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.

Karen Edelstein

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

/by

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.

Matt Kelso, BA

Determination Letters Added to PADEP Groundwater Complaints Map

/by

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.

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.

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:

Karen Edelstein

NY State Hydraulic Fracturing Bans Relative to Population

/by

By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator

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.

Matt Kelso, BA

New Maps for Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wyoming

/by

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.

Ted Auch, PhD

Ohio’s Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network Map Now Online

/by

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>

[2] See our recent post: Ohio’s Waste Not, Want Not!

[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.”

Guest Author

Florida Gas Drilling Developments and Legislation

/by

By Samir Lakhani, GIS Intern, FracTracker Alliance

Florida Aquifers - Source data and map based off of Alan Baker at Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Acquired Data from: USGS, USDA, FDEP Source Link: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/programs/hydrogeology/geographic_info_sys.htm

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.

Matt Kelso, BA

PA Unconventional Production Data Aggregated

/by

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) publishes unconventional oil and gas production data twice a year.  In its raw form, the data show the production values per well for a given six month period, either January to June or July to December.  The FracTracker Alliance has aggregated the five most recent unconventional production reports in Pennsylvania, and organized the data by well.


PA Production data from July 2010 through December 2012. To learn more about the map and access additional tools, please click the Fullscreen icon.  To access well production data, please zoom in to 1:750,000 (about the size of a county), then click any well icon.

In the thirty months represented in this data, unconventional wells in Pennsylvania produced almost 3.4 trillion cubic feet of gas, about 490,000 barrels of oil, and 2.8 million barrels of condensate.  In terms of geographic distribution, there are thirty-three different counties producing gas, seven counties producing oil, and nine counties producing condensate.

Gas production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP

Gas production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP

Over two trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or sixty-one percent of gas production, came from Bradford, Greene, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Washington counties during this period.

Oil County pie

Oil production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP

Over 97 percent of oil production from Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells during the two and a half year period was from Washington County.

Cond county pie

Condensate production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP

In addition to providing most of the oil, almost 92 percent of the condensate from Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells came from Washington County as well.  Greene County reported 0.01 barrels of condensate production through the thirty month period, but the values here have been rounded to the nearest integer.

We can also look at the production data sorted by operator:

Gas production in Bcf by operator: July 2010 - December 2012. Source: PADEP

Gas production in Bcf by operator from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP

And finally, we can use this data to compare operators in terms of production per well. Below are the normalized production values for the state’s top 20 unconventional gas producers:

Production per well in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) by Pennsylvania unconventional operator from July 2010 to December 2012. Note that the well count includes wells reporting production, not the total number of wells on the report.

Production per well in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) by Pennsylvania unconventional operator from July 2010 to December 2012. Note that the well count includes wells reporting production, not the total number of wells on the report.

The aggregated production data can be obtained from our Downloads page.

Matt Kelso, BA

PA Unconventional Drilling Activity Trends

/by

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) publishes data on unconventional oil and gas permits, drilled wells, and violations. The FracTracker Alliance has taken this data, and summarized it by month:

Permits issued, wells drilled, and violations issued for unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania from January 2005 through May 2013.

Permits issued, wells drilled, and violations issued for unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania from January 2005 through May 2013.

There are numerous ways to interpret the raw data, to the point where it is easy to get bogged down in the specifics. Still, a certain amount of discussion is merited to understand that answers to questions like, “How many unconventional oil and gas violations are there in Pennsylvania?” are fundamentally interpretive in nature, based on the available data. For example, there are often multiple actions for a single well API number that appear in the permits report, and likewise multiple actions for a single violation ID number that has been issued. In this analysis, we have counted only the first action for each of these.

Here are some more summary details about the data:

This table shows a summary of unconventional oil and gas data in PA by month.

This table shows a summary of unconventional oil and gas data in PA by month.

The top section shows summaries of monthly counts of permits, drilled wells, and violations, while the second section shows the frequency of the monthly totals reaching specified targets, and the third section shows the total numbers that were used for the analysis.  For example, we can see in the top section that the maximum number of violations issued in a month is 160, so there are zero instances where the monthly total of violations reached the target of being greater than 200.  And while there have been four months since January 2005 where there have been no unconventional permits issued in the state (the most recent being in September 2005, incidentally), this has happened 21 times on the violations report.

