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.

Guest Author

Communal Fracture: Concerned Citizens of Western Pennsylvania React to the Various Impacts of Marcellus Shale Fracking on their Communities

/by

By Nate Natale

The 141 acre farm in rural Washington County was a fixer-upper. 
The challenge of clearing the 80 overgrown acres on this property suited Ron Gulla just fine. So did the prospect of renovating the farm’s pond, tenant house and barn- all of which he did.
Gulla loves to work, he also loves to hunt and fish. “When I was hungry, I used to catch fish right out of my pond,” said Gulla. His property was perfect for all of these pursuits. 
That was until his 2.5 acre pond turned black, killing everything in it- including the fish. 
That was until a dream piece of property turned into a nightmare. 
In 2002, like so many in Hickory, Pa., Gulla signed a lease to allow natural gas drilling on his property. In discussing what has happened since, Gulla speaks with an anger and a passion that is impossible to dismiss. 
His story is one of the many in Washington County that is fraught with regret. “There are days that I am so mad, I have tears streaming down my face,” said Gulla.
Gulla was one of the last to sign in Hickory, even though his gut told him it was the wrong decision. “People will say, ‘it’s your fault’ and yes, but it wasn’t for the money…it was for the free gas,” said Gulla. 
Promised 300,000 cubic square feet of gas per year, Gulla said he never saw any of it. 
“Shale gas is wet, you can’t burn it. It has to be processed. They knew all along, we were never going to see that gas,” said Gulla. 
He also said that he was never informed that there would be unconventional horizontal drilling on his property.
Gulla said that the lies and deceit he experienced permeates the industry. “If you sign your mineral rights away, you’re signing your land away,” said Gulla. 
Gulla no longer lives on the farm he said was destroyed by natural gas company Range Resources. It is now owned by the Texas based company, whose Marcellus Division is located in Canonsburg, Pa. 
“They treated my farm like a landfill,” said Gulla. He also said that Range Resources never owned up to destroying his land or his pond.
Range Resources did not respond to a request for comment on this story. 
“I know what I know about this industry, I’ve seen the skull and cross bones come onto my property- the black water in my pond, the frack pits. They are destroying the ecosystem,” Gulla said. 
The Urban Perspective 
Community activists Loretta and Ken Weir, of Pittsburgh, speak with the same passion as Ron Gulla. 
After spending their Sunday afternoon at a meeting of the Marcellus Shale Protest organization, the Weirs shared a perspective from an area where drilling is not allowed. 
In November 2010, The City of Pittsburgh passed the “Pittsburgh’s Community Protection from Natural Gas Extraction Ordinance”, banning drilling within city limits. 
The ordinance alone does not protect the city from pollutants and this is one reason why many residents are still concerned. 
“The ordinance is just the beginning- Pittsburgh sits in a bowl, we have to keep moving out- the water sources are all connected,” said Mr. Weir. 
Quoting the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, Section 27,  “The people have a right to clean air, pure water…”, Mr. Weir said that people’s rights are being trampled on by the natural gas industry. 
Fourteen waste disposal facilities along the Monongahela River accept and dilute water used in the fracking process, returning it to the river- the source of much of the community’s drinking water. 
The chemical solution used in fracking is proprietary, and due to their exemption- known as the Halliburton Loophole- from the 2005 energy bill, the natural gas companies do not have to share its components. 
It is the presence of these components in the frack water, some of which are returned to the river, that cause concern. 
Due to the Halliburton Loophole, the industry is basically self-reporting. “It’s like the fox watching the henhouse,” said Mr. Weir. 
The Weirs said they are frustrated with the lack of oversight and that more was promised. This appears to to be impossible with the budget cuts that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is experiencing. 
“The government has failed to protect the people,” said Mr Weir. 
With a lack of trust in the industry and a feeling of dissatisfaction with the government’s efforts, there is a desire to put the topic in front of the people. 
Marcellus Shale Protest is exploring the viability of putting a referendum on the 2012 Allegheny County ballot for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. 
To the Suburbs
In Allegheny County, municipalities like Jefferson Hills are contemplating ordinances that restrict or ban hydraulic fracturing. 
In terms of percentage of land under oil and gas lease, Jefferson Hills is ranked tenth in Allegheny County with 18 percent. 
“It looks like a new ordinance will go one of two ways: either ban it completely..or allow it in a very small area zoned for industrial activity,” said Anita Barkin, community activist and public health expert. 
Ordinances may not be enough. According to the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act, the DEP administers the oil and gas well permitting process- superseding municipal ordinances. 
However, the courts have not outlined a clear path on what these layers of laws actually mean. At this point, each case is defining the extent of a municipality’s authority to regulate. 
Tight Quarters 
Suburban fracking creates dangerous scenarios unique to these areas. 
