Articles

Op Ed – So what’s the rush to drill for gas?

September 15, 2011/by FracTracker Alliance

Reposted from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (August 17, 2011)

A seasoned environmental health professional looks at the Marcellus Shale
By Bernard D. Goldstein, M.D.

Haven’t we learned anything from our past mistakes?

Public health and the environment have been my life since 1966. I have been a U.S. Public Health Service officer stationed in Los Angeles, our most polluted city; an assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Reagan administration; and the director of an academic environmental health program in New Jersey, arguably our most polluted state.

Before the Marcellus Shale issue, I believed we had learned from past mistakes to approach potential environmental health risks intelligently. But now I’m not so sure.

Let me start by saying I’m in favor of extracting Marcellus Shale gas — but not yet. For reasons that include air quality and global climate change, natural gas is a better energy source than coal. At the risk of offending my environmentalist friends, I don’t believe that conservation measures combined with alternative energy sources will eliminate our need for fossil fuels within the next few decades.

I also agree it is in our national interest to decrease our reliance on fossil fuel imports. The gulf oil commission recently supported a return to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because if we do not get this oil, Cubans, Venezuela or China will. But unless the Canadians can horizontally fracture under Lake Erie, the gas in the Marcellus Shale is ours for the taking.

The Marcellus Shale’s fixed location and limited amount of gas provides many reasons to go about it thoughtfully. Whenever we begin, we still will have at least the same amount of gas extracted over the same duration of time. In contrast, delaying allows us to prepare for three certainties… Read more

If It’s Unsuitable For Mining, Is Drilling Advisable?

September 14, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

There are a handful of watersheds, predominantly in central Pennsylvania, that the Department of Environmental Protection has deemed to be unsuitable for mining activities.

According to pages 100-101 of the Oil and Gas Operator’s Manual, a region may be determined to be unsuitable for mining if the mining operation will:

be incompatible with existing State or local land use plans or programs;
affect fragile or historic lands in which such operations could result in significant
damage to important historic, cultural, scientific and esthetic values and natural
systems;
affect renewable resource lands in which such operations could result in a
substantial loss or reduction of long-range productivity of water supply or of
food or fiber products, and such lands to include aquifers and aquifer recharge
areas; or
affect natural hazard lands in which such operations could substantially
endanger life and property, such lands to include areas subject to frequent
flooding and areas of unstable geology.

Marcellus Shale permits that were issued in areas which were deemed to be “unsuitable for mining” according to the PA DEP in 2002.

These seem like worthy goals. So if these areas are unsuitable for coal mining, why is it OK to put gas wells there?

Surface coal mine. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coal_mine_Wyoming.jpg

Granted, drilling a well is not quite the same impact as a surface mining operation, but to protect an area from one mode of mineral extraction and not the other seems inconsistent. After all, many of the problems with coal are still relevant for gas drilling, since the drilling operator must go through the coal seam to get to the gas. The pyrite associated with the coal is still exposed to air, meaning that the drilling mud and drill cuttings probably contain sulfuric acid, the key component of acid mine drainage (AMD).

And it’s not just the drill cuttings that could be a source of problems…it could be the well bore itself. Consider the Hughes Bore Hole, which, according to Wikipedia was drilled in the 1920’s to drain underground mines in the area, then capped in the 1950’s. So what’s the big deal? In the 1970’s, pressure built up and the hole burst open, and has been spewing about 800 gallons per minute of acid mine drainage ever since.

Hughes Bore Hole releasing acid mine drainage. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hughe%27s_Bore_Hole_071.jpg

Could drilling a gas well in the wrong place have the same effect?

Maybe to be safe we ought not drill in areas where geologists have determined that AMD could exist. That wouldn’t affect that many wells, would it?

Marcellus Shale permits in areas with acid mine drainage potential. Please click the map for a dynamic view and more information.

Oh. Well then let’s hope the well casing experts don’t have any bad days.

[Note: if you want to watch a video of Hughes Bore Hole and don’t mind salty language, click the Youtube link on the “Hughes Well Bore” link above.]

West Virginia Marcellus Shale Data Updated

September 9, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

Three new West Virginia datasets have been added to the DataTool to keep up to date with Marcellus Shale activities in that state. The West Virginia DEP is the source for all three datasets. Included are:

West Virginia Marcellus Shale Permits Issued

Marcellus Shale permits in West Virginia through September 6, 2011. Please click the image for a dynamic view.

