually started as a project of CHEC at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. At that time, Matt, Kyle, and I worked with researchers such as Drew Michanowicz and Jim Fabisiak of Pitt, as well as Jill Kriesky now of the Southwest PA Environmental Health Project, on a data mapping and analysis project called PRETA. The Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threats Analysis (PRETA) is intended to inform stakeholders about Southwest Pennsylvania’s major environmental health risks and provide ways to manage them. CHEC worked with key decision makers and other academics to identify, prioritize, and assess these risks. The top three risks identified were ozone, particulate matter (PM), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Due to the extensive time that research like this takes, the final report about hazardous air pollutants was just recently released.
Relevant to our oil and gas readers, the HAPs report included a piece about the proposed ethane cracker slated to be built in Beaver County, PA. Below is an excerpt of PRETA HAPs that discusses how the air quality in our region may change as a result of the removal of the present zinc smelter on that site, in place of the new cracker facility.
Future Trends: New Sources of HAPs in Western Pennsylvania?
All of the previous risk analyses and data discussed [earlier in the report] were drawn using historical data collected in previous years. There is considerable delay around emissions inventory collection, air monitoring data collection, atmospheric modeling, and the calculated risk estimates’ being made public. Hence, these analyses speak best toward past and present trends. They often are less useful in predicting future risks, especially when sources and technologies are constantly changing. For example, better pollution mitigation and retrofitting processes should curtail future emissions from present levels. In addition, changing the profile of various industries within a region also will alter atmospheric chemistry and subsequent risks in future scenarios.
In recent years, there has been an unprecedented expansion of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia driven in part by the recent feasibility of hydraulic fracturing, which is part of a drilling procedure that allows for the tapping of the vast methane deposits contained in the Marcellus and Utica shales beneath Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Primarily, drillers are seeking to extract methane (CH4), the primary component of natural gas. However, a portion of the natural gas present in our area is considered “wet gas,” which includes heavier hydrocarbons like ethane, propane, and butane that are typically dissolved in a liquid phase or condensate. These compounds are separated from the methane to be marketed as such products as liquid propane or used as feedstock in numerous other chemical processes. Therefore, a high demand remains for wet gas deposits regardless of fluctuating natural gas (methane) market prices. Thus, a large-scale expansion in other industries (e.g., chemical manufacturing) is anticipated to follow UNGD; new industrial facilities are needed to support the refining of wet gas condensates. For example, an ethane cracker converts or “cracks” ethane, a by-product of natural gas, into ethylene so that it can be used in the production of plastics.
Located in Monaca, Pa. (Beaver County), about 12 miles east of the West Virginia border, is an aging zinc smelter owned by the Horsehead Corporation. The present Horsehead facility is currently the largest zinc refining site in the United States, producing metallic zinc and zinc oxide from recycled material and steelmaking waste. The plant opened in the 1920s to take advantage of the by-products of steel manufacturing and has expanded and modernized over time. It employed about 600 workers until recently, when the company announced its relocation to a new state-of-the-art facility in North Carolina in the near future. The scope of this metal-refining operation was such that it was a significant source of metals and criteria air pollutants.
Recently, Shell Chemical, U.S. subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, announced plans to build an ethane cracker in the northeast to take advantage of UNGD. Lured by substantial tax benefits and other economic incentives, Shell chose the former zinc smelting site in Monaca as its proposed new location for such a facility and, in March 2012, received the approval from Pennsylvania officials to build this petrochemical complex. The cracker, according to industry representatives, will be a multibillion-dollar structure and provide thousands of jobs for Pennsylvanians 43, 44. However, many of these jobs depend on the influx of concurrent industries and technologies, which are projected to follow in the wake of sufficient petrochemical refining facilities like the ethane cracker. Thus, it is not likely to be the sole source of pollutants in the area once constructed. Though plant construction remains years away, regional air pollutant composition and chemistry are poised to change as well. Adding to the issue is the fact that the zinc smelter, ranked as one of the worst air polluters in the country in 2002 45, will be decommissioned and have its operations moved to North Carolina.