This map has expired.

Graphic by Eddie Lobanovskiy
FracTracker Alliance

PA Gas-Related Legislation

/by
January 2016 Update

This project has been archived

From PennEnvironment comes a great resource for those who are trying to keep up with the ever-changing political environment in Pennsylvania: a list of PA gas legislation related to unconventional natural gas extraction. Many thanks to Kristen Tobin, Erika Staaf, and colleagues for making this information easily accessible to the public.

The listed will be updated periodically when new information becomes available. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please contact Erika. This list is organized alphabetically by the bill name/number. Last updated: June 3, 2013

Bill Number Sponsor Title/Description Last Action
HB 33 Rep. Kula An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for subjects of local taxation and for valuation of property. Legislation Providing for a County Assessment on Oil and Gas. Jan. 9, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 66 Rep. Sturla An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for requirements for natural gas suppliers and for requirements for electric generation suppliers. Legislation to Prohibit Certain Fees by Electric Generation Suppliers and Natural Gas Suppliers. Jan. 10, 2013 – Referred to House Committee of Consumer Affairs
HB 96 Rep. Godshall An Act amending the act of July 11, 2006 (P.L.1134, No.115), known as the Dormant Oil and Gas Act, further providing for purpose, for definitions and for creation of trust for unknown owners. Jan. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 97
Former HB 375		 Rep. Godshall An Act amending the act of July 11, 2006 (P.L.1134, No.115), known as the Dormant Oil and Gas Act, providing for oil and gas estate abandonment and for preservation of interests in oil and gas. Jan. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 200 Rep. Vitali An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for distribution of fee and for Statewide initiatives; providing for the PA Sunshine Solar Program; and making a related repeal. Feb. 13, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 268 Rep. White An Act providing for disclosure of certain test results by the Department of Environmental Protection; and imposing a civil penalty. Jan. 23, 2013
-Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 301 Rep. Saylor An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas fleet vehicle tax credit; and imposing penalties. Apr. 24, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Finance
HB 305
Marcellus Works Package		 Rep. Denlinger An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas corridor tax credit; and imposing penalties.
 Feb. 5, 2013 – Referred to Finance
HB 307
Marcellus Works Package		 Rep. Evankovich An Act amending the act of January 8, 1960 (1959 P.L.2119, No.787), known as the Air Pollution Control Act, providing for the Clean Vehicles Program. Feb. 5, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 309
Marcellus Works Package		 Rep. Grove An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas vehicle tax credit. Feb. 5, 2013 – Referred to Finance
HB 351 Rep. Reed An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in general requirements, further providing for well permits. Jan. 29, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 402
Former HB 2320		 Rep. Pickett An Act imposing duties on lessees of oil and natural gas leases; and providing for the recording of releases from oil and natural gas leases and of affidavits of termination or cancellation. Jan. 29, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 444 Rep. Causer An Act amending the act of May 17, 1929 (P.L.1798, No.591), referred to as the Forest Reserves Municipal Financial Relief Law, providing for distribution of timber, wood products and gas and oil ground rentals and royalties. Jan. 30, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 495 Rep. Boback An Act providing for the erosion and sedimentation program to be administered by delegation agreements between the Department of Environmental Protection and conservation districts. Co-sponsorship of Legislation – Provides for Erosion & Sedimentation Agreements Between DEP and County Conservation Districts. Feb. 4, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 661 Rep. Milne An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, in general requirements relating to development, further providing for use of safety devices. “Promoting the Natural Gas Sector by Enhancing Public Safety Communications” (Prior HB2312) Feb. 11, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 800
Formerly HB 230		 Rep. Mundy An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for well location restrictions. “Reintroduction of Legislation: Prohibiting hydraulic fracturing or horizontal drilling within 2,500 feet of a primary source of a community water system” Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 801
Formerly HB 234		 Rep. Mundy An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions and for well location restrictions. “Reintroduction of Legislation: Providing for the tracking of Marcellus Shale wastewater” Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 880 Rep. Conklin An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, further providing for well permits. Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 881
Formerly HB 1631		 Rep. Conklin An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, providing for toll-free response telephone number. Legislation Providing for a Telephone Number to Report Suspected Violations of Oil and Gas Laws Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 888 Rep. Millard An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in powers and duties of Department of General Services and its departmental administrative and advisory boards and commissions, further providing for State heating system to be fueled by coal or natural gas. State heating system to be fueled by coal or natural gas Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on State Government
