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.
Weld County, CO – 9-14-13: A floating tank leaks an unknown fluid on flooded farm (Photo By Andy Cross/The Denver Post)
By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
We’re now in the aftermath of September’s catastrophic floods in Colorado that hit Boulder and Weld counties notably hard, damaging or destroying 18,000 homes and killing at least 10 people. The gas industry has asserted that relatively little damage occurred; only 37,000 gallons of fluid escaped into the rural landscape, including over 5,200 gallons of crude oil that seeped directly into the South Platte River. According to Conoly Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, “In the context of hundreds of billions of gallons of rain, and millions of gallons of raw sewage, 37,000 gallons is pretty small.”
Environmentalists, however, say that the long-term impacts of the flooding cannot yet be determined. They also point out how the dangers of placing oil and gas rigs in flood-plain areas are a recipe for disaster. Amy Mall, policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted the sheer luck that most of the flooding occurred in areas where active fracking operations were not actually happening; most of these wells were already in production. About 1,900 wells were “shut in” in preparation for the predicted flooding, but storage tanks and other production-related equipment experienced the impacts of the flood waters.
FracTracker Alliance created the following map of United States Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gage stations across the Lower 48, in areas of mapped shale plays. Each of the USGS points is interactive. Pop-up bubbles allow the user to link directly to the USGS websites for that particular stream gage. Note that not all of the stream gages are currently active; some show only historic USGS data. Many sites, however, show a wealth of real-time information on stream discharge and allow the user to customize time parameters. USGS also includes stream gage height and contributing drainage area. Zooming into an area, users will also see wetlands delineated as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands may also be endangered by floods that pick up waste material from oil and gas extraction sites.
Click here to view the full-screen version of this map.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Screen-Shot-2013-10-23-at-1.27.59-PM.png410808Karen Edelsteinhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKaren Edelstein2013-10-22 23:59:362020-07-21 10:41:35USGS Stream Gages Helpful in Monitoring Risks in Shale-gas Extraction Regions
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
On October 16th, the Environmental Defense Center released a report focused on the use of hydraulic fracturing by offshore oil drilling platforms off the coast of California.1 The full report can be found on the EDC’s website. I was asked to assist in creating the report’s GIS maps, the results of which are described partially in the article below and are shown on the right. An interactive map of this data, overlaid with additional data layers including oil spills and offshore wells is below.
Regulation of Offshore Drilling
California has 24 offshore oil rigs, with only one of them located, and therefore regulated, in state waters. In the map below, the regulated platform is labeled as “Holly.” The rest of the platforms, including platform “A” which was responsible for the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969, are located in federal waters beyond the “outer continental shelf” (OCS) boundary, shown in the map with a dashed line.
International, federal, and state laws are interrelated legal regimes that impact development of offshore oil, gas and other mineral resources in the US. Governance is bifurcated between state and federal law. States have authority in the “three-geographical-mile” area extending from their coasts. Federal regulatory regime governs minerals located under federal waters that extend out past state boundaries at least 200nautical miles from shore. This is known as the “exclusive economic zone,” for which coastal nations have the sovereign right to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage marine resources. The basis for most federal regulations is the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides the system for offshore oil and gas exploration, leasing, and ultimate development. Regulations range from health, safety, resource conservation and environmental standards to requirements for production-based royalties and in some cases royalty relief and other development incentives. The moratoria on offshore leasing on many areas of the outer continental shelf were lifted in 2008 by President Bush and the 110th congress. Prior to that, several areas were made available for leasing in 2006 including the Aleutians and the Gulf. Recent changes to authorities regulating offshore development resulted after the Mineral Management Service was implicated in numerous scandals, including uncollected royalties estimated to amount to $160 million in 2006 alone.2 Offshore resource extraction is now regulated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, both agencies of the Department of the Interior.
Investigating Hydraulic Fracturing
A recent freedom of information act request filed by the Environmental Defense Center (the group was formed in response to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill) identified 15 offshore drilling operations that used hydraulic fracturing. (Update: recent information from the FOIA shows 203 frac’ing operations from 6 different rig platforms!)4. This number is most likely a vast underestimation, as the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) estimates 12% of offshore operations in the Gulf use hydraulic fracturing. These “frac” operations were conducted without notifying the necessary regulatory agencies. The majority of this activity was conducted from the platforms Gilda and Gail, both labeled in the maps. While these offshore energy resources may be oil-rich, the fossil fuel resources pale in comparison to the biodiversity and ecological productivity of the Santa Barbara Channel and the California Channel Islands. The geography of the Channel Islands was formed by the cold-water swells of Northern California meeting with the warm-water swells of Southern California. This convergence resulted in a plethora of ecological microcosms in addition to the critical and sensitive habitats of endangered and threatened species shown in the maps.
