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 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
By Samir Lakhani, GIS Intern, FracTracker Alliance
In the hazy world of gas flaring and venting, finding worthwhile data often leads one to a dead end. Although the Energy Information Administration (EIA) holds the authority to require active oil/gas companies to disclose this data, they choose not to. EIA will not proceed with such actions because, “…assessing the volume of natural gas vented and flared would add significant reporting burdens to natural gas producers causing them substantial investments.” Additionally, the EIA is not confident that oil/gas producing companies have the capability to accurately estimate their own emissions from venting or flaring activities.
Piece-Meal
Some states do voluntarily submit their estimates, but only 8 of the nation’s 32 oil and gas producing states submit their data. This makes attempts for national estimates incomplete and inaccurate. State officials have repeatedly complained that the EIA has provided them with insufficient guidelines as to how the data should be submitted, and in what format. It appears the only way that concerned parties are able to monitor this practice is with satellite imagery from the sky, to literally watch flaring as it occurs.
Bird’s Eye View
The Bakken Shale Formation has received a considerable amount of attention. We’ve all seen the nighttime satellite images of North Dakota, where a normally quiet portion of the state light up like a bustling city. It is to be understood that not all the lights in this region are gas flares. Much of it is emergency lighting and temporary housing associated with drilling companies.
There are a few obvious issues with satellite surveillance. Firstly, it is difficult to monitor venting emissions from a bird’s eye perspective. Venting is the process by which unsought gas is purposely wafted from drill sites into the atmosphere. Venting is a much more environmentally costly decision compared to the ignited alternative, as pure natural gas is twenty times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. To monitor venting behavior, from up high, Infrared sensors must be used. Unfortunately, these emissions do not transmit well through the atmosphere. Proper detection must be made much closer to earth’s surface, perhaps from an airplane or on the ground. Secondly, flaring is almost impossible to detect during the day using satellites. One could equate it to attempting to see a flashlight’s beam when the sun is out. Lastly, when the time comes to churn out an estimate on how much gas is really being wasted—the statistics vary wildly.
Using SkyTruth’s satellite image, and GIS data retrieved from North Dakota’s Department of Mineral Resources, it is now possible to pinpoint North Dakota’s most active gas flaring sites. Using this, more accurate estimates are now within reach. North Dakota gas drillers may flare their “associated” gas for up to one year. However, Officials at Mineral Management Service claim that it is not difficult to get an extension, due to economic hardship. There are always instances of gas/oil operators flaring or venting without authorization. In 2003, Shell paid a 49 million dollar settlement over an unnoticed gas flaring and venting operation that lasted several years. The beauty of satellite imagery and GIS detail is the observer’s ability to pinpoint flaring operations and by referencing the leases, evaluate whether or not such practices were authorized.
This map shows flaring activity in the Bakken Formation from January 1 through June 30, 2013. Please click the “Fullscreen” icon in the upper right hand corner to access the full set of map controls.
Regulation and Control
If flaring and venting are costly to the environment and result in a loss of company product (methane), you may ask why these practices are still conducted. Flaring and venting practices are cheaper than building the infrastructure necessary to harness this energy, unfortunately. To effectively collect this resource, a serious piping network is needed. It is as if a solar farm has been built in the desert, but there is no grid to take this power to homes. To lay down piping is an expensive endeavor, and it requires continuous repairs and on-site monitors. Even when North Dakota burns over 30% of their usable product, there is little initiative to invest in long term savings. A second method, called “green completions”, is becoming a more popular choice for oil and gas companies. A green completion is a portable refinery and condensate tank aimed to recover more than half of excess methane produced from drilling. Green completions are the best management practice of today, and the EPA wishes to implement green completion technology nationwide by 2015.
The best way to estimate gas flare and venting emissions is through submissions from gas/oil companies and to analyze the data using GIS applications. Concerned organizations and citizens should not have to rely on satellite services to watch over the towering infernos. There is new research coming out each day on adverse health effects from living in close proximity to a gas flare and vent. It releases a corrosive mixture of chemicals, and returns to the earth as acid rain. Please refer to this publication for a thorough assessment of possible health effects.