The permits list was filtered online to include only Marcellus Shale permits, then filtered on the desktop to reflect only “Permit Issued” actions, thereby ignoring applications, renewals, and other actions for the same well. I also converted the coordinate system from UTM’s to the more familiar system decimal degree latitude and longitude. There are 1,868 records in the dataset. One well apparently was given the wrong coordinates, and appears to be in Pennsylvania instead of West Virginia.

West Virginia Marcellus Shale Drilled Wells

Marcellus Shale drilled wells in West Virginia through September 6, 2011. Please click the image for a dynamic view.

Each triangle in the map above represents a Marcellus Shale gas well that was listed as an active well. Location data was determined by matching the unique well numbers to the permits list, above.

West Virginia Marcellus Shale Violations

Marcellus Shale violations in West Virginia through September 6, 2011. Please click the image for a dynamic view.

The violations list did not mention whether or not the well was a Marcellus Shale well, nor did it give location information. Both of these categories were determined by matching the well number to the permits list.

Marcellus Shale Production Decline Over Time in Pennsylvania

September 5, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

There are now three different Marcellus Shale production reports available on FracTracker’s DataTool:

The production data, which is self-reported by the drilling operators, is also available from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

In this post, we will explore the change in production from the 756 Marcellus Shale wells that reported positive (nonzero) production on each of the three reports. Of these, exactly 300 were flagged as horizontal wells on the most recent report, leaving 456 to be classified as vertical wells.

Marcellus Shale production in Pennsylvania from January to June, 2011. Please click the image to see a zoomable and dynamic map.
Caveats
It is important to note that the first of the three production cycles is for a one year period, while the other two are for six months each. Luckily, each report includes not only production in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf), but also the number of days for which each well was in production. Therefore, we can look at the data in terms of thousands of cubic feet per day (McfPD), which solves not only the 12 month vs. 6 month problem, but also makes sure that we aren’t comparing six months of production to just a handful of days.

One important factor that this analysis does not account for, however, is when the well first entered production. This is significant, because gas wells typically have a very high initial production, which falls steeply in the months and years ahead. This produces a hyperbolic decline curve, such as this Department of the Interior graph found on Wikipedia.

In this case, we only know that the initial production was some time since 2006 and before June 30, 2010. Add to that fact that there are only three date ranges, and the result is definitely not a proper decline curve.

Results
However, there are results, and they do show decline over time. Interestingly, there are some differences to note between horizontal and vertical Marcellus Shale wells.

Average Marcellus Shale production in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) for wells on all three production reports.

Average Marcellus Shale production showing rates of decline.

The overall production of the sample decreased 40.7 percent from the period ending June 2010 to the one ending one year later. Interestingly, the vertical wells are declining at a sharper rate than horizontal wells, although not dramatically so.

The chart also highlights the amazing difference in production that horizontal drilling provides to Marcellus Shale wells, with average production values 5.6 to 6.9 times higher than their vertical counterparts.

What’s Missing?
Not all of the Marcellus Shale wells from the July ’09 to June ’10 list were still reporting production for the period that ended one year later. These wells were not included in the above analysis, but are interesting in their own right:

Number of Marcellus Shale wells on the production report for the period ending June 2010 that are also reporting production one year later.

Surprisingly, the rate for horizontal wells no longer producing gas is more than twice as high as their vertical counterparts. Does this mean that a side effect of horizontal drilling is a shorter well production life, as all of the gas is extracted faster? We’ll have to wait and see what future data shows to find out.

Energy and the Environment: Preventing and Resolving Conflicts

September 2, 2011/by FracTracker Alliance

Citizen David Tames Gas Goliaths on the Marcellus Shale Stage: Citizen Action as a Form of Dispute Prevention in the Internet Age

A NY colleague of ours recently published an article on the issue of natural gas drilling and public engagement in New York State. The potential for environmental and public health issues were discussed in great detail for those who are interested in becoming more versed on the topic. (FracTracker was mentioned as a tool for dispute prevention, so that is exciting for us, too!)

Article Excerpt

“Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink.” This could soon become the lament of millions of people who derive their drinking water from sources located near the latest natural gas boom site in the East, known as the “Marcellus Shale” region. Drilling is underway in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, but not yet in New York. The focus here is New York.