HB 904 Rep. Reese An Act providing for certain disclosure statements in easement agreements for certain natural gas pipelines Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on State Government
HB 950 Rep. Vitali An Act providing for a moratorium on leasing lands owned and managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the purposes of oil and natural gas development. Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 986 Rep. Everett An Act requiring well operators to provide complete water analysis results to the Department of Environmental Protection under certain circumstances. Mar. 13, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 994 Rep. Petri An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, further providing for well permits, for general gas storage reservoir operations and for regulations. Mar. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 1015 Rep. M.K Keller An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas farm equipment conversion tax credit. Natural Gas Farm Equipment Conversion Tax Credit. Mar. 18, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Finance
HB 1188 Rep. Payne An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for sliding scale of rates and adjustments and for duties of natural gas distribution companies. Co-sponsorship – Representative Payne – amend Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act. Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HB 1414 Rep. Everett An Act amending the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.183, No.60), entitled “An act regulating the terms and conditions of certain leases regarding natural gas and oil,” further providing for validity of leases and guaranteeing a royalty; adding definitions; providing for apportionment; further providing for commencement of guaranteed royalty; providing for payment information to interest owners and for accumulation of proceeds from production; and making editorial changes. Transparency of Deductions from Royalty Checks. May 16, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energyy
HR 106 Rep. Mundy A Resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States to repeal the provision in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act that exempts oil and gas industries from restrictions on hydraulic fracturing operations located near drinking water sources, and to require oil and gas industries to disclose all hydraulic fracturing chemicals and chemical constituents in the event of a medical emergency. Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
HR 249 Rep. Swanger A Resolution supporting continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to American refineries and urging the President and Congress of the United States to support the continued and increased production and use of American natural gas. Resolution re: Gas Prices and Domestic Oil Drilling. Apr. 16, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on State Government
HB 683 Rep. Haluska An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction, providing for the offense of interfering with agricultural operations. Feb. 12 – Referred to Judiciary
SB 154 Sen. Greenleaf An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, providing for gas mineral rights lease agreement disclosure and indemnification. Jan. 15, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 213 Sen. Farnese An Act transferring funds from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority Fund for investments in Pennsylvania-related companies that promote the development of next-generation infrastructure technologies or technology-related investments to support development of life science, information technology or green energy industries. Feb. 1, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 218 Sen. Solobay An Act amending the act of July 9, 2008 (1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1873, No.1), known as the Alternative Energy Investment Act, further providing for alternative and clean energy supply chain initiatives. Solar & Natural Gas Supply Chain Initiative. Feb. 4, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Community, Economic and Recreational Development
SB 258 Sen. Yaw An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in particular rights and immunities, providing for actions to quiet title involving subsurface rights. Abandonment of Mineral Rights Jan. 17, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 259 Sen. Yaw An Act amending the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.183, No.60), entitled “An act regulating the terms and conditions of certain leases regarding natural gas and oil,” adding definitions; providing for payment information to interest owners for accumulation of proceeds from production; and making editorial changes. Division Order for Royalties Feb. 5, 2013(50-0) [Senate] –Third consideration and final passage
SB 291 Sen. Erickson An Act establishing a program for the purchase of certain types of environmental liability insurance and for subsidies for the costs of premiums; and providing for powers and duties of the Department of Environmental Protection. Jan. 24, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 355 Sen. Yaw An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, consolidating the Oil and Gas Conservation Law with modifications relating to definitions, standard unit order, process, administration, standard of review, hearings and appeals, establishment of units, integration of various interests, lease extension and scope; providing for gas and hazardous liquids pipelines; and making a related repeal. Jan. 31, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 356 Sen. Yaw An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, providing for lease extended by production. Jan. 31, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 411 Sen. Kasunic An Act amending Title 27 (Environmental Resources) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions, for eligibility and project inventory, for landowner liability limitation and exceptions, for project liability limitation and exceptions and for exceptions. Use of Acid Mine Water for Hydraulic Fracturing and Industrial Applications. Feb. 12, 2013 – First consideration