“A well blowout or a fire in a densely populated area would make it necessary to evacuate 5,000 people. No one is prepared to do that,” said Conrad (Dan) Volz, director of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health.  
“We’ve found that local departments feel inadequately prepared and in situations where there has been an emergency, they’ve played second fiddle to the company. They are also not equipped to do vital air and water testing during an emergency, they have to wait for the DEP to come from a great distance,” said Volz.
Water is also an issue for Jefferson Hills. The Peters Creek Watershed provides source water for the community’s drinking water and functions as a source of recreation. Fracking would put the watershed in a precarious position. 
As for Jefferson Hills’ drinking water, “Marcellus drilling does have the potential to affect drinking water quality. The Clairton Municipal Authority is accepting frack fluid at its plant. The effluent of this plant enters Peters Creek just prior to it’s confluence with the Mon River. Drinking water for most watershed residents comes from the Mon River downstream in Hays,” said Tim Schumann of the Peters Creek Watershed Association.
Barkin and Schumann said community education is working, but more needs to be done.
“There are still many residents that have grown up with shallow wells (there are over 40 in Jefferson Hills) and do not realize that the impact of Marcellus wells will be quite different,” said Schumann. 
“These are not your grandmother’s wells,” said Volz. 
Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind
More Violations Than Not
Ron Gulla’s pond was destroyed due to a lack of sediment control. “It was pathetic, a joke,” said Gulla.
Studies show that 28 percent of well violations, recorded by the DEP, are due to improper erosion and sediment plans. 
On average, 76 percent of wells receive violations.
In Ron Gulla’s case, getting the government to notice was the problem. “No one would help me, the DEP, the county, they all pointed fingers,” said Gulla. 
The Great Divide
The natural gas industry has been accused of employing a “divide and conquer” strategy in the communities in which it operates. 
Some citizens are happy to accept financial gain for their mineral rights, while others protest. 
“What about community members who don’t own the leased land, but live next door? They are exposed to noise, light, air pollution…to waste water, but they get no say,” said University of Pittsburgh’s Volz. 
Communities are at risk for divisiveness that comes from some of its members making money, while other members’ health and quality of life are compromised. 
Boom and Bust
Research shows that communities involved with energy boom times also experience behavioral health issues. 
“These communities have been shown to have an increased need for medical, behavioral and social services. Alcoholism and drug addiction increases, as does the divorce rate and even the number of sexual predators in an area,” said Volz.
Communities have also been promised jobs as part of the boom. “We have been tracking unemployment and haven’t seen an influence,” said Volz. 
“Most of the jobs are transient, but even the ones that come from training programs in Pennsylvania, those people won’t stay here. It’s the nature of the field, workers move on  to the next well,” said Volz. 
The Big Picture
Above all, this issue is about money and money talks. 
The natural gas industry is perceived as greedy. The industry has also been accused of preying on the poor, desperate farmers and the elderly.
But, what is happening in Jefferson Hills- an affluent area- points to something else. 
Greed on the part of residents. 
“Where is their conscious? Money and gain, it’s the way we’re programmed. It’s a tough sell, asking people not to take the money, but in the long run it will ruin your property value and your health,” said activist Loretta Weir. 
Long Term?
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has proposed slashing the state’s education budget, while refusing to tax natural gas. His contention is that the state’s economy will benefit by being the center of the gas boom and any taxation will drive out the industry- despite the fact that the gas cannot leave the state. 
“Forty years ago, there was this great insulator, it was asbestos. Look at what we know now. The shale has been there 300 million years, it’s not going anywhere. Until the industry can extract it in a safe way; what’s the hurry? Why risk it?” said activist Ken Weir. 
“One of the biggest problems is that there is little or no effort to consider or measure or account for or control the cumulative effect that this process will have in the long-term on water quality and quality of life and health of residents for local communities,” said Schumann.
The Road Ahead
How important is this issue? “It’s the issue of our time. We will be wrestling with this for the next 100 years,” said Volz. 
The U.S Energy Information Administration estimates the Marcellus Shale may have enough supply to meet the needs of the U.S. for the next 15 years. 
The next 15 years. 
Is it worth it? Worth the health risks? Worth the damage to the environment? Worth the impact on our quality of life? 
For so many in our consume all society, the cash at stake makes it an easy “yes”.
Ron Gulla disagrees. 
“You can’t put a price on quality of life. I was a multimillionaire before Range Resources came into my life and that was based on the quality of life I had,” Gulla said. 
 
Air emissions from drilling rig
Guest Author

The Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction

/by
Archived

This article has been archived and is provided for reference purposes only.