Horizontal hydraulic fracturing holds promise for accessing shale gas. But with the current state of the industry practices, it also promises certain devastation to the environment and human health unless all local, state, and federal government officials immediately begin to take seriously the already documented risks associated with this unconventional drilling method. Every citizen has an interest in protecting our natural resources, water included. In this real life drama, David is played by U.S. citizens and Goliath is played by the rich and powerful oil and gas industry. Members of the oil and gas industry and land-owning citizens seeking to lease their property for gas extraction prefer the circumscribed definition of the term hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” which refers only to the actual gas drilling. Environmental groups and individuals advocating for conservation of natural resources opt for a broad interpretation of the term, reasoning that every step in the hydraulic gas drilling process is worthy of attention since adverse impacts can and do result from steps before and after the actual drilling occurs. The future environmental and human …

Published in the Spring, 2011 edition of Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. 373. by Elisabeth N. Radow

If you have a LexisNexis account, you can view the entire article online.

Groundwater Contamination Debate

August 4, 2011/by FracTracker Alliance

The Debate: Can the process of hydraulically fracturing underground natural gas wells contaminate groundwater?

Industry Position: There has never been a documented case of groundwater contamination due to hydraulic fracturing; the process occurs thousands of feet below drinking water aquifers. Therefore, the chemicals used in the fracturing process pose no threat to drinking water.

Opposition Position: It can and has contributed to pollution of underground drinking water sources.

The Data: Previous lawsuits from landowners were settled by the industry and the data kept private for various litigation reasons. A U.S. EPA report now indicates that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to at least one case of drinking water contamination in West Virginia in 1987 and could feasibly contribute to future problems.

Future Obligations: Some improved regulations and protections have been put in place since 1987, but the risk still exists if natural gas drilling is done hastily or if abandoned wells exist nearby. Once pollutants are introduced into underground water aquifers they are very difficult to remove, so significant care and review must be taken if drilling is going to continue. The EPA report further supports the need for increased government and industry transparency across the board. It should also be stated that a large-scale health impact assessment is needed to comprehensively determine the risk that the entire natural gas drilling operation poses to public health.

Compiled by: Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Communications Specialist, Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC), Environmental and Occupational Health (EOH) department, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (GSPH); and Doctoral Student, GSPH

Does Thickness of Shale Predict Production?

August 3, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

I was recently contacted by a resident of New York State who was concerned about Marcellus Shale gas drilling moving into his area. He found a report by geologists Dr. Gary Lash from SUNY – Fredoinia and Dr. Terry Engelder from Penn State that showed the shale layer thinning substantially as it heads north across the Pennsylvania-New York border.

What’s more, this report breaks up the Marcellus Shale into several substrata, including the Union Springs shale and the Oatka Creek shale, which are separated by a thin and intermittent layer of limestone.

On a cursory level, the thickest parts of the Union Springs substratum of the Marcellus Shale seemed to correspond with the highest production areas in Bradford and Susquehanna Counties. Even though there was another high production area in Southwestern Pennsylvania in a relatively thin portion of the Union Springs (and Marcellus Shale in general), it seemed like a reasonable hypothesis to explore. Does the thickness of the shale layer effectively predict the production values from wells in those areas?

Thickness of the Union Springs substratum of the Marcellus Shale and daily production values. As the shale layer gets thicker, it is represented by darker brown bands, while production values range from blue (lowest production) to red (highest production). For more information and a dynamic view, click the image to visit our DataTool.

Karen Edelstein, FracTracker’s New York Liason, digitized the Union Springs thickness map from the Lash-Engelder report, and then I was able to correlate the production values of all Marcellus Shale wells to the average thickness of each category. For the purpose of this exercise, only wells reporting positive (non-zero) production values between July and December 2011 were included. To account for wells in production for only part of that period, I calculated the average daily production in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) per day.

Thickness of the Union Springs substratum of the Marcellus Shale in feet versus average daily production in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) per day.

Overall, the correlation isn’t very strong. While the trend line does show moderate increases in production as the Union Springs shale layer thickens, the low R-squared shows that there is a good bit of randomness involved. Part of this was expected, due to the large number of productive wells in Southwestern Pennsylvania, where the formation is quite thin. This would be the notable bump in the plot chart above between 20 and 60 feet of thickness.

Thickness of the Union Springs substratum of the Marcellus Shale and average daily production values. Click the image for more information and a dynamic view.

However, there is another factor that contributes to the poor correlation. As I mentioned above, the trendline does indicate that on average, wells in the thicker formations produce more gas than those in thinner formations, but there are also a large number of duds from the most robust parts of the Union Springs. That is to say, there are a lot of blue dots in the dark brown regions of the map below.