Mar. 13, 2013 -Laid on the table
SB 459 Sen. Costa An Act relating to safe drinking water; establishing the Emergency Drinking Water Support Fund; and providing for testing, for purchase of clean drinking water and for surcharge. Well Water Testing Fund Feb. 8, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 504 Sen. Dinniman An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in powers and duties of Department of Environmental Protection, further providing for cooperation with municipalities. DEP Public Notification and Access to Information Act; Pipeline Acre-for-Acre; and Condemnation Approval Feb. 26, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 506 Sen. Dinniman An Act amending the act of December 22, 2011 (P.L.586, No.127), known as the Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines Act, further providing for definitions; and providing for recreational use and for storm water runoff.  DEP Public Notification and Access to Information Act; Pipeline Acre-for-Acre; and Condemnation Approval Feb. 26, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 507 Sen. Dinniman An Act amending the act of June 30, 1981 (P.L.128, No.43), known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, further providing for limitation on certain governmental actions. DEP Public Notification and Access to Information Act; Pipeline Acre-for-Acre; and Condemnation Approval Feb. 26, 2013 – Referred to Agriculture and Rural Affairs
SB 512 Sen. Kasunic An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, further providing for enforcement orders. Feb. 20, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 540 Sen. Leach An Act providing for a moratorium on leasing State forest lands for the purposes of natural gas exploration, drilling or production; imposing duties on the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and providing for report contents and for Legislative Budget and Finance Committee study. Moratorium on Leasing State Forest Land for Natural Gas Drilling Feb. 21, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 544 Sen. Leach An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, further providing for hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure requirements. Physician access to and disclosure of chemicals in Marcellus Shale hydro-fracking Feb. 21, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 555 Sen. Scarnati An Act establishing the Health Advisory Panel on Shale Gas Extraction and Natural Gas Use; and providing for its powers and duties. Marcellus Shale Health Advisory Panel. Physician access to and disclosure of chemicals in Marcellus Shale hydro-fracking Mar. 20, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Public Health and Welfare
SB 592 Sen Fontana An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for protection of water supplies. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP Mar. 1, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SB 738 Sen Yaw An Act providing for distribution system extension and expansion plans to increase natural gas usage in this Commonwealth. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Expansion and Development Initiative. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP May 7, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations
SB 739 Sen Yaw An Act amending the act of July 9, 2008 (1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1873, No.1), known as the Alternative Energy Investment Act, further providing for Commonwealth Financing Authority. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP May 7, 2013 – Re-Referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations
SB 941 Sen Yudichak An Act amending the act of June 28, 1995 (P.L.89, No.18), known as the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, further providing for forests. Legislation to Require A Public Hearing Before Leasing State Land. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP May 15, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
TBA Sen. Ferlo An Act enacting a moratorium on unconventional well natural gas drilling in the Commonwealth. The moratorium would prohibit the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from issuing new unconventional well permits while a seven member commission studies the varied environmental impacts that the natural gas industry has on the Commonwealth. . Memorandum posted on April 30, 2013
SR 29 Sen. Yaw A Resolution directing the Center for Rural Pennsylvania to study the potential for increased residential, commercial and industrial natural gas distribution infrastructure by Pennsylvania’s public utilities to unserved and underserved areas of this Commonwealth. Mar. 14, 2013 – Transmitted as directed
SR 38 Sen. Solobay A Resolution directing the Department of General Services to conduct a study to determine the associated costs and feasibility of converting and retrofitting State-owned vehicles with compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas engines for the purpose of modernizing the State fleet. State Fleet Natural Gas Vehicle Study. Mar. 1, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on State Government
SR 39 Sen. Alloway A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study of the establishment, implementation and administration of fees for the consumptive use and degradation of water. Consumptive Use of Water Mar. 13, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
SR 57 Sen. Cornman A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study on the feasibility and effectiveness of converting the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority bus system to natural gas fuel. LBFC Natural Gas Fuel Study for SEPTA Buses. Consumptive Use of Water Apr. 4, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation

Last updated: June 3, 2013

Controversy in the Loyalsock
Guest Author

Controversy in the Loyalsock

/by

By Mark Szybist, Staff Attorney, PennFuture

What are the Clarence Moore Lands?

The Clarence Moore lands are 25,621 acres of “split estate” lands in the Loyalsock State Forest where the surface rights are owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the oil and gas rights are owned by two private parties – an affiliate of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) and a private company called International Development Corporation (IDC). The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) calls this acreage the “Clarence Moore lands,” after an individual who once owned the area’s oil and gas interests.

What is the controversy over the Clarence Moore lands?

The Clarence Moore lands have become controversial because Anadarko wants to drill gas wells on them (and build compressor stations, water impoundments, pipelines, and new roads). Because of the ecological and recreational sensitivity of the Clarence Moore lands, PA’s conservation community (and much of the general public) wants the DCNR to use its substantial powers to minimize surface activities, if not prevent them altogether.

In general, when a “split estate” exists in PA, the party that owns or controls the oil and gas estate has an implied right to use the surface that it does not own in order to extract oil and gas. The Clarence Moore lands present an exception to this rule. Due to a provision in the Commonwealth’s deed, the DCNR has the power to deny Anadarko access to 18,870 acres of the Clarence Moore lands – almost 75%. To obtain access, Anadarko needs a right-of-way from the DCNR. Conservationists are arguing that given this power, the DCNR has leverage to protect all of the Clarence Moore lands – including the 6,841 acres where Anadarko appears to have traditional “split estate” surface rights.

In March 2012 Anadarko submitted to the DCNR a development plan for the Clarence Moore lands. For almost a year, a coalition of conservation, recreation, fishing and hunting organizations (and thousands of private citizens) have been pressing the DCNR to conduct a public input process on the Clarence Moore lands before making any agreement with Anadarko. The coalition wants the DCNR to make public its environmental impact analyses, allow public comment on all development and non-development alternatives, and protect the Clarence Moore lands for future generations of Pennsylvania citizens. In April 2013 the DCNR conducted an invitation-only meeting about the Clarence Moore lands for “local stakeholders,” followed by a webinar in collaboration with the Penn State Extension of the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. The DCNR announced on May 22, 2013 that it would hold a public meeting in Williamsport on June 3rd.

Why are the Clarence Moore lands so important?

The Clarence Moore lands are a wealth of ecological and recreational resources. They include the Old Loggers Path (OLP), an acclaimed 27-mile hiking trail that follows former logging trails and opens onto stunning vistas. According to DCNR documents, the OLP “will be taking the brunt of development [from Anadarko’s activities].”

The Clarence Moore lands include most of the watershed of Rock Run, an Exceptional Value (EV) stream widely hailed as the most beautiful stream in Pennsylvania. The headwaters of Rock Run and Pleasant Stream, another EV stream, emerge from ridge-top wetlands that provide habitat for several threatened or endangered plant and animal species.

The Clarence Moore lands provide habitat for numerous plant and animal species that Pennsylvania has classified as threatened, rare, or at risk (or determined to be candidates for these classifications). Among these species (to name just a few): the timber rattlesnake, northern water shrew, creeping snowberry, northern bulrush, northern goshawk, and yellow-bellied flycatcher. The Clarence Moore lands have been designated an Important Bird Area by the Audubon Society. (See p. 82 of this PDF).

Finally, the Clarence Moore lands are one of only a few large public land areas in north-central PA that have not been opened to gas development, and still contain relatively unfragmented forests.  The DCNR has already leased almost 21,000 other acres of Loyalsock (the forest is around 114,000 acres in all), and has also leased much of the Tiadaghton State Forest to the west and the Tioga State Forest to the north.

FracTracker map of Clarence Moore Lands and Activity

The map above shows the Clarence Moore lands as yellow and blue areas within the Loyalsock State Forest. In the yellow areas, the DCNR has exclusive control of the surface. In the blue areas, Anadarko has the right to use the surface to extract oil and gas. The locations of the yellow and blue Clarence Moore areas are based on documents obtained by PennFuture through the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law (RTKL) and on maps that the DCNR presented at the April 2013 webinar noted above.

The map also shows the oil and gas wells, pipelines, roads, compressor stations, and impoundments that conservationists believe Anadarko has proposed to build in the Clarence Moore lands. The locations of this infrastructure are based on the RTKL documents and on hikers’ observations of survey flags within the Loyalsock State Forest.

Questions and comments about this issue or the June 3rd public meeting can be directed to Mark Szybist: Szybist@pennfuture.org.