This issue is not limited to US borders only; flaring has wreaked havoc in South America, Russia, Africa, and the Middle-East. During the extraction of oil, gas may return to the surface. In many of these areas where oil drilling is prevalent, there are no well-developed gas markets and pipeline infrastructure, which makes venting and flaring a more attractive way to dispose of an unintentionally extracted resource. If the US were to make substantial changes to the way we monitor, regulate, and reduce gas flaring/venting, and accessibility to data, we would set the standard on an international level. Such policy changes include: carbon taxation, streamlining the leasing process (Many oil/gas officials despise the leasing applications for pipelines), installing flaring/venting meters and controls, and tax incentives (to flare and green complete, rather than vent).
All of these changes would tremendously reduce and regulate gas flaring in the US, but without accurate and comprehensive data these proposed policies are meaningless. Data is, and forever will be, the diving board on which policy and change is founded.
Special thanks to Paul Woods and Yolandita Franklin of Skytruth, for using VIIRS and IR technologies to compile the data for the above map.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BakkenShaleMap2-e1459778822164.png9352084Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2013-07-18 14:31:102020-07-21 10:41:16Gas Flaring and Venting: Data Availability and New Methods for Oversight
By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
As of April 1, 2013, new regulations 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621 in New York State have been in effect that require users of large quantities of water to apply for withdrawal permits. The largest users of water—those with withdrawals of more than 100 million gallons per day—are the first group required to apply. The permit system then adds users on a yearly basis, targeting systems with decreasingly need. In 2014, the target group is users of 10-100 million gallons/day; in 2015, it is 2-10 million gallons/day, and so on. The full schedule is in Table 1, below. There are no fees associated with this permitting process.
In order to assess the geographic impacts of these varying uses, attorney Rachel Treichler submitted a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. FracTracker Alliance assisted her in this effort by visualizing the data. Treichler believes that the new regulations make it virtually impossible for DEC to balance competing needs between large and small users.
In this interactive map, larger dots signify larger withdrawal. Click on each dot in the map to get more information.
Yellow: 0.0001-0.5 million gal/day
Light green: 0.5001-2 million gal/day
Dark green: 2.001-10 million gal/day
Medium blue: 10.001-100 million gal/day
Dark blue: >100 million gal/day
Until the adoption of these permitting requirements, water withdrawals in New York were governed by riparian rights determined by case law. Riparian rights are correlative–they fluctuate depending on the needs of other users and the amount of water available. Although the new regulations affirm that riparian rights will not be affected by the granting of permits, there is concern that users granted permits for stated amounts of water usage may be reluctant to adjust to the needs of other users in times of water scarcity. In New York State, both the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) have strong regulatory authority over withdrawals, and the new New York regulations provide that withdrawals subject to permitting by these commissions are exempt from the permitting requirements of the regulations. Comparable commissions with authority to regulate water withdrawals do not exist in the Great Lakes watershed, which includes the Finger Lakes Region, or in the other watersheds in the state, and in these watersheds, the permitting requirements of the regulations are the only generally-applicable water permitting requirements.
Currently, New York State has an abundance of water—there is certainly enough to go around to meet domestic and commercial uses. However, with climate change, continued population growth, and the potential for an uptick in hydrofracking throughout the Marcellus and Utica Shale region, the possibility for New York State being asked to sell or export our water increases considerably.
Under the current system, even by 2017, withdrawal permits will not be required for daily use under 100,000 gallons. While cumbersome, it would not be difficult for a typical hydrofracked site to sidestep any withdrawal permitting process if the water were removed over the course of several days by several different private haulers, particularly if the water were hauled any distance. It is conceivable that the gas drilling industry could readily exploit this loophole in the regulations.
Table 1. Dates by which Application for Initial Permit Must Be Completed
June 1, 2013
Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) or more
Feb. 15, 2014
Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 10 mgd but less than 100 mgd
Feb. 15, 2015
Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 2 mgd but less than 10 mgd
Feb. 15, 2016
Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.5 mgd but less than 2 mgd
Feb. 15, 2017
Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.1 but less than 0.5 mgd
Table 2. Water Users with Maximum Usage over 100 MGD
Facility Name
Town/City
County
Average
Units
Max.