It is likely that if the whole thickness of the Marcellus Shale were considered, the results would have been even worse. In fact, some of the thickest parts of the whole Marcellus, at least according to Lash and Engelder, are in Pike County, which drillers have left alone so far.

So we have not cracked the nut of predicting which areas will yield the highest production returns, but at least we have good company in that regard. Despite the huge amount of data that the oil and gas companies possess, the results that they report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection show that they still don’t really know what they’ll find at the bottom of a hole until they drill it.

Although there is clearly more to gas yields than thickness of the shale, it was an interesting exercise, and if the industry ever does figure it out, it will be a multi-billion dollar discovery–keep in mind that each of the thousands of wells planned cost at least $5 million to drill. Here’s hoping that they do figure it out someday, and not just because of the economics. If drilling wildcat wells can be minimized, then many of the significant adverse effects of the industry would also be mitigated as well, at least in areas where production values were estimated to be low.

Comparing & Contrasting Extractive Industry Sectors in Ghana & the US

August 3, 2011/by FracTracker Alliance

By Deanna Bitetti (Common Cause) and Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH (CHEC)

In the quiet of the morning the group we have travelled to Ghana with using a grant from the US Department of State to study extractive industries find ourselves swapping stories – wistfully thinking of American life back home. We find ourselves constantly comparing and contrasting the political environment in which public policy around extractive industries are crafted in both nations. Scratch beneath the surface and you will find that Ghana and the US are not that different after all.

The pernicious influence of special interest money permeates throughout American political culture just as it does in Ghana; compulsory Integration models in the states have allowed for mineral rights to be taken from American citizens, and confusion over the leasing of mineral rights for natural gas extraction has led to uprooted communities. Environmental degradation and costs to local communities have been paramount in both the US and Ghana. These two nations separated by the Atlantic are struggling to balance new extractive industries as an engine for economic growth and protecting communities from the pitfalls associated with the “resource curse.” As both nations forge ahead in developing their oil and gas sectors, how they manage the risk associated with natural gas development will ultimately define how the citizenry thinks about the role of government and government institutions.

Below is a short comparison of some key aspects affecting constituencies in the US and Ghana.

Special Interest Influence

During a recent discussion with a local royal chief in a small village I am reminded that corporate influence is not localized to any specific nation. Here, a gold mining company publicly presents the tribal leaders of a village with keys to two Land Rovers. In America, special interest money floods campaign coffers, exceedingly so in the wake of Citizen United. According to Open Secrets individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates since 1990. From 2010-2011 Exxon Mobil and The Koch Brothers, one of the largest oil and gas conglomerates in the US, spent $384,030 and $318,800 respectively on campaign donations on both sides of the partisan divide to influence environmental legislation aimed at regulating the oil and gas sector. In Pennsylvania, Common Cause’s www.marcellusmoney.org has tracked the significant campaign cash contributions that have flooded campaign coffers, and in New York our recent report “Deep Drilling, Deep Pockets,” highlighted the large amounts industry has spent to lobby our elected officials.

Public Benefits for Public Good

In Ghana only 5% of royalties paid by the extractive industry sector is paid to the State. Out of that 80% of the money goes into the government’s general fund, with only 9% trickling down to effected communities. In the US, Congress has historically rewarded energy companies and those involved in the extractive industry sector with tax breaks, without tangible realization of positive benefits to communities. Nearly two-thirds of US corporations don’t pay any income taxes. According to a study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens. Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies, such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America and Citigroup, all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes. Even as we write this, Congress is considering offering major subsidies to promote natural gas extraction methods and providing major tax incentives to the industry, speeding up the timeline for extraction and feeding the natural gas boom (and possibly bust) cycle.

Mineral Rights and Extraction

At the heart of the debate over natural gas extraction in the US is the right of landowners to either retain their land or sign leases with companies with the hope of negotiating lucrative contracts for their mineral rights. In Ghana, Article 257 of the Constitution states that public lands and public property are “vested in the President on the behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana.” In essence, the state has claims to mineral rights, not the individual. On the surface the situation in Ghana appears anathema to American values. Forced resettlement programs of thousands of fisherman, farmers and landowners offends our notion of private property and ownership as inviolate. Yet areas in New York and Pennsylvania have allowed for Compulsory Integration where companies were granted the right to drill on lands for which they did not hold leases. Some residents that may own the surface rights but not the mineral rights experience the effects of a “split estate.” Additionally, population displacement often occurs near areas of heavy drilling either because of fear of health effects, noise or pollution, or due to harassment by companies. The important benefits and drawbacks that result from personal ownership of mineral rights must be considered seriously. Further, neither the United States or Ghana require companies to disclose the exact composition of the chemical mixtures used in the process, shrouding it in a cloud of secrecy from the public.