Recently, the Department of the Interior approved four more hydraulic fracturing operations at these offshore platforms. Take note of the many ecological preserves and areas of protected/sensitive habitat in the midst of the many offshore wells and platforms. The map layer showing historic oil spills deserves special attention, with focus on the spills at platforms Gail and Gilda. Seeing this, it is alarming that the proposals were not required to conduct environmental impact assessments, and were instead granted “categorical exemptions” from the environmental analyses and public transparency actions strictly required by the National Environmental Policy Act. These actions (or lack thereof) in such an ecologically complex environment, especially considering it is the historical site of the US’s third largest oil spill, raises serious questions of compliance with other federal laws including the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.3
Policy Recommendations
Additionally, the EDC report makes several policy recommendations:
Place a moratorium on offshore hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and other forms of well stimulation unless and until such technologies are proven safe through a public and transparent comprehensive scientific review
Prohibit the use of categorical exclusions to authorize offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation
Formally evaluate offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation through a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Initiate consistency reviews with the California Coastal Commission for all exploration plans, development plans, drilling or modification proposals involving fracking
Ensure that all fracking proposals comply with the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act
Review and revise the Clean Water Act permit governing offshore oil platforms to directly address chemicals in frac flowback and other wastewater, either establishing effluent limitations for those chemicals or denying discharge altogether
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Offshore-CA-Feature.jpg400900Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2013-10-20 18:07:042020-07-21 10:41:35Hydraulic Fracturing Offshore Wells on the California Coast
By Brook Lenker, Executive Director, FracTracker Alliance
Touring Doddrige County, West Virginia
On September 26th, FracTracker staff and board member, Brian Segee, traveled to Doddridge County, West Virginia for an eye-popping tour. This endeavor was led by Diane Pitcock of West Virginia Host Farms and local activists who are deeply concerned about the fate of their region – an area overwhelmed by shale gas development.
Approaching West Union on route 50, a giant flare roars above the roadway and about every fourth vehicle, mostly pickups, tankers, and dump trucks, suggest association with the shale gas industry. At the café in town, vehicles baring EQT logos fill the lot. Nearby, Middle Island Creek flows thick and brown despite an absence of rain for the past five days. Diane says it’s frequently muddy from the constant pipeline construction upstream.
Mark West site
The first stop is a Mark West complex with a cryogenic plant burning off excess hydrocarbons, a yard for loading CNG on tanker trucks, one well pad, and another in the works (see photo right). To build the latter, a hillside is being disemboweled. The heavy equipment and a train of idling trucks release diesel emissions. A stream once coursed through the field in the foreground, but the previous landowner had filled and relocated it without a permit. Watching and photographing from the adjoining rail trail, irony rules. The trail sign is topped by a company-placed “No Trespassing” sign. From the discussion and observations, it’s clear that the environment is being devalued and degraded in Doddridge County.
The tour continues on to a water withdrawal site. According to the permit numbers plastered beside the conduit, the site hosts approximately 50 unconventional gas wells – each requiring millions of gallons of water to crack the shale and hasten the flow of gas.
Right-of-Way?
Next, we traverse gravelly back roads widened by the industry. The roadway expansion often requires the purchase of right-of-way from landowners. Our guides tell us that if a landowner says no, sometimes they are told “if you don’t sell, we’ll take it by eminent domain.” The threat is hollow if not deceitful, since in such circumstances the industry has no right to exercise eminent domain. The industry does have the right to access mineral rights they may own, however, even if they don’t own the property on the surface. In West Virginia, these “split estate” situations are as common as country music, only they project a much more somber note to the landowner, especially when the gas company comes knocking.
A Neighbor’s Perspective
Well pad visit
A freshly cut and clearcut road travels onward and upward across a half mile or more of former forest where a nice lady owns the land but not the natural gas being accessed more than a mile below. Piles of logs line the roadside, a reminder of what was. The road ends at a fenced impoundment holding thousands of gallons of impaired water. An odor, akin to antifreeze, hangs in the dry, dusty air. The lady tells the group about the wildlife she has seen, including the songbirds that rest on the high fence and likely drink from the poisonous reservoir.
Downhill lies an expansive well pad, big enough for a football game if there wasn’t the metallurgical din and sprawl of a towering drill rig and the pipes and machinery that accompany it. The landowner’s presence enables our group to enter the working well pad where workers, sleeping off a long shift, emerge from a trailer. While over 30 of her roughly 80 acres are affected by drilling-related activities, only a payment for timber is in negotiation. Meanwhile, she pays the taxes on the land – a parcel that will never quite be the same. Tom Bond, a local and well-informed activist, wistfully comments, “This is just the beginning. Eventually there will be well pads everywhere.” He may be right.