Here, we will attempt to compare the pollutant profiles of the old and new air pollution sources in order to deduce potential air pollutant changes to existing air quality in the region. Previous emission inventories are available for the Horsehead zinc smelter (EPA Toxic Release Inventory for 2008) 46. Although the proposed cracker facility’s engineering specifics are not available yet, using the records of a similar existing wet gas processing plant, we can approximate the proposed cracker’s yearly emissions. In this case, we have chosen the similarly sized Williams Olefins Cracker Facility currently operating in Geismar, La., whose emissions profiles for 2008 also were available 46. This plant, owned by Williams Partners, L.P., processes approximately 37,000 barrels of ethane and 3,000 barrels of propane per day and annually produces 1.35 billion pounds of ethylene.
In assessing the emission inventories at the two sites, we first sought to compare those pollutants that were common to both facilities. Table 5 (above) compares the annual release of criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist. These include ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), lead, and carbon monoxide, for which health-based regulatory standards exist for their concentration in ambient air1. Not surprisingly, the zinc smelter released large amounts of lead into the air (five tons per year). The proposed ethane cracker, on the other hand, would release only trace amounts of lead into the air and about 0.1 percent of the sulfur dioxide, 3 percent of the carbon monoxide, and 50 percent of the nitrogen oxides of the zinc smelter. Overall, release of PM would be of a similar order of magnitude at the two sites. Thus, the representative cracker facility by itself emits less NAAQS criteria pollutants than the smelter facility.
Similarly, Table 6 (above) examines similarly reported HAPs released from both of the facilities in question. A comparison of available emissions inventories of HAPs reveals a list of common pollutants, including acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Note the projected increase in release of acrolein and VOCs by the proposed ethane cracker. The latter are a rather broad class of organic chemicals that have high vapor pressure (low boiling point), allowing appreciable concentrations in the air as a gaseous phase 47, 48. Examples of VOCs include formaldehyde, d-limonene, toluene, acetone, ethanol (ethyl alcohol), 2-propanol (isopropyl alcohol), and hexanal, among others. They are common components of paints, paint strippers, and other solvents; wood preservatives; aerosol sprays; cleansers and disinfectants; moth repellents and air fresheners; stored fuels and automotive products; hobby supplies; and dry-cleaned clothing. They also possess a diverse range of health effects, including, but not limited to, eye and throat irritation, nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, and skin rashes at low doses, and kidney, liver, and central nervous system damage at high doses. Some are known or suspected carcinogens. These chemicals are more often known for their role in indoor air pollution and have been linked to allergies and asthma 49. Recall that acrolein is already the primary driver of noncancer respiratory risk in the PRETA area, and releases from the proposed cracker would theoretically add to that burden.
Table 7 shows a compiled list of HAPs that were released from the Geismar plant in 2008 but not from the zinc smelter, highlighting the potential change in the pollutant mixture. For comparison, the pollutants highlighted in yellow represent those that are several orders of magnitude greater than those emitted by the Clairton Coke Works in 2008. Note the rather large emissions of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde that were discussed above as the number one and number five existing cancer drivers in the area.
Other VOCs of note include ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, methyl-tert-butyl ether and propionaldehyde. While all these pollutants may have toxic effects on their own, one of the primary concerns, especially in outdoor air, should be their ability to form secondary pollutants. For example, we have noted previously that both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde can be formed via photo-oxidation reactions of other hydrocarbons and VOCs. Thus, the direct emissions reported in the table are likely to be significant underestimations of the true burden of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde in the area near the cracker. It also should be mentioned that a complex nonlinear sensitivity exists among VOCs, NOX, and the production rate of ozone (O3). Most urban areas are considered NOX saturated or VOC sensitive and therefore have low VOC/NOX ratios. In these environments, ozone actually decreases with increasing NOX and increases with increasing VOCs—a potentially likely situation within the urban areas of Southwestern Pennsylvania.
In conclusion, it would appear that the replacement of the existing zinc smelter with the proposed ethane cracker has the potential to significantly transform the current pollutant mixture in the region. The elimination of lead and other heavy metal emissions would be replaced by increases in formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. In addition, it does not appear that the proposed ethane cracker alone would increase any of the NAAQS criteria air pollutants, with the possible exception of ozone. On the other hand, the rather large releases of several known cancer drivers, such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, from the proposed cracker could increase cancer risk in the immediate proximity. In addition, the large influx of VOCs and fugitive emissions from these operations warrants further predictive analysis, especially with regard to current pollution-mitigating strategies that may not be anticipating a transforming pollutant mix.