Units
St. Lawrence/ FDR Power Project
Massena
St.Lawrence
79278.00
MGD
108686.00
MGD
Niagara Power Project
Lewiston
Niagara
47463.00
MGD
62164.00
MGD
Indian Point 2&3 LLCs
Cortlandt
Westchester
2024.00
MGD
2489.00
MGD
New York City DEP
Neversink
Sullivan
1078.00
MGD
1418.00
MGD
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Scriba
Oswego
543.00
MGD
596.00
MGD
Ravenswood Generating Station
Queens
Queens
512.90
MGD
1390.00
MGD
Arthur Kill Generating Station
Richmond
Richmond
480.00
MGD
712.80
MGD
Astoria Generating Station
Queens
Queens
455.60
MGD
723.70
MGD
RE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Ontario
Wayne
427.00
MGD
511.00
MGD
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
Scriba
Oswego
401.10
MGD
457.10
MGD
Roseton Generating Station
Newburgh
Orange
340.54
MGD
794.40
MGD
Dunkirk Generating Station
Dunkirk
Chautauqua
304.00
MGD
Danskammer Generating
Newburgh
Orange
278.80
MGD
455.04
MGD
East River Generating Station
New York
New York
264.10
MGD
371.80
MGD
AES Somerset
Somerset
Niagara
239.00
MGD
274.00
MGD
AES Cayuga
Lansing
Tompkins
214.12
MGD
243.36
MGD
Huntley Generating Station
Tonawanda
Erie
200.00
MGD
406.00
MGD
Oswego Harbor Power
Oswego
Oswego
167.70
MGD
364.21
MGD
Genon Bowline
Haverstraw
Rockland
74.94
MGD
989.29
MGD
Monroe County Water Authority-Shoremont
Greece
Monroe
55.40
MGD
109.00
MGD
Special thanks to Rachel Treichler for her insights and extensive background knowledge on this topic.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NYOutline.jpg9090Karen Edelsteinhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKaren Edelstein2013-07-14 08:55:292020-07-21 10:41:16Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State
A couple of months ago, Laura Legere of the Scranton Times-Tribune published an article showing her research into determination letters sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in response to people who claimed that their groundwater had been impacted by oil and gas activity in the state. Of the 973 complaints represented on this dataset, the PADEP has determined a causality between the oil and gas activity and the water complaint in 162 instances. Note that not all of these complaints are necessarily as a result of the hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) stage of operations.
The FracTracker Alliance assisted in the project by creating an interactive map of the instances throughout the state. As the Scranton Times-Tribune has now made digital scans of each of the 973 records available on their servers, we have been able to link to them on the map.
In this screen capture, the popup box for the first of eleven complaints mapped at this location is shown. In order to access the determination letter, the user must simply click on the PDF logo.
Names, addresses, and other personal information about the complainants have been removed from this dataset in order to protect their privacy. And because the locations are drawn at the center-point of the municipality in which they live, we can get a general sense for the distribution of the events without being able to zoom in one the affected parties’ houses.
To get an idea of what the determination letters look like, here is one example in which the PADEP indicates that someone’s water supply has been impacted by gas drilling:
A portion of one of the determination letters sent by PADEP to a landowner in response to a complaint about groundwater. Click the image to access the full PDF file.
Here is the dynamic version of the map of the complaints:
Please click on the Fullscreen icon to load our full suite of controls.
This updated data has also been added to the US Map of Suspected Well Water Impact project:
According to industry projections, one of the next big frontiers for Marcellus shale-gas development may be in the New York State Counties bordering northern Pennsylvania. However, after more than four years of discussion, two versions of the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS), and hundreds of thousands of citizen and professional comments on the SGEIS and regulatory framework, the future for hydrofracturing for natural gas in New York is still highly contested–both in statewide political and locally-based fora.
This map shows the municipalities, as of July 2013, that have enacted hydrofracking prohibitions, represented relative to the population size of those towns. New York State municipalities began invoking home rule laws as early as 2010 to prohibit high volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Primarily implementing zoning tools, these towns found that while they could not regulate against drilling, outright, they could determine appropriate land uses within the town or village boundaries. In this map, bans are shown as red circles, moratoria are shown as lavender, and movements for bans or moratoria are shown in yellow.
As of June 2013, 61 municipalities have passed permanent bans against HVHF, and 111 municipalities have enacted temporary moratoria while they explore the issue more fully, or draft ban legislation.