Pipeline Construction
A golden afternoon closes crossing steel plates over an open trench and green pipeline. The corridor is an undulating, exposed ribbon of ground spanning ridge to ridge in each direction. There are many more just like it snaking across the hills and hamlets of West Virginia from one compressor station to another.
From witnessing the industry’s heavy footprint to the stories we hear of problems emerging in home water wells, somehow a happy John Denver tune now seems melancholy.
By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
FracTracker was recently in attendance at the American Industrial Hygiene Association annual conference, held in Miami, FL, September 28-October 1st. The FracTracker Alliance’s Kyle Ferrar participated in the workshop “Natural GAS EXTRACTION – Rising Energy Demands Mandate a Multi-Perspective Approach.” The workshop was moderated by Dr. Mark Roberts, and in addition to the FracTracker Alliance, there was a presentation by NIOSH Senior Industrial Hygienist Eric Esswein and the well-versed chemist, engineer, and industry associate/consultant John Ely. The workshop was well-attended (sold out).
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Twitter-FracTracker-Logo.png291317Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2013-10-10 17:47:292020-07-21 10:41:352013 American Industrial Hygiene Association Fall Conference
A few years ago, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the agency responsible for state park and state forest lands throughout Pennsylvania, published maps on their website showing which state forest lands had been leased for the purpose of unconventional oil and gas exploration and development. Not only has that page been taken down, but the data are also not among the hundreds of Pennsylvania-specific datasets available on the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA), to which DCNR is a key contributor.
This data does still exist though, and it was provided to the FracTracker Alliance from DCNR upon request, along with data showing areas of the state forest where unconventional oil and gas rights are owned by the state, which is not always the case. However, this fulfillment of our data request came with some strings attached:
I understand that the accuracy of this data set and its boundaries cannot be guaranteed and should not be considered precise.
I will not distribute raw data to other entities outside the scope of this request.
I will annually provide the Bureau of Forestry with a status update of the project activities and findings. If the project is abandoned, I will provide the Bureau of Forestry copies of the available information from the project.
I will provide the Bureau of Forestry with copies of draft reports, articles, publications and so forth that result from this analysis.
If requested, I agree to supply the Bureau of Forestry with copies of data analysis.
I understand that the Bureau of Forestry or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not relinquishing any rights or interests with this agreement.
Obviously, this ties our hands with regards to making the data available for download, either through the download section of our site, or through ArcGIS Online, but we feel as if the scope of our request was worded in such a way as to allow us to produce a map of these layers, and make that available for public viewing. Readers interested in obtaining similar data will have to contact DCNR directly, until the agency decides to release the data regarding Pennsylvania’s public lands without conditions.
We have combined this data with drilling data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, so that we can finally take a closer look at drilling on public lands in Pennsylvania, including an approximation of which wells are drilled on lands have been leased by the state, and which by third parties. So with all appropriate disclaimers, here is that map:
Drilled unconventional wells in Pennsylvania and control of mineral rights on state forest land. To access full controls, such as legends, layer controls, and layer descriptions, please click the expanding arrows in the top-right corner of the map.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/severed-and-leased.png5671082Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-10-09 12:42:362020-07-21 10:41:34Leases and Severed Rights in PA’s State Forests
West Virginia Shale Viewer. Please click the expanding arrows in the top right corner to access the legend and other map tools.
The map above shows some detail about Marcellus Shale operations in the Mountain State, including:
Permits issued (purple). To date, there have been 3,079 permits issued statewide since 2000 where the Marcellus Shale is the target formation.
Completed wells (orange). Of the permits that have been issued, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) has received a completion form for 1,840 wells, or just under 60 percent.
Wells in noncompliance (yellow). 196 Marcellus wells were given the noncompliance flag in the dataset. There are no details on what might have led to this status, however.
Public comment wells (blue). 35 Marcellus Shale wells in West Virginia are flagged as having received a public comment of one sort or another. As with the wells in noncompliance, this dataset offers no details on these wells.
Here’s a look at the number of completion reports received by WVDEP by month:
Marcellus Shale completions by month in West Virginia
The largest number of completions per month for Marcellus Shale wells is 97 in April 2009. The next highest total was the following month, with 81 completions. From January through August of this year, there are an average of 40.5 completions per month in West Virginia.
The information that is distributed in this West Virginia data is typical, however, a good deal of data are being collected by WVDEP. To see the kinds of things that the state knows about completed wells, take a look at what is required for submission on form WR-35.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WV_comp_by_month1.png340581Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-09-27 12:30:552020-07-21 10:41:34West Virginia Map Updated
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
Read Full Report (PDF)