Authors and Credits
University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health Center for Healthy Environments and Communities
Pittsburgh, PA | August 2013
Authors
Drew Michanowicz, MPH, CPH
Kyle Ferrar, MPH
Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH
Matt Kelso, BA
Jill Kriesky, PhD
James P. Fabisiak, PhD
Technical Support
Department of Communications Services
Marygrace Reder, BA
Alison Butler, BA
43. Detrow , S. (2012). What’s an ethane cracker? StateImpact – Pennsylvania. Accessed 12-18-12: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/ethane-cracker.
44. Kelso, M. (2012). Jobs impact of cracker facility likely exaggerated. FracTracker Alliance. Accessed 12-18-12: www.fractracker.org/2012/06/jobs-impact-of-cracker-facility-likely-exaggerated.
45. SCORECARD: The Pollution Information Site. (2002). Environmental Release Report: Zinc Corp. of America Monaca Smelter. Accessed 12-18-12: http://scorecard.goodguide.com/envreleases/facility.tcl?tri_id=15061ZNCCR300FR#major_chemical_releases.
46. U.S. EPA. (2008). Technology Transfer Network, Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors The National Emissions Inventory. The National Emissions Inventory. Accessed 1-25-13: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html.
47. U.S. EPA. (2012). An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). Volatile Organic Compounds. Accessed 12-18-12: www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html.
49. Nielsen, G.D., S.T. Larsen, O. Olsen, M. Lovik , L.K. Poulsen, C. Glue , and P. Wolkoff. (2007). Do indoor chemicals promote development of airway allergy? Indoor Air 17: pp. 236–255.
By Ted Auch, PhD – Ohio Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we as US citizens have real-time access to “all oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories” data via the National Response Center (NRC). The NRC is an:
initial report taking agency…[that] does not participate in the investigation or incident response. The NRC receives initial reporting information only and notifies Federal and State On-Scene Coordinators for response…Verification of data and incident response is the sole responsibility of Federal/State On-Scene Coordinators.[1]
We decided that NRC incident data would make for a useful layer in our Ohio Shale Gas Viewer. As of September 1, 2013 it is included and will be updated bi-monthly. Thanks go out to SkyTruth’s generous researchers Paul Woods and Craig Winters. We have converted an inventory of Ohio reports provided by SkyTruth into a GIS layer on our map, consisting of 1,191 events, including date and type, back to January 2012.
The layer is not visible until you zoom in twice from the default view on the map above. It appears as the silhouette of a person lying on the ground with Skull and crossbones next to it. View fullscreen>
Currently, the layer includes 28 hydraulic fracturing-related events, 61 “Big [Oil and Chemical] Spills,” and 1,102 additional events – most of which are concentrated in the urban centers of Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Toledo OH.
From a Utica Shale corporation perspective, 21 of the 28 reports are attributed to Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (aka, Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK)) or 75% of the hydraulic fracturing (HF) events, while CHK only accounts for 48% of all HF drilled, drilling, or producing wells in OH. Anadarko, Devon, Halcon, and Rex are responsible for the remaining 7 reports. They collectively account for 2.7% of the state’s current inventory of unconventional drilled, drilling, or producing wells.
[1] To contact the NRC for legal purposes, email efoia@uscg.mil. The NRC makes this data available back to 1982, but we decided to focus on the period beginning with the first year of Utica permits here in Ohio to the present (i.e., 2010-2013).
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Screen-Shot-2013-09-12-at-2.49.41-PM.png465491Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2013-09-12 14:26:272020-07-21 10:41:20OH National Response Center Data on Shale Gas Viewer
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
The potential for large scale oil development in the Monterey and other shale basins has raised concern in California communities over the use of hydraulic fracturing and other unconventional well stimulation techniques, such as acidizing. The fact that DOGGR was not tracking the use of these techniques, much less regulating them, has led to a variety of actions being taken by local governments. Several groups including county directors, city councils, and neighborhood and community councils have passed resolutions supporting state-wide bans on hydraulic fracturing and other controversial stimulation techniques. As can be seen in the following map, several of them are located within the greater LA metropolitan area, which is currently considering a local moratorium.