Within the area of New York State that overlies the Utica Shale, the major population centers, including Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Binghamton, Union, Utica, and Albany have all enacted bans or moratoria. This unprecedented movement is the reaction to concerns of residents who do not desire large-scale energy industrialization, and who have been frustrated with the pace at which the New York State government has been finalizing their generic environmental impact statement, health review, and gas extraction regulations. Large urban centers account for more than 13% of the population in the area over the shale-gas formation that have enacted local prohibitions. These municipalities, along with more than 150 more across the region, (accounting for more than 28% of the region’s total population) have taken precautions to protect the air, water, food, and landscape from the potential risks of hydraulic fracturing that other communities in Pennsylvania, Texas, North Dakota, Wyoming, and beyond, have experienced. An additional 88 towns (representing over 8% of the population over the Utica Shale formation) have grassroots movements that are spearheading discussions on the need and desire for bans or moratoria. On a town-by-town basis, population-dense centers, as well as rural towns and villages, are exercising democracy to determine whether or not they will risk living with this form of industrial development.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NYS.png9090Karen Edelsteinhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKaren Edelstein2013-07-04 13:05:052020-07-21 10:41:15NY State Hydraulic Fracturing Bans Relative to Population
The FracTracker Alliance got its start by monitoring the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania in the summer of 2010. Since then, many things have changed, including increased interest in shale deposits in a variety of formations throughout the country. We have been attempting to keep current in a variety of states, as requests come in for us to do so. To that end, we have recently added shale viewers for Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wyoming:
Oklahoma Shale Viewer
Oklahoma shale viewer, including layers depicting shale wells and Class II injection wells. To access full controls, click the “Fullscreen” button.
Virginia Shale Viewer
Virginia shale viewer, including layers depicting horizontal permits and drilled wells.
Wyoming Shale Viewer
Wyoming shale viewer, including layers depicting horizontal wells and Class II disposal wells.
As always, be sure to click on the “About” tool to learn more about the data. And keep an eye out for data related to these three states to be added to our data page in the coming days.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.png00Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-06-26 13:43:402020-07-21 10:41:15New Maps for Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wyoming
By Ted Auch, Ohio Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
A complete inventory of Ohio’s Active Class II Injection Wells, as well as Ohio Department of Natural Resources certified Underground Injection Control (UIC) certified transporters, is now available in map form on FracTracker.org (See embedded map below). There is an interest in mapping Ohio’s waste facility network for many reasons; in addition to concerns regarding the spreading of waste on roads, problems with Class II Injection Wells in Youngstown are forcing the state to turn to secondary disposal options.
Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network
To view the map’s full set of controls, including legend, please click on the “fullscreen” button on the map.
Map Layers
In addition to the Class II waste injection wells, the map includes Ohio disposal wells designated for Enhanced Oil Recovery (129), Annular Disposal (82), Salt Water Disposal (221), Temporarily Abandoned Annular Disposal (1,987), and Class II Salt Mining (57).
Active Class II’s have quarter-mile buffering increments from 0.10 to 1.5 miles.On average, Ohio’s active Class II wells are 4,434±2,032 feet deep, with a maximum depth of 13,727 feet. There is a total of 793,734 linear feet worth of active Class II wells throughout the state. Utilizing capacity estimates from current Class II fracking waste well permits in Portage County, Ohio, the state’s active Class II’s are capable of accepting 34.6-97.2 million gallons of fracking waste. However, if we include the state’s aforementioned Class II’s that are not currently being utilized for fracking waste disposal, this capacity estimate jumps to 510.9-1,437.4 million gallons of fracking waste. Such volumes would profoundly affect surface water volumes and flows (i.e., headwater streams and vernal pools), aquifer and sub-surface water chemistry, and the types of issues facing California. [1]
At the present time Ohio’s Utica wells are utilizing 4.2-4.5 million gallons of water and 206,837-261,907 gallons of brine per well with an average of 1.96 barrels of brine produced per barrel of oil. To date Ohio’s 213 reported producing wells have utilized 949 million gallons of water and 681,789 gallons of brine. If the state’s remaining 481 permitted Utica wells produce and utilize water at a similar rate The Utica Play would utilize approximately 3.03 billion gallons of water and produce 113 million gallons of brine all of which would require additional Ohio Class II Injection Well capacity requiring the state to repurpose the existing stock to handle this sizeable increase in fracking fluids, drill cuttings and muds, and related oilfield fluids. Thus, FracTracker felt the need to begin to map the state’s non-shale gas Class II Injection Wells.