By John Stolz, PhD – Duquesne University, Department of Biological Sciences

The Marcellus Shale represents one of the largest reservoirs of unconventional natural gas in the world.It holds the potential, like other gas and oil reserves, to provide a source of energy and jobs for Maryland. It’s extraction, however, is non-trivial and if done without proper safeguards can result in the degradation of water and air quality, and loss of land use. Over the past year I have had to opportunity to observe ongoing natural gas well activities in Western Pennsylvania, attended public hearings,spoken with disaffected individuals, gas company representatives, and people from other states with gas drilling activities. I would like to share with you some of my observations.Shale gas is called “unconventional” because the gas is trapped in the rock and needs to be extracted.The process, called hydraulic fracturing, involves a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals that are injected into the group at very high pressures (~10,000 psi). Each “frac” may require up to 5 million gallons of water. In Pennsylvania, this water is withdrawn from lakes, streams and rivers.

The large volumes of water are transported to a developing “play” by water trucks and deposited in large impoundments. These impoundments can be several acres in size and hold millions of gallons of water. A typical water truck may hold 4,500 gallons, so it takes several hundreds to thousands of truck trips to fill an impoundment.

The depth of the Marcellus Shale is between 5,000 and 6,000 feet below the surface in Western PA,thus a larger drilling rig is needed. A unique feature of these wells is that they are “horizontal” and may extend outwards several thousand feet in several directions. This is needed as the formation is relatively thin (~150’) in most places. A well pad may have 6 to 12 well heads. Each well produces~1,000 tons of drilling waste (ground up rock and drilling mud) that may contain a variety of salts, heavy metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). This drilling waste may be buried on site or, more usually, transported to a land fill.

The well pad itself is 4-6 acres, in order to provide space for the trucks and containers, and impoundments for drilling mud, waste, and fracking. Once the horizontal has been drilled and cased, it is “fracked”. This process involves many vehicles, containers of sand and chemicals, the mixing trucks with fracking chemicals, and the diesel compressors (~200 vehicles). Hence the need for more space than a conventional well. During completion, the well is usually flared.

A completed well pad will typically have several well heads (the “Christmas tree), separators, small compressors, and condensate tanks (to handle the produced water). As long as a well pad is active (the well can be restimulated or used to drill a deeper formation), the footprint is still 4-6 acres. Depending on the number of wells, there may be as few as two condensate tanks or many more. They are sources of volatile organics as they are designed with “blow off” relief valves. Invisible to the naked eye these volatiles can be seen with specially designed infrared cameras.

The amount of produced water may also vary. For Marcellus, the initial flow back has been only about10 to 20% of the amount of fluids that were injected. Over time this “produced water” increases in total dissolved solid (TDS) content. The “brine” can be ten times saltier than seawater, contain high concentrations of bromide, chloride, strontium, and barium, as well as arsenic and uranium. In Pennsylvania, while the condensate tanks have hazard placards indicating the toxicity and flammability of the flow back water, the truck only is labeled “residual waste” and “brine”. Publicly owned wastewater treatment plants (POTWs) are allowed to take up to 1% of their total daily output. In Pennsylvania, there are currently at least 63 POTW’s permitted to take produced water. POTWs are not designed to“treat” produced water but merely dilute the salts.

This has resulted in increases in total dissolved solids(TDS), bromide in particular, in local rivers. The increase in TDS and bromide has caused problems with public drinking water facilities as the disinfectant process (chlorination) creates trihalomethanes (TMH, bromoform and chloroform). As a result many public drinking water facilities in the area have had to convert from chlorination to chloramination to reduce the formation of THMs. However, chloraminated water can cause the leaching of lead from older pipes and fittings. And there will be spills. Over the past 2.5 years, the PA-DEP has cited the industry with over 1,600 violations. Many of these were for improperly constructed impoundments, chemical spills, and surface contamination.

There are other aspects to the industry as well. Methane is a colorless, odorless gas, that needs to be odorized with mercaptan. The product from the Marcellus in Western PA is not dry gas but a combination of other organics as well. Thus the gas needs to be “dried” in refineries. Propane and butane are “cryo” separated in these facilities. These complexes are a source of volatile organic compounds and are frequently flaring off residual organics. They are also flanked by compressor stations that pressurize the gas for the pipeline.

The industry can move very quickly as has been recently demonstrated in Hickory-Houston, PA area,where since 2005 there are now over 80 well pads, impoundments, compressor stations, and other gasfacilities within a five mile radius.