This map shows the local civic groups [green check marks] in the LA metropolitan area that have passed resolutions supporting statewide bans/moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing and other controversial stimulation activities. Click on the map to view larger image.
Two local jurisdictions, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the County of Santa Barbara, have enacted their own measures to regulate oil and gas development. Both require notification of drilling techniques, and Santa Barbara County requires operators to file for a unique permit when using hydraulic fracturing. Data from the county of Santa Barbara’s permitting program was not readily accessible – although it may well be that they have not issued any permits. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is charged with managing the air quality for Orange County, the city of Los Angeles and the surrounding urban centers of Riverside and San Bernardino. In the spring of 2013, the SCAQMD passed Southern California rule 1148.2. The rule requires oil operators to submit specific reports of well activity documenting drilling, chemical use and the well stimulation techniques employed, directly to the SCAQMD. Reportable methods include acidification, gravel packing, and hydraulic fracturing. The rule was implemented June 2, 2013. The database of well-site data is readily accessible via the web. Web users can obtain individual well summaries of drilling activity and chemical-use reports, or download the full data sets. The site is user-friendly and the data is easily accessible. Unfortunately, the currently available data set is missing some of the most important information, specifically well API numbers – the unique identifier for all wells drilled in the United States. This data gap makes it impossible to compare or cross-reference this data set with others.
FracTracker has mapped the well-sites reported on the SCAQMD in the new map on the California page titled California Local Actions, Monitoring and Regulations. This map outlines the boundaries of SCAQMD and other sub-state regulatory agencies that have elected to manage the drilling activity. Details on the programs are provided in the map layers. The data published by the SCAQMD has been included in the map. In the map above, if you compare the SCAQMD data layer to the Hydraulically Fractured dataset derived by combining DOGGR and FracFocus data, you can see that the two data sets do not look to include the same well sites. Unfortunately, it cannot be known whether this is merely an issue of slightly dissimilar coordinates or legitimate data gaps; the SCAQMD data set lacks the API identifier for the majority of well sites reported. Because the regulatory landscape tends to follow the political leadership that reflects the interests of the constituency, legislative districts have also been included as a viewable map layer. Be active in your democracy.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AQMD-Wellsites.jpg4471052Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2013-09-07 14:20:492020-07-21 10:41:19Local Actions and Local Regulations in California
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Environmental regulations in California are considered conservative by most state standards. To name a few practices, the state has developed an air quality review board that conducts independent toxicological assessments on a level competitive with the U.S. EPA, and the state instituted the U.S.’s first green house gas cap and trade program. But most recently the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has been criticized in the media for its lack of monitoring of hydraulic fracturing activity. DOGGR has been responsive to criticism and preemptive of legislative action and has begun a full review of all well-sites in California to identify which wells have been hydraulically fractured and plan to monitor future hydraulic fracturing. Additionally they have maintained historical records of all wells drilled, plugged, and abandoned in the state in web-accessible databases, which include data for oil and gas, geothermal, and injection wells, as well as other types of support wells such as pressure maintenance, steam flood etc.. The data is also viewable in map format on the DOGGR’s online mapping system (DOMS).
To understand what is missing from the DOGGR dataset, it was compared to the dataset extracted from FracFocus.org by SkyTruth. The map “Hydraulic Fracturing in California” compares these two datasets, which can be viewed individually or together as one dataset with duplicates removed. It is interesting to note the SkyTruth dataset categorizes 237 wells as hydraulically fractured that DOGGR does not, and identifies three wells (API #’s 11112215, 23727206, and 10120788) not identified in the DOGGR database. For the some of these 237 wells, DOGGR identifies them as new, which means they were recently drilled and hydraulically fractured and DOGGR will be updating their database. Many are identified as active oil and gas wells., while the rest are identified as well types other than oil and gas. Also the SkyTruth dataset from FracFocus data contains additional information about each well-site, which DOGGR does not provide. This includes volumes of water used for hydraulic fracturing and the fracture date, both of which are vital pieces of monitoring information.
