Articles

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.

Keeping Track of Hydraulic Fracturing in California

August 23, 2013/by Kyle Ferrar, MPH

By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Environmental regulations in California are considered conservative by most state standards. To name a few practices, the state has developed an air quality review board that conducts independent toxicological assessments on a level competitive with the U.S. EPA, and the state instituted the U.S.’s first green house gas cap and trade program. But most recently the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has been criticized in the media for its lack of monitoring of hydraulic fracturing activity. DOGGR has been responsive to criticism and preemptive of legislative action and has begun a full review of all well-sites in California to identify which wells have been hydraulically fractured and plan to monitor future hydraulic fracturing. Additionally they have maintained historical records of all wells drilled, plugged, and abandoned in the state in web-accessible databases, which include data for oil and gas, geothermal, and injection wells, as well as other types of support wells such as pressure maintenance, steam flood etc.. The data is also viewable in map format on the DOGGR’s online mapping system (DOMS).

To understand what is missing from the DOGGR dataset, it was compared to the dataset extracted from FracFocus.org by SkyTruth. The map “Hydraulic Fracturing in California” compares these two datasets, which can be viewed individually or together as one dataset with duplicates removed. It is interesting to note the SkyTruth dataset categorizes 237 wells as hydraulically fractured that DOGGR does not, and identifies three wells (API #’s 11112215, 23727206, and 10120788) not identified in the DOGGR database. For the some of these 237 wells, DOGGR identifies them as new, which means they were recently drilled and hydraulically fractured and DOGGR will be updating their database. Many are identified as active oil and gas wells., while the rest are identified as well types other than oil and gas. Also the SkyTruth dataset from FracFocus data contains additional information about each well-site, which DOGGR does not provide. This includes volumes of water used for hydraulic fracturing and the fracture date, both of which are vital pieces of monitoring information.

The California State Legislature is currently reviewing California Senate Bill 4 (CA SB 4) written by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), which would put in place a regulatory structure for permitting and monitoring hydraulic fracturing and other activity. A caveat for acidification is also included that would require companies to obtain a specific permit from the state before acidizing a well. The bill has received criticism from both industry and environmentalists. While it does not call for a moratorium or regulate what chemicals are used, it is the first legislation that requires a full disclosure of all hydraulic fracturing fluid additives, including those considered proprietary. This is the last of at least seven bills on the issue, the majority of which have been turned down by lawmakers. The most conservative bills (Assemblywoman Mitchell; D-Culver City) proposed moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing in the state. Earlier this year lawmakers approved a bill (Sen. Pavley; D-Agoura Hills) that would direct the state to complete and independent scientific risk assessment of hydraulic fracturing. The bill directs permitters to deny permits if the study is not finished by January 1, 2015, and also requires public notice before drilling as well as disclosure of chemicals (besides those considered proprietary). In May, a bill (Sen. Wold; D-Davis) was passed requiring drillers to file a $100,000 indemnity bond for each well, with an optional blanket indemnity bond of $5 million for operators with over 20 wells. Another bill (Jackson; D-Santa Barbara) that would require monitoring of both transportation and disposal of wastewater was tabled until next year.

Although hydraulic fracturing has been conducted in California for over a decade, it was not monitored or regulated, and the majority of Californians were not aware of it. Industry groups have portrayed the lack of attention as a testament to its environmental neutrality, but Californians living smack dab in the middle of the drilling tend to tell a different story. The issue is now receiving attention because hydraulic fracturing is such a hotbed topic of contention, along with the potential future of the billions of barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale. The unconventional extraction technology necessary to recover the oil from these deep shale formations is state of the art, which means it is not tried and true. The methods include a combination of high tech approaches, such as horizontal drilling, high volume hydraulic fracturing, and acidification to name a few. Realize: if this technology existed for the last 60 years, the Monterey Shale would already have been developed long ago, along with the rest of the U.S. deep shale formations.

Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013

PA Releases Unconventional Production and Waste Data

August 20, 2013/by Matt Kelso, BA

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) releases unconventional oil and gas production and waste data twice a year. It is important to note that both datasets are self-reported from the industry, and there are usually a few operators who miss the reporting deadline. For that reason, FracTracker usually waits a week or so to capture the results of the fashionably late. However, after looking at the data, it is likely that there are still operators that have not yet reported.

Production

Production is perhaps the most important metric of the oil and gas industry. After all, if there were no production, there would be no point in drilling in the first place. Royalty payments for property owners are based on production values from the wells. More than that though, it can be an indication of hot spots, and to some degree, which operators are better at getting the product out of the ground than the rest of the field.

Location

Unconventional formations–especially the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale–underlie about two-thirds of Pennsylvania. However, that does not mean that if an operator drilling a hole in Clarion County can expect the same result as well in Sullivan County, for example. Production is unevenly distributed throughout the state:

Unconventional gas production in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Counties with above average production per well are highlighted in orange.

With 1.4 trillion cubic feet of gas production in half a year from unconventional wells, Pennsylvania has become a major leader in production. For a quick comparison to other regions of the country, see the Energy Information Administration, (although the EIA has apparently not felt inspired to update their data in a while).