The extraction of unconventional natural gas is heavy industry involving large tracts of land, heavyequipment and vehicles, and an extensive array of pipelines, compressor stations, and processing facilities. The level of surface disturbance is extensive, as has been demonstrated elsewhere (e.g.,Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana). Existing industries such as agriculture, tourism, outdoor ventures (e.g., fishing, hunting, and camping), and wineries, will be lost or significantly impacted. In Pennsylvania there have already been loss and contamination of well water, and loss of livestock and quarantined herds after exposure to contaminated water.<

Summary of Environmental Impacts

Water

  • The amount needed for fracking (5 million gallons/frac)
  • Loss of well (aquifer) water through disruption or contamination
  • Gas migration causing methane contaminated water
  • The fate of the produced water (“treated” at POTWs)
  • Degradation of water quality in local streams and rivers
  • Degradation of drinking water quality (need to purchase bottled water)

Land usage

  • Large amount of acreage needed for well pads and impoundments
  • As long as a well can be “restimulated”, the well pad will remain active
  • Leased areas (former private and public lands) become restricted access
  • Public lands and parks no longer “public” as they are off limits due to safety

Exposure to toxic chemicals (spills, aquifer contamination)

  • Fracking fluids
  • Produced water contaminated with organics, salts, heavy metals, and NORMs
  • Failed or improper casings lead to aquifer contamination

Traffic and road degradation

  • Significant increase in trucks and vehicles cause road and bridge deterioration
  • Trucks may exceed weight and height limits

Noise

  • Heavy equipment, increased traffic,
  • Low frequency sounds during fracking
  • Compressors and compressor stations

Air pollution

  • Increased vehicle traffic
  • Well flaring
  • Release of VOC’s from well installations (condensate tanks are vented by design)
  • Compressor stations
  • Well blow outs

Property devaluation

  • Mortgages and home equity loans jeopardized by presence of wells
  • Mine subsidence insurance compromised or negated
  • Land owner ultimately responsible for taxes and environmental damage

EMS and emergency procedures

  • Evacuation plans must be in place for populated areas (a single well blow out can affect more than 1 mile radius)
  • EMS, police and fire must be trained to handle emergencies (well and impoundment fires, evacuations)

Increases taxes to cover infrastructure damage, additional public services and security.

John F. Stolz, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
Director, Center for Environmental Research and Education
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282

Matt Kelso, BA

Updated Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Production Information

/by

Updated Marcellus Shale well production data for the period between July 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010 is now available on the DEP website and FracTracker’s DataTool. This data is self-reported by the drilling operators, and includes production in the following categories:

  • Natural Gas: Production in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf)
  • Condensate: Production in barrels
  • Oil: Production in barrels

Let’s take a look at some of the numbers.

Gas Production and Well Status

Table 1: Production notes and values for Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale wells, July 1 2009 to June 30, 2010

Table 2: Production notes and values for Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale wells, July 1 2010 to December 31, 2010

Although gas production is the focus of the six month production report, there is enough useful data to learn a few other things about the industry as well:

  • As with the waste report, there is more production reported in the last half of 2010 than the entire preceding year. Although there are more producing wells, my suspicion is that the real reason is poor reporting for the July 2009 to June 2010 report.
  • As corroborating evidence of poor reporting, the earlier report includes significant production from wells that are “Not yet drilled”. This issue has been corrected for the last half of 2010.
  • Only 26 Marcellus Shale wells are reported as plugged. This is fairly impressive, as the earliest Marcellus well in Pennsylvania was from 2006.
  • Over half of the Marcellus Shale wells which have been permitted in Pennsylvania have not yet been drilled. Almost all of these are horizontal wells.

Gas, Condensate, and Oil Production

Table 3: Gas, condensate, and oil production values for Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale wells, July 1 2009 to June 30, 2010

Table 4: Gas, condensate, and oil production values for Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale wells, July 1 2010 to December 31, 2010

The Marcellus Shale is well known as a gas producing black shale formation, but condensate and oil are also produced from these wells in Pennsylvania. There are a couple of trends of note here as well:

  • Although the more recent report is for only half the length of time as the older one, this cannot account for the tenfold decrease in oil production.
  • The amount of condensate nearly doubled, despite the fact that the reporting period was only half as long.
  • Almost all oil and condensate production now comes from horizontal wells.

Location

Now let’s take a look at the geographical distribution of this data. Here, in rapid succession, are the data in table, chart, and map formats:

Table 5: Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale production by county, July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

Chart 1: Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale gas production by county, July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010


PA Marcellus Shale Oil, Gas, and Condensate Production, July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010. Please click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.