The California State Legislature is currently reviewing California Senate Bill 4 (CA SB 4) written by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), which would put in place a regulatory structure for permitting and monitoring hydraulic fracturing and other activity. A caveat for acidification is also included that would require companies to obtain a specific permit from the state before acidizing a well. The bill has received criticism from both industry and environmentalists. While it does not call for a moratorium or regulate what chemicals are used, it is the first legislation that requires a full disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluid additives, including those considered proprietary. This is the last of at least seven bills on the issue, the majority of which have been turned down by lawmakers. The most conservative bills (Assemblywoman Mitchell; D-Culver City) proposed moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing in the state. Earlier this year lawmakers approved a bill (Sen. Pavley; D-Agoura Hills) that would direct the state to complete and independent scientific risk assessment of hydraulic fracturing. The bill directs permitters to deny permits if the study is not finished by January 1, 2015, and also requires public notice before drilling as well as disclosure of chemicals (besides those considered proprietary). In May, a bill (Sen. Wold; D-Davis) was passed requiring drillers to file a $100,000 indemnity bond for each well, with an optional blanket indemnity bond of $5 million for operators with over 20 wells. Another bill (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara) that would require monitoring of both transportation and disposal of wastewater was tabled until next year.
Although hydraulic fracturing has been conducted in California for over a decade, it was not monitored or regulated, and the majority of Californians were not aware of it. Industry groups have portrayed the lack of attention as a testament to its environmental neutrality, but Californians living smack dab in the middle of the drilling tend to tell a different story. The issue is now receiving attention because hydraulic fracturing is such a hotbed topic of contention, along with the potential future of the billions of barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale. The unconventional extraction technology necessary to recover the oil from these deep shale formations is state of the art, which means it is not tried and true. The methods include a combination of high tech approaches, such as horizontal drilling, high volume hydraulic fracturing, and acidification to name a few. Realize: if this technology existed for the last 60 years, the Monterey Shale would already have been developed long ago, along with the rest of the U.S. deep shale formations.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/California-Hydraulic-Fracturing-Map.jpg558493Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2013-08-23 20:37:582020-07-21 10:41:19Keeping Track of Hydraulic Fracturing in California
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) releases unconventional oil and gas production and waste data twice a year. It is important to note that both datasets are self-reported from the industry, and there are usually a few operators who miss the reporting deadline. For that reason, FracTracker usually waits a week or so to capture the results of the fashionably late. However, after looking at the data, it is likely that there are still operators that have not yet reported.
Production
Production is perhaps the most important metric of the oil and gas industry. After all, if there were no production, there would be no point in drilling in the first place. Royalty payments for property owners are based on production values from the wells. More than that though, it can be an indication of hot spots, and to some degree, which operators are better at getting the product out of the ground than the rest of the field.
Location
Unconventional formations–especially the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale–underlie about two-thirds of Pennsylvania. However, that does not mean that if an operator drilling a hole in Clarion County can expect the same result as well in Sullivan County, for example. Production is unevenly distributed throughout the state:
Unconventional gas production in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Counties with above average production per well are highlighted in orange.
With 1.4 trillion cubic feet of gas production in half a year from unconventional wells, Pennsylvania has become a major leader in production. For a quick comparison to other regions of the country, see the Energy Information Administration, (although the EIA has apparently not felt inspired to update their data in a while).
It should be noted that there is also oil and condensate production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania, although that really amounts to a drop in the barrel, so to speak. Unlike the Bakken, where gas is seen as a byproduct that is routinely flared because there is no infrastructure ready to accept it, the Marcellus and Utica in Pennsylvania are really all about the gas. Some of the gas from the western part of the state is considered wet, with heavier hydrocarbons like ethane and propane mixed with the methane, but in terms of this report, there is no distinction between wet gas and dry gas, or pure methane. Eight out of 17 wells producing oil and 430 out of 505 wells producing condensate are located in Washington County.
Operators
The reason that production values are more telling for geographies than for operators is that most operators in Pennsylvania are limited to select portions of the state, where their leasing strategies were focused. Therefore, certain companies occupy the regions that yield higher production, while others are left trying to extract from less productive areas. So looking at production by operator does not necessarily reflect their skill at extraction, but it does does give a general impression of how much one of their wells is likely to produce, which could be useful for people trying to negotiate leases, among other considerations.
Unconventional gas production by operator in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Operators with above average production are highlighted in orange.