It should be noted that there is also oil and condensate production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania, although that really amounts to a drop in the barrel, so to speak. Unlike the Bakken, where gas is seen as a byproduct that is routinely flared because there is no infrastructure ready to accept it, the Marcellus and Utica in Pennsylvania are really all about the gas. Some of the gas from the western part of the state is considered wet, with heavier hydrocarbons like ethane and propane mixed with the methane, but in terms of this report, there is no distinction between wet gas and dry gas, or pure methane. Eight out of 17 wells producing oil and 430 out of 505 wells producing condensate are located in Washington County.

Operators

The reason that production values are more telling for geographies than for operators is that most operators in Pennsylvania are limited to select portions of the state, where their leasing strategies were focused. Therefore, certain companies occupy the regions that yield higher production, while others are left trying to extract from less productive areas. So looking at production by operator does not necessarily reflect their skill at extraction, but it does does give a general impression of how much one of their wells is likely to produce, which could be useful for people trying to negotiate leases, among other considerations.

Unconventional gas production by operator in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Operators with above average production are highlighted in orange.

Note that eight operators on the list have no data. Presumably, there are the operators that have not yet reported their data to the DEP, although it is possible that some of them could be defunct. Obviously, any missing data here would also be missing from the county totals. Alpha Shale is the clear leader in terms of production per well, with about 1.2 million Mcf per well. Citrus, Rice, and Chief occupy the next teir, with each exceeding an average of 700,000 Mcf. All four are relatively minor operators, however, with fewer than 100 wells reporting production. In terms of total production, Chesapeake blows the competition out of the water, with roughly the same production as the next two producers (Cabot and Range) combined.

Waste

Along with all of the profitable gas being produced in Pennsylvania comes all of the various waste products that are created in the process. Before jumping into the numbers, I’d like to point out that it is likely that operators who have not reported production also have not reported their contribution to the waste. In its current form, the waste report has 12,604 lines of data from 4,991 different unconventional wells. Here is a summary of the waste produced by type from unconventional formations in Pennsylvania:

Waste reported from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. Note that one barrel equals 42 US gallons.

Some interesting things are revealed when sorting the waste type data by operator, although the resulting table is a little unweildy, even for me. But here are a few highlights:

Anadarko reported 99.5 percent of basic sediment production
Southwestern Energy produced more than twice as much drill cuttings (128,000 tons) as the next highest operator (Cabot: 50,000 tons)
Range Resources led the pack with 172,000 barrels of drilling fluid, with Chevron Appalachia (168,000 barrels) close behind
PA Gen Energy had the most flowback fracturing sand reported, with over 8,600 tons, despite having fewer than 100 producing wells.
Chevron Appalachia produced the most fracing fluid waste (934,000 barrels), with Range Resources coming in at number two (773,000 barrels). This is what Pennsylvania calls the flowback fluid; this is not the straight chemical additives that used in the hydraulic fracturing process, but those additives are included in this fluid
The most produced fluid, or formation brine, came from Range Resources wells (1.6 million barrels), followed by Chesapeake (1.4 million barrels)
82 percent of the servicing fluid reported was from Cabot (1,741 barrels)
100 percent of the spent lubricant was reported by SWEPI (19 barrels)

Amazingly, despite their overwhelming lead in gas production in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia did not have the most of any of the eight different waste types, and in some cases, were not even close:

Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013

The Pennsylvania waste data is also notable for including the disposal method of the waste:

Disposal method for unconventional waste from PA between January and June 2013

And for those who can handle one last table, Pennsylvania also tells us where the waste is disposed:

Destination of unconventional oil and gas waste in PA between January and June 2013, by state

FracTracker Alliance’s NEW California Shale Viewer

August 18, 2013/by Kyle Ferrar, MPH

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.

$Koontz Class II Injection Well, Trumbull County, Ohio, (41.22806065, -80.87669281) with 260,278 barrels (10,020,704 gallons) of fracking waste having been processed between Q3-2010 and Q3-2012 (Note: Q1-2016 volumes have yet to be reported!).$

OH Class II Injection Wells – 2012 Year-in-Review

August 15, 2013/by Ted Auch, PhD

By Ted Auch, PhD – OH Program Coordinator

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).

View Map Fullscreen >

Data Demographics

Ohio Class II Injection Well Volumes and Depth

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.

Our “Shale Gas Waste Disposal Network Map” has been updated to include Q3 2010 to Q2 2913 Class II disposal rates and revenue on a quarterly basis.

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).

References

[1] Two of these wells are missing Latitude-Longitudes according to a search of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) database. Additionally, fifty-one of these “Active” wells had yet to receive fracturing waste at the end of 2013-Q1.

[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).

FracTracker Touring a Bit of Europe

August 15, 2013/by FracTracker Alliance

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!

Schedule

Aug 19-23 (All Day): ISEE Conference. Basel, Switzerland
Aug 20 (12:00–15:30): JF&C Roundtable. Berlin, Germany
Aug 20 (16:00–18:00): Agora Energiewende Roundtable. Berlin, Germany
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!

Gas Flaring and Venting: Data Availability and New Methods for Oversight

July 18, 2013/by Guest Author

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.

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

July 14, 2013/by Karen Edelstein

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.

Determination Letters Added to PADEP Groundwater Complaints Map

July 11, 2013/by Matt Kelso, BA

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:

NY State Hydraulic Fracturing Bans Relative to Population

July 4, 2013/by Karen Edelstein

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.

New Maps for Oklahoma, Virginia, and Wyoming

June 26, 2013/by Matt Kelso, BA

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.