The map also shows the locations of current natural gas compressor stations and underground storage tanks, along with the state’s hazardous waste and orphaned landfills. These sites were included in response to the Ohio EPA’s recent advisory suggesting waste landfill facilities begin accepting drill cuttings, drilling muds and frac sands, and related oilfield fluids [1,2].
We also present Ohio’s network of Bulk Transporters, which are charged with transporting related materials.
Acknowledgements
This is an original map from The FracTracker Alliance and was constructed with the assistance of Ohio State University graduate student, Caleb Gallemore, and a selection of students from his GIS Class “Elements of Cartography: Serving the Community through cartography.” It was made possible by information from Bulk Transporter Magazine. [3]
References
[1] Staff. (2013, May 14). Will Ohio’s Landfills Become a Dumping Ground for Radioactive Fracking Waste? EcoWatch. Read>
[3] Who in their words “is the information source for liquid and dry bulk logistics industry. Written for bulk shippers, transporters, and storage operators, BT is dedicated to providing the latest information on regulations, technological developments, logistics management, and hazardous materials safety. For over 65 years, BT has been a trusted source of information for the bulk logistics industry.”
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/OHWasteNetwork.png250610Ted Auch, PhDhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngTed Auch, PhD2013-06-20 14:56:282020-07-21 10:41:15Ohio’s Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network Map Now Online
By Samir Lakhani, GIS Intern, FracTracker Alliance
The Floridian Aquifer: Connectivity, Permeability, and Vulnerability
There have been a significant number of enquiries regarding the status of hydraulic fracturing activity in Florida, enough of which garner a FracTracker post. The short answer is that there is minimal drilling activity occurring in Florida—but not for long. It was only a matter of time until gas companies set their gaze on Florida, and her abundance of energy resources. Preparations to drill are already underway. Permits have been filed, equipment is being shipped, and exploratory drilling will begin any minute now. What makes Florida drilling ominous is the real risk for chemical leakage and groundwater contamination.
Imagine this:
It is just another sunny day in sunny Florida, but on this quiet day, two men ring your doorbell. You answer, of course, and find out that these men are from Total Safety, Inc., a company contracted by the independent oil company Dan A. Hughes Company, from Beeville, Texas. They ask you to provide your contact information and any other emergency contact info, just in case disaster strikes at the drill site operating barely 1000 feet from your house. For most of the citizens of Naples, Florida, this is the first they have ever heard of drilling, in their neighborhood. The citizens of Naples, Florida received quite a scare that day. The outrage in the community was so abundant and uniform that these families decided to act out against this development to preserve their piece of paradise. Read More
What makes drilling in Florida so precarious is that porous limestone shelves make up the majority of rock underlying permitted well sites. If any accident were to happen, the leakage of waste and chemicals would be virtually impossible to contain. It then would seep directly into the Florida aquifer which lies beneath the entirety of the state and large sections of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. Maintaining water quality for the Floridan Aquifer is non-negotiable, since it is the primary water source for Savannah, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Orlando, Gainesville, Tampa, and others. An attempt to clean the aquifer thoroughly would be impossible, and not to mention, prohibitively expensive. Another troubling thought is possible contamination and degradation of the beloved Florida Everglades.
Florida is an interesting case right now; the gas game is still very young. Florida lawmakers have an opportunity to draft real preventative measures, rather than legislation after the fact. Hydraulic fracturing is no new phenomenon, and Florida politicians have the prospect of learning from other states, incorporating relevant ideas and taking their own stance on this issue. Currently, a couple of bills are slowly trudging through the state legislature. The idea is to require a list of chemical disclosures from all active gas drilling companies. Environmentalists claim this bill is a sham, for the companies need to list the chemicals used in drilling, but not the quantities of each. It may be just another half-hearted attempt to show real political action, while retaining a good business relationship with drilling companies. It is unlikely more stringent policies will be successful, however, given that some powers currently in office believe climate change to be a fairy tale.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Florida-Acquifers1.png1264977Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2013-06-18 16:09:202020-07-21 10:41:15Florida Gas Drilling Developments and Legislation
By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Manager of Science and Communications, FracTracker Alliance