Note that eight operators on the list have no data. Presumably, there are the operators that have not yet reported their data to the DEP, although it is possible that some of them could be defunct. Obviously, any missing data here would also be missing from the county totals. Alpha Shale is the clear leader in terms of production per well, with about 1.2 million Mcf per well. Citrus, Rice, and Chief occupy the next teir, with each exceeding an average of 700,000 Mcf. All four are relatively minor operators, however, with fewer than 100 wells reporting production. In terms of total production, Chesapeake blows the competition out of the water, with roughly the same production as the next two producers (Cabot and Range) combined.
Waste
Along with all of the profitable gas being produced in Pennsylvania comes all of the various waste products that are created in the process. Before jumping into the numbers, I’d like to point out that it is likely that operators who have not reported production also have not reported their contribution to the waste. In its current form, the waste report has 12,604 lines of data from 4,991 different unconventional wells. Here is a summary of the waste produced by type from unconventional formations in Pennsylvania:
Waste reported from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. Note that one barrel equals 42 US gallons.
Some interesting things are revealed when sorting the waste type data by operator, although the resulting table is a little unweildy, even for me. But here are a few highlights:
Anadarko reported 99.5 percent of basic sediment production
Southwestern Energy produced more than twice as much drill cuttings (128,000 tons) as the next highest operator (Cabot: 50,000 tons)
Range Resources led the pack with 172,000 barrels of drilling fluid, with Chevron Appalachia (168,000 barrels) close behind
PA Gen Energy had the most flowback fracturing sand reported, with over 8,600 tons, despite having fewer than 100 producing wells.
Chevron Appalachia produced the most fracing fluid waste (934,000 barrels), with Range Resources coming in at number two (773,000 barrels). This is what Pennsylvania calls the flowback fluid; this is not the straight chemical additives that used in the hydraulic fracturing process, but those additives are included in this fluid
The most produced fluid, or formation brine, came from Range Resources wells (1.6 million barrels), followed by Chesapeake (1.4 million barrels)
82 percent of the servicing fluid reported was from Cabot (1,741 barrels)
100 percent of the spent lubricant was reported by SWEPI (19 barrels)
Amazingly, despite their overwhelming lead in gas production in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia did not have the most of any of the eight different waste types, and in some cases, were not even close:
Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013
The Pennsylvania waste data is also notable for including the disposal method of the waste:
Disposal method for unconventional waste from PA between January and June 2013
And for those who can handle one last table, Pennsylvania also tells us where the waste is disposed:
Destination of unconventional oil and gas waste in PA between January and June 2013, by state
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/chesapeake-waste1.png183562Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-08-20 14:47:362020-07-21 10:41:19PA Releases Unconventional Production and Waste Data
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
The FracTracker Alliance has just recently opened a new office based out of Berkeley, California. As a first step in addressing the unique issues of oil and gas extraction in the Golden State, FracTracker has queried the data that is published by the state’s regulatory agencies, and has translated those datasets into various maps that highlight specific issues. As a first step in this process, FracTracker transcribed the well-site data that is publicly available from the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).
This first phase of analysis is presented in FracMapper on the California page, here. FracTracker has translated the entire DOGGR database into a map layer that can be viewed on the California Shale Viewer map, here. The California Shale Viewer will be continuously updated to map the expanding oil and gas development as it occurs. Featured map layers on the California Shale Viewer focus on hydraulic fracturing in the state of California. The hydraulic fracturing well-site data comes from two sources. First, the layer “CA Hydraulically Fractured Wells Identified by DOGGR” portrays the maps identified by regulatory agency as having been hydraulically fractured. The DOGGR is aware that their dataset is not complete in terms of identifying all wells that have been hydraulically fractured. The second source of data is from our friends at SkyTruth, and provided in the layer “CA Hydraulically Fractured Wells Identified by SkyTruth”. Using a crowd-source platform, SkyTruth has generated a dataset based on the information reported to FracFocus.org. FracFocus.org refuses to provide aggregated datasets of their well-site data. These hydraulically fractured well-sites can be viewed as a individual datasets in the California Shale Viewer, or as a combined layer in the map “California Hydraulically Fractured and Conventional Oil and Gas Wells” map, where you are also able to view the dataset of wells FracFocus identifies as hydraulically fractured, but DOGGR does not.