Externalities of Natural Gas Development

In Ghana, as farmland is turned over to industry to pave the way for rapid development, food productivity has begun decreasing – causing food and commodity prices to rise. Housing prices have been steadily increasing as foreigners flock to the areas surrounding the Jubilee oil field, causing a surge in demand for those residences. Prostitution and crime has been on the rise, as well. Even smoking has increased as foreigners bring with them new social norms. In the US we have seen similar externalities imposed on host communities by the extractive industry sector. In Pennsylvania we have already seen the rise in housing shortages due to workers being brought in from out of state, traffic incidences, and roadway degradation. Air quality concerns, drinking water contamination, and stress-related health effects are being documented. Both nations lack clear and updated standards for hazardous waste removal of drilling fluid or drill cuttings. Each country will have to address new pressures placed on transportation infrastructure, including increasing maintenance costs as new roads are created and old roads need constant repair to handle the increase in heavy truck traffic.

Public Health Issues

Residential and operational waste – regardless of its country of origin – is a common postcard to receive from the presence of extractive industries. Improperly handled waste contributes to a multitude of public health issues, such as tainted drinking water, disease transmission, air pollution, and threats to the food supply. One of the differences between Ghana and the U.S. lies in the awareness of where our waste goes. Americans are physically separated from the sources and end products of our distracted commercial lives. Trash is collected by a contractor and taken to dump sites, incinerators, or overseas. Ghanaians face their (and others’) waste on the country’s busy sidewalks, in open sewers, and floating in their magnificent waterways. They witness the neocolonial exploitation of their local resources for the imbalanced consumption and financial gain of other countries. While our processes for extraction and waste disposal differ somewhat, we share a common problem – how to reduce our demand on the entire cycle. Many of the earth’s resources are finite and severely threatened, and so sustainability must be the prescription for healthy development.

Conclusion

This list is not exhaustive, nor it is it meant to be. To move toward a best-practices model for developing extractive industry sectors and managing the high risks associated with doing so means paying close attention to the pace and scope of development, as well as attempting to ameliorate negative externalities imposed on communities. This must include mechanisms for proper oversight and regulation, sustainable planning and development, enhanced civic societal input at the decision- making table, and realistic expectations about the financial promises of oil and gas. In nations such as Ghana, managing these revenues will require more transparency and better management to ensure that revenues do not create large wealth distribution imbalances. In the US, ensuring that industry and government do not form cozy relationships that undermine independent oversight regimes is a major concern.

Deanna Bitetti is the Associate Director of Common Cause/NY. Samantha Malone is the Communications Specialist at the Center for Environmental Healthy Environments and Communities and a doctorate student in the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. They are currently in Ghana as part of a State Department funded research trip on resource extraction hosted by Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and the University of Ghana (Legon, Ghana).

Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission Report Released

July 23, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

Yesterday, the Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission, lead by Lieutenant Governor Jim Cawley, released a 137 report of their recommendations, which is available at the Post-Gazette website. The Commission, composed of industry and state government officials, came up with almost a hundred recommendations, including some controversial items such as a drilling “impact fee”, as well as forced pooling.

Take a look at the document linked above, and let us know what you think about it.

Paid Marcellus Programming to Play in West Virginia

July 16, 2011/by Matt Kelso, BA

Who doesn’t love a good half hour commercial? But it’s not just for OxiClean and musical compilations of 70’s disco tunes anymore–the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association is getting in on the act too.

In addition to the half hour weekly episode of “Inside Shale”, in which callers ask questions of industry insiders, there will be a “Marcellus Minute” that airs 10 to 20 times per day. Both programs are scheduled to launch on 49 radio stations throughout West Virginia.

Talking about the Marcellus Shale on the radio is certainly not off limits, but the industry sponsored call in show does sound questionable, in that the format mimics a news format, and it could be confused as such. It’s a shame that the industry didn’t push for actual moderated discussions, with guests arguing from a variety of perspectives. That is something that there’s a real need for, not just in West Virginia, but wherever shale gas extraction is occurring.

There are real impacts of drilling. Some people are giddy with prospective royalty checks. Others are bitter with the presence of compressors, condensers, and fouled water wells on property that they own, but not the mineral rights for. There’s a lot to talk about, and communities that might be affected by the industry deserve to hear both sides.