There are a couple of key points about the location information as well:

  • Although Washington county is one of several major producers of natural gas, the vast majority of the Marcellus Shale oil and condensate production in the Commonwealth comes from that county.
  • The leading producers in the state by county are (percentage of statewide total in parentheses):
    1. Bradford (25.7%)
    2. Susquehanna (23.7%)
    3. Washington (14.2%)
    4. Greene(12.3%)
    5. Tioga (8.8%)


Marcellus Shale natural gas, condensate, and oil production in Southwestern Pennsylvania, July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

Production by Operator

Table 6: Natural gas produced by operator in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale formation, 7-1-10 to 12-31-10.

Chart 2: Natural gas produced by operator in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale formation, 7-1-10 to 12-31-10.

The leading producers in the state by operator are (percentage of statewide total in parentheses):

  1. Chesapeake Appalachia Llc (18.8%)
  2. Talisman Energy Usa Inc (18.1%)
  3. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp (15.3%)
  4. Range Resources Appalachia Llc (12.6%)
  5. Atlas Resources Llc (5.6%)
FracTracker Alliance

Hitting Close to Home – Gas Pad Fire in Avella, PA

/by

By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Communications Specialist, Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC), University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (GSPH); Doctoral Student, GSPH

Shale Gas Violations near Avella, PA (small)
Natural gas industry violations since 2007.
Avella, PA can be found by clicking on the image
and then zooming in on the patch of violations
in the center of the map.
Map created using FracTracker’s DataTool.

On February 23, 2011 a section of a natural gas drilling site in Avella, PA caught fire. Luckily only three workers were injured, but the issue still hits close to home – literally. Avella is my hometown. This quiet, farming area is located roughly 35 miles southwest of Pittsburgh in Washington County, PA. (See the map to the right.) It has a large school district geographically, with a tiny population. Known primarily for its rolling hills, farmland, and a historic landsite called Meadowcroft, Avella very rarely makes the headlines in Pittsburgh. That very fact is what peaked my concern when a TV news program mentioned that an incident had occurred on a Chesapeake Energy well site there.

The PA Department of Environmental Protection is currently investigating the fire. Initial reports indicate that volatile vapors that escaped while workers were flow-testing (part of which involves separating the flowback fluid from the natural gas), ignited and then caught nearby tanks on fire.  Volatile vapors can include a number of constituents, such as propane and benzene, which is a known human carcinogen. While there is little evidence to suggest that water contamination occurred as a result of the accident (like the 2009 spill near Cross Creek lake), air quality was most definitely affected. The smell of chemicals burning during the fire was even reported by some nearby residents. Thankfully, based on witness and on-site reports, the cooperation between the various emergency responders meant that the fire only burned for about three hours.

On a side note, I find it interesting that Chesapeake immediately refuted reports that hydraulic fracturing was the cause of the fire. Hydraulic fracturing, a process that breaks apart the shale layer under the ground to release the gas, had apparently been completed on the site. However, the volatile vapors originated from condensate, a result of hydraulic fracturing. Semantics.

Video Update: 3/1/11

Guest Author

Reflections: Homage to Dunkard Creek

/by

 

Art Competition

Postmark Deadline Entry: March 15, 2011

Extent of 2009 Dunkard Creek Fish Kill

It is said that the living can freely move on only when they have helped the newly dead rest in peace. Reflections is a collaborative installation by more than 100 artists to commemorate the lives of the 116 species who perished in Dunkard Creek during the warm days of late summer 2009. The creek literally died when a fatal combination of chemical mine wastes and low water, exacerbated by “frac” drilling water withdrawals, set off the bloom of an alien toxic algae, suffocating an estimated 18,000-22,000 animals.

The forty-three mile Dunkard Creek meanders across the Pennsylvania and West Virginia state lines before it flows into the Monongahela River, recently listed as one of America’s 10 most endangered rivers. The Monongahela River supplies drinking water to 850,000 people.

Water is an age-old symbol for purity, clarity, and calm. The artists participating in Reflections are united by a common body of water, the Monongahela Watershed. To honor the tragedy that befell this watershed, each artist will ‘adopt’ and memorialize one of the 116 species of animals who perished, to celebrate the life of that species with an original work of art.

Eligibility

Reflections is open to practicing artists over 18 years of age living on, near, or connected to the Monongahela River Watershed (the area where the water under it or draining off of it goes into the Monongahela River).

Media

Open to traditional or non-traditional media (e.g. painting, drawing, print, collage, etc., but no photography) applied to a 7”x10.25” sheet of 140 lbs Arches hot press paper mounted with archival gel to a hardboard panel (provided by organizer).

To Enter

Completed applications, a brief bio, and $25 entry fee must be received no later than March 15, 2011. Upon application, artists will be randomly matched to a species. (Species cannot be reassigned.) The application process will close when all 116 species have been assigned. Completed work must be submitted by August 1, 2011.

To request the application form or if you have questions, please contact Ann Payne at 304.292.7673 or Paynestake@frontier.com.

