A new plan is in the works to construct a natural gas pipeline that would run approximately 190 miles through Maryland. Lawmakers said in January they are anxious to see the Delmarva Pipeline built, but still want to exercise caution.
Starting in Cecil County, MD, and terminating in Accomack County, VA, the proposed Delmarva Pipeline is nearly the length of Maryland’s Eastern Shore. North Carolina-based Spectrum Energy wants to piggyback on this infrastructure and build a gas-powered power plant near Denton, MD, according to a report by WBOC 16 News. The combined price tag on the two projects is $1.25 billion, and is funded entirely by private interests based in Baltimore. The target start-up date for the two projects is 2021.
Local Support
Company officials promise the pipeline would bring down energy costs and bring jobs to the area. According to a 2016 Towson University study, the project would create about 100 jobs in Wicomico and Somerset Counties by 2026. In addition, the proposed power plant in Denton, MD would result in 350 construction jobs and 25-30 permanent jobs.
According to lawmaker Carl Anderton:
…it’s great. You know, anytime we can multiply our infrastructure for energy production, it’s something you really want.
Anderton, who claims to also support solar power and offshore wind, is skeptical about the sustainability of renewable energy to stand on its own if “the sun goes down or the wind’s not blowing.”
However, Senator Stephen Hershey emphasized the need to balance infrastructure build-out with costs to the environment. Said Hershey:
We have to make sure we’re taking all the possible steps to protect that.
Similarly, Democratic Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes indicated the need to keep the well-being and concerns of citizens “at the forefront.”
Grassroots Opposition
The pipeline project has encountered considerable opposition from the grassroots group “No! Eastern Shore Pipeline.” The group has cited concerns about how all fossil fuels add to global warming, and asserted natural gas is not a cleaner alternative to propane or oil.
Jake Burdett, a supporter of No! Eastern Shore Pipeline, wants a complete transition to renewable fuels in Maryland by 2035, and argues that in the near-term, climate change impacts will be devastating and not reversible for residents of the Chesapeake Bay area, “the third most at-risk area in the entire country for sea level rise.”
In addition to driving climate change, hydraulic fracturing and the construction of the pipeline along the rural and historic Eastern Shore poses serious threats of fouling ground and surface water through sediment run-off and leaks. The possibility of pipeline explosions also puts nearby communities at risk.
Assessing Risks
H4 Capital Partners, the company contracted to build the pipeline, registered as a corporation in May of 2017, and this may be the first pipeline project it has undertaken. H4’s public relations spokesperson Jerry Sanders claimed that the environmental risks posed by the pipeline — which will drill under rivers and wetlands — will be nothing like those encountered by pipelines such as the Keystone XL. Said Sanders, “It is a gas, not a liquid…[so] you don’t have leak-type issues.”
The actual record about pipeline leaks and explosions suggests otherwise, notably summarized here by FracTracker Alliance in 2016, for combined oil and natural gas projects. That research indicates that since 2010, there have been 4,215 pipeline incidents resulting in 100 reported fatalities, 470 injuries, and property damage exceeding $3.4 billion. Additional records of natural gas transmission and distribution pipeline accidents, and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents collected by PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) have been summarized by the Pipeline Safety Trust.
It is unclear whether Maryland’s Department of the Environment (MDE) has completed an analysis of threats to wetlands and other water bodies, or is relying on industry and perhaps residents to do that work for them. Said MDE spokesperson Jay Apperson, “MDE would encourage the project proponents to come in early and often for discussions of routes so that we can… avoid and minimize impacts to these important natural resources.”
Delmarva Pipeline Map