More information concerning the many different types of wells drilled in California and the status of these wells (whether they are planned, active, idle or plugged) can be found in the “Well Type” map and “Well Status” map, also available on the FracTracker California page.
Ohio is currently home to 242 of what Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) calls “Active” Class II Injection wells capable of accepting hydraulic fracturing waste1. This is not an accurate reflection of the state’s entire Class II Injection well inventory, which includes 129 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), 82 Annular Disposal (AD), 221 Salt Water Disposal (SWD), 1,987 Temporarily Abandoned Annular Disposal (TAAD), and 57 Salt Mining (SM) wells. These have all been chronicled in our Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network Map (see below).
Figure 1. Ohio’s Current “Active” and “Other” Class II Injection Well inventory, total depth, and depth interval model
The state’s “Active” stock of Class II wells averages 4,434 ± 2,032 feet in total depth with a range of 871 to 13,727 feet and 793,734 linear feet (Figure 1). The two deepest wells are CNX Gas Company’s 10,490 foot well in Warren Township and David R Hill’s 13,727 foot well in Pease Township, both of which are in Belmont County. The state’s 22 ≥7,000 foot wells are spread throughout the state’s eastern quarter2, however, in Washington (5), Summit (1), Stark (2), Portage (1), Mahoning (3), Guernsey (2), Coshocton (1), Carroll (2), Belmont (2), and Ashtabula (3). Meanwhile the state’s shallow Class IIs are predominantly in Tuscarawas (4) and Morgan (3) Counties (Figure 1)3. The state’s deepest Class II interval is home to very few “Active” wells and likewise is devoid of related – but not currently fracking-related injection wells – Class IIs. The state’s primary Class II counties are Morgan, Perry, and Hocking, with 610 of the state’s 1,988 Temporarily Abandoned Annular Disposal (TAAD) Class IIs at a depth of 2,870-4,000 feet. These “Other” Class IIs are the very wells many Ohioans are worried will be called into service for the disposal of fracking waste as unconventional drilling expands in OH, WV, PA, and potentially NY. Additionally, there are early signs of interest in horizontal drilling in Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, and Michigan. With this growing interest comes concomitant concerns about disposal in those states, with specific foci on Michigan’s Class IIs in its most sensitive aquifers and natural areas and Illinois’ relatively strict drilling regulations.
Class II Geology
Utilizing data generously provided to us by ODNR’s UIC Section analyst Jennifer Gingras, we were able to take a closer look at OH’s current fracking waste story (Figure 2). Most of the “Active” wells lie within primary shale and secondary siltstone geologies, with secondary formations of importance being sandstones and black shales (Figure 3). Silstone, shale, and black shale are the primary geologies (>50% of the formation) underlying 202 of the state’s “Active” Class IIs; whereas the secondary geology (<50% of the formation) of nearly all (228) “Active” wells is either shale or siltstone.
Figure 2. Ohio’s 146 Active Class II Injection Wells that accepted hydraulic fracturing related brine wastes and their associated primary (Left Plate) and secondary (Right Plate) geologies.
Figure 3. The primary and secondary geologies of Ohio’s 179 Active Class II Injection Wells as of December 2012
Class II Volumes 2010-2013
From a volume-injected perspective, 1.480 and 1.813 million barrels of waste fluids were received in and out of district, respectively, with averages of 3,096 and 3,793 barrels per well for a total of 3.29 million barrels year-to-date. The highest volumes received were in the Myers Well in Edinburg Township, Portage County well (received 71,116 “In Sector” barrels) and from “Out of Sector” in the Long Run Disposal Well (SWIW #*) in Newport Township, Washington County (received 208,845 barrels) (Figure 4). These two wells injected the most total drilling waste, followed by Ohio Oil Gathering Corp’s Newport Township, Washington County well and Warren Drilling Corp’s (SWIW #6) Jackson Township, Noble County well (Figure 1).
Figure 4. Ohio’s Active Class II Injection Wells that accepted hydraulic fracturing related
brine wastes from “In Sector” (Left Plate, 145 Wells) and “Out of Sector (Right Plate, 58 Wells) based locations.
Between 2010 and 2013-Q2, OH’s Class II Injection wells have received 35.058 million barrels, 46.6% from “In Sector” and 53.4% from “Out Of Sector”, with per well averages of 68.4 and 78.3K, respectively. The highest volume quarters to date were Q3 and Q4 of 2012, which boasted a total volume of 7.79 million barrels (59% “In Sector” Vs 41% “Out Of Sector”).
OH’s Fab Four Class II Counties
County
No. “Active” Class II Injection Wells
Yearly Processed Waste (barrels)
Per-Well Average (barrels)
Morrow
13
440,040
33,849
Stark
17
745,601
43,859
Ashtabula
14
846,986
60,499
Portage
13
1,608,139
123,702
Combined, 34 of these 57 wells received 27% of the state’s total fracking brine waste.
Figure 5. Ohio’s quarterly fluctuations in Class II Injection well waste injected between 2010-Q3 and 2013-Q2 in sector, out of sector, and total
The Ohio Class II Crystal Ball
Using a simple statistical technique called linear regression we can do a decent job of projecting future trends in Ohio’s Class II volume story (Figure 5). Using this technique we see that the average amount of waste injected by the state’s Class II wells increases by 147,202 barrels or 4.64 million gallons per quarter. Most of this trajectory is due to “Out Of Sector” fracking waste, explaining 45% of the 67% quarter-to-quarter change attributed to the simple relationship between fiscal quarter and barrels received.
The amount of Class II Injection well waste received here in Ohio will likely double by the first half of 2015 at 68.379-71.711 million gallons and tripled by Q2-Q3 of 2018 (105.031-108.363 million barrels).
[2] Much of the state’s western half is underlain by Karst topography which is susceptible to subsurface erosion due to the fragility of the limestone geology.
[3] Neighboring West Virginia is home to sixty-two Class II Injection Wells, Pennsylvania 805 “Active” Class IIs, Virginia 8 “Active” Class IIs, and Kentucky 82 Class IIs (US Class II Injection Well soon to arrive on FracTracker).
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, PhD2013-08-15 15:38:422020-07-21 10:41:18OH Class II Injection Wells – 2012 Year-in-Review
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Manager of Science and Communications, FracTracker Alliance
I stare into my computer during an early morning Skype call with my hosts in Germany. As my cat stubbornly tries to join the conversation, we intently discuss international energy policies, travel plans, and audience demographics. This awkward setup is all in preparation for my upcoming whirlwind tour of Europe. On August 20 and 21, JF&C and Agora Energiewende will host roundtables with participants from their organizations, oil and gas companies, European advisory groups, Green Parliament, and me – just to name a few. This trip is in conjunction with the ISEE conference, where later in the week I will be talking about FracTracker on a panel with other experts regarding shale gas and oil extraction issues.
Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe
One of the many reasons for this trip is because Europe is where the United States was several years ago with regard to the status of drilling, but their circumstances are vastly different. Where the U.S. moved quickly (in most cases) to utilize hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas and oil, many countries in Europe are only now starting to explore this as an energy option. Some countries, such as France, outright banned the process. Whereas Poland, for many reasons, has embraced the relatively new technology. Just in terms of space, however, Europe is not an ideal location to drill. If you believe Google, in 2011 Europe hosted ~739 million people in an area of 10.82 million km2 – vs. the US in 2012 with ~314 million people in an area of 9.83 million km2. There are several other special considerations that would need to be made in order for Europeans to allow drilling operations like those that involve hydraulic fracturing in their backyards. One such technological advancement, I learned recently, is the option for wells to be completely enclosed (which helps to shield neighbors from potential air, smell, and noise pollution). Whether that refers to an enclosure during drilling or after, remains to be seen. Regardless, I am excited to share my shale gas experiences with others in Europe, but I am even more eager to learn how our experiences differ… The other reason for this trip is for vacation. Can’t fault that!
Aug 21 (Morning Meetings): Various groups. Berlin, Germany
Aug 22 (14:00-15:30): Conference Panel, S-3-30: Environmental & Occupational Health Risks from Fracking & Natural Gas Extraction. Congress Center, Basel, Switzerland.
When I return from Europe, I plan to write a follow up blog piece (with pictures of my own instead of stock ones). Stay tuned!
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Berlin-Feature.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2013-08-15 10:00:222020-07-21 10:41:18FracTracker Touring a Bit of Europe
Read Full Report (PDF)
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Manager of Science and Communications, FracTracker Alliance