Matt Kelso, BA

Updated Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Waste Information

/by

Total Waste Produced by Marcellus Shale Well (small)Mixed total of waste produced by Marcellus Shale gas wells between July 1 and December 31, 2010. For more information on specific wells, click the blue “i” button, then click on one of the purple dots.

Self reported Marcellus Shale waste data for the period between July 1 and December 31, 2010 is now available on the DEP website and FracTracker’s DataTool in the following categories:

  • Basic Sediment (in barrels): Sludge that collects at the bottom of storage tanks and pits
  • Brine (in barrels): These are naturally occurring pockets of saltwater that are encountered in the drilling process.
  • Drill Cuttings (in tons): This is composed of the layers of earth that the drill passes through on the way to the target formation.
  • Drilling (in barrels): The main function of drilling fluid is to maintain the proper pressure in the well
  • Frac Fluid (in Barrels): This is what is injected into the well during the hydraulic fracturing process, much of which tends to flow back out.
  • Servicing Fluid (in Barrels): Waste produced by one of a variety of post-production services performed on a well.
  • Spent Lubricant (in Barrels): This lubricates the drill bit

I have also pivoted the data to establish how much waste is transported to the various disposal locations.


Locations accepting Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale waste. Please click on the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.

I have a few initial observations about the waste production data:

  • The totals for waste production in every category except Basic Sediment are higher for the six month period from than they were for the one year period ending on June 30, 2010. This increase almost certainly reflects better reporting rather than a dramatic increase in waste production in the last half of 2010.
  • There are some obvious inaccuracies in the map of the facilities receiving Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale waste. There is no reason that this waste would be shipped to Texas or Alabama, for example. Those locations are most likely corporate addresses of the waste facilities.
  • Despite the fact that companies are supposed to report both addresses and latitude and longitude of the receiving facilities, not all of the facilities receiving waste are on this map. The list of addresses appeared to be more complete, so that is what was used for mapping purposes. If you download the full dataset, addresses in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, West Virinia, Maryland, and New Jersey are given as recipients of Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale waste.
Guest Author

PA Fish and Boat Commission Targets Gas Extraction as Resource Threat

/by

Archived

This article has been archived and is provided for reference purposes only.


Wastewater Facilities Accepting Marcellus Shale Brine and Major Drainage Basins. Click the map for a larger, dynamic view.

By Conrad Dan Volz, DrPH, MPH.
Director and Principal Investigator of the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities

Management Plans by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) have been released for public comment for the 3 major drainages in Pennsylvania:

Public meetings on each of these draft plans are underway and dates and times and places of future meetings for each basin are now available on the PFBC website.

The PFBC has as its goal of these management plans – to protect, conserve and enhance the aquatic resources of and provide fishing and boating opportunities. The PFBC also has an important role in investigating releases of brine water from oil and gas extraction operations. Mr. John Arway the Executive Director of the PFBC just published in the January / February Edition of Pennsylvania Angler and Boater a very sobering assessment of water withdrawals and permitted pollution of Pennsylvania waterways by NPDES permit holders. He states that end users of municipal water are paying increased costs for water purification because of companies that are allowed to pollute receiving waters. This is a very courageous statement and I concur wholly with him on this. His complete statement can be found here.

Below are presented excerpts from the PFBC Draft Three Rivers Management Plan that pertains to Marcellus Shale gas extraction. Most important is their statement in the draft plan that in 2008, several wastewater treatment plants located along the Monongahela River were accepting frac-flowback water from multiple sources. Unable to completely treat this water, plant outflows caused a temporary spike in conductivity (readings as high as 1,200 μS/cm) and total dissolved solids (TDS readings as high as 900 mg/L) in the Monongahela River during October and November 2008. Other passages related to Marcellus are:

  • “In June 2010, the Monongahela River was named number nine of the top ten America’s Most Endangered Rivers by American Rivers primarily because of continuing threats from water pollution impacts from natural gas extraction activities in the Marcellus Shale.”
  • “Since 2008, PADEP Southwest Regional Office in Pittsburgh has directed a comprehensive
    water quality monitoring investigation of the Monongahela River related to impacts from disposal of contaminated frac-flowback water from Marcellus Shale drilling sites. This office has also surveyed fish, mussel, and invertebrate assemblages of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers as well as collected water quality and sediment quality samples and evaluated riparian and instream habitats for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Environmental
    Monitoring and Assessment Program for Great Rivers Ecosystems (EMAP-GRE). PADEP will
    provide PFBC information and results of Allegheny and Monongahela EMAP-GRE when the
    project is complete (in 2011).”
  • “Marcellus Shale is a unit of Devonian-age sedimentary rock found throughout the Appalachian
    Plateau. Named for a distinctive outcrop located near the village of Marcellus, New York,
    Marcellus Shale contains a massive and largely untapped natural gas reserve, which has high
    economic potential (trillions of dollars) given its proximity to high-demand markets in the eastern United States. Using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, numerous Marcellus Shale wells have been installed within the upper Ohio River basin for exploitation of natural gas.”
  • “With any resource extraction operation, there are environmental consequences. For Marcellus
    Shale drilling, most issues involve the transport, treatment, and disposal of contaminated frac flowback water, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing. In 2008, several wastewater treatment
    plants located along the Monongahela River were accepting frac-flowback water from multiple
    sources. Unable to completely treat this water, plant outflows caused a temporary spike in
    conductivity (readings as high as 1,200 μS/cm) and total dissolved solids (TDS readings as high
    as 900 mg/L) in the Monongahela River during October and November 2008.”
  • “Some Monongahela River tributaries continue to be disturbed by modern industries, such as longwall mining and Marcellus Shale drilling, including Dunkard Creek and Tenmile Creek. Major tributary streams of the upper Ohio River include Chartiers Creek (one of the most disturbed streams in the basin from numerous perturbations), Raccoon Creek (a recovering stream), and the Beaver River system.”
Matt Kelso, BA

Pennsylvania’s DCNR Shale Thickness Datasets Added to DataTool

/by

Three Belt Thickness of Devonian Black Shales in PA (small)Three Belt Thickness of Devonian Black Shales. Click image for a larger dynamic view.
Three datasets from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) have been added to FracTracker’s DataTool.  Each dataset indicates the thickness of a major carbon-rich black shale layer from the Devonian Period in Pennsylvania, including the Marcellus, Rhinestreet, and Huron.


The thickness in feet of the Marcellus Shale. Click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.


The thickness in feet of the Rhinestreet Shale. Click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.

  • Thickness of the Huron (Ohio) Shale. The Huron Shale is an Upper Devonian black shale that is more recent (and less deep) than the Rhinestreet Shale. It is a widespread formation ranging over several states, but in Pennsylvania, it is only present in the extreme northwest corner.


The thickness in feet of the Huron Shale. Click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) to hide those menus.

For an interesting cross-section view of Northwestern Pennsylvania rock formations visit this link from the DCNR website.

Matt Kelso, BA

Data Accessibility and Usability Index

/by

While anyone with a registered user account can put data up on FractTracker’s DataTool, sometimes finding and collecting relevant data in a usable form is more difficult than it should be. I have examined datasets from a wide variety of places (1) and agencies, and after encountering numerous issues, I have devised a grading scheme to reflect the quality of the data being distributed, to be known as the Data Accessibility and Usability Index (DAUI).

System

The DAUI considers variables in the following seven categories:

  • Accessibility (20 points): How easy is the data to obtain?
  • Usability (20 points): How much preparation is required to be able to analyze the data?
  • Completeness (15 points): Is there anything missing from the data that would interfere with analysis or mapping?
  • Metadata (15 points): Are the data column descriptions and data source information readily available?
  • Responsiveness (10 points): Has the agency been helpful with information requests? (2)
  • Accuracy (10 points): Are there errors in the data? (3)
  • Cost (10 points): Is the data free? (4)


Data Accessibility and Usability Index grading scheme, 100 total points. Scroll to the right to see additional categories.

Grading Examples

It is important to note that each grade given represents only one specific dataset at one point in time. On occasion, certain aspects of any given dataset are updated by the agency controlling the data, hopefully for the better.

One recent example is the Pennsylvania drilled wells (spuds) database. Until recently, this was published on HTML tables on a monthly basis, but 2011 data is now available in a single Excel file. In addition, this year’s wells have location information, which was missing from previous years data. Although PASDA maintains a list of about 125,000 oil and gas locations in the Commonwealth directly from the DEP, there were still thousands of wells that didn’t match in the years between 1998 and 2010.

Since the new dataset in Pennsylvania only covers 2011 wells so far, it is appropriate to grade both datasets separately. This will also serve as a functional example on how the DAUI works.


Grades for PA DEP’s Drilled Wells Dataset. Scroll to the right for additional grades and total scores.

As you can see, the two changes that they have made have bumped the PA DEP’s grade up from a D- to a solid A. And in fact, the D- might have been generous. Several of our DataTool users have suggested that there might be significant omissions in the older report, but I have never been able to conclusively establish that as a fact. If it is true, the Accuracy rating would fall from 10 to 0, leaving a total score of 50 for that database.

Let’s look at another example, Wells in Quebec near the St. Lawrence, published by Quebec’s bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. To get the data up on FracTracker, the data had to translated to English (not a demerit, just a step in the process), copied from the PDF file to Excel and pasted so that each column of data fit on one cell. Then the data could be distributed using the space (“ “) as a delimiter, at which point the cells needed to be manually aligned to allow for proper concatenation. Once all of that was done, it was necessary to change the location information from Degree Minute Second format to Decimal Degree to be able to map the data. Finally, the units of measure for depth were mixed, including both meters and feet, which should be consistent. In short, not a very satisfactory experience with the data. Here’s how it grades, based on that experience:


Grade for Quebec’s bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement Wells in Quebec near the St. Lawrence dataset. Scroll to the right for more grades and total score.

Despite my frustrations with this data, the information is published on the agency’s website, appears to be complete, and is well explained. The issue of publishing this dataset on a PDF (which cannot directly be analyzed) was the main result for the agency’s C grade.

Here’s the grade for a dataset that I can’t post: The Railroad Commission (RRC) of Texas’ Newark East (Barnett Shale) gas wells.

Clearly, the RRC is in possession of a tremendous amount of data. You can click on the “Well log” link and see dozens of pages of scanned original documents. However, there are a couple of problems with this data which makes in unusable for FracTracker. First of all, there are over 8,000 records, but it is impossible to view more than 100 at a time. Those would have to be copied and pasted manually from the HTML tables. While that is possible to do, it isn’t worth the effort, because there is no location information. Knowing that they must be able to produce an Excel sheet with some basic data about their drilled wells, I contacted the RRC, and was told that what I wanted could be obtained…for a cost. In my opinion, the RRC is being stubborn on this. They have terrific data, and yet they do everything they can to be (politely) difficult. As I did not elect to purchase data at this time, I will only grade what is available online.


Grade for the Railroad Commission of Texas’ Newark East (Barnett Shale) Drilled Wells dataset. Scroll to the right for more grades and the total score.

Because they elected not to release the data upon request, the RRC earned a failing grade. Had the RRC simply created and sent the proper Excel file from their database, they might have earned 90 points on the DAUI. If they had decided that well location information was a basic thing that citizens might want to know, and posted a downloadable link on their website, they could have full marks. If the for-cost version of the data has everything that is desired, it would have a maximum score of 80, because it was not free and had to be requested.

These three examples show how the DAUI system works. In the near future, I will grade all relevant oil and gas datasets against the same metric. Hopefully, a comprehensive picture of the various agencies that control oil and gas data will emerge.

Scoring 100 points on the DAUI should be attainable, almost 100 percent of the time. If governmental agencies really do not have data on wells, permits, violations, and production, then they are failing their respective citizens, whose lives are affeted by the oil and gas industry, often quite profoundly. If the agencies that control the data simply are in the habit of making it difficult to access, then I must remain hopeful that they will be pressured to realize that is an unacceptable strategy for the 21st century.

  1. This list includes Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Texas, Utah, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, and Quebec. Not all of the datasets have been complete enough to post on FracTracker, a frustration which contributed significantly to the creation of this grading scheme.
  2. If no requests have been made regarding a given dataset, or if the data simply does not exist in a desired format, full credit should be given in this category.
  3. Accuracy issues can be very difficult to verify. Also, if certain data doesn’t exist, that is accounted for elsewhere. As with Responsiveness, the agency is afforded the benefit of the doubt here.
  4. I have seen numerous datasets available from state agencies that cost money, with costs ranging from about $10 to well over $1,000. This is often explained as “recovering costs” of data distribution. In my opinion, this is unacceptable. While maintaining accurate data is undoubtedly expensive, it is an obligation of the overseeing agency to do so, and making the data available to the public is really a minimal component of that process. If it is a genuine budgetary constraint, then the agency should merely charge more for permit fees, etc., so that they are adequately able to perform their job.
Matt Kelso, BA

PA DEP Upgrades Drilled Well Data Distribution

/by

The Pennsylvania DEP now has a linkto download all of the drilled wells from the Spud Report in Excel file format (1). This is a major upgrade over their previous system of posting online tables for each month, not only for the ease of access, but also because it contains complete location information, which previously had to be obtained elsewhere by matching the American Petroleum Institute (API) number with an external dataset; an imperfect system which resulted in thousands of wells between 1998 and 2010 for which location information could not be found.



Drilled wells in Pennsylvania in 2011. Click the gray compass rose and double carat (^) tabs for a complete view.

In addition, it utilizes the full API number. For example, in well number 37-005-30663-01-01, the initial 37 is the state code for Pennsylvania, and the 005 is the county code for Armstrong County.

  1. The Spud Date is the day that drilling begins on a particular well.
  2. API county codes, as well as a variety of other codes used by the PA DEP are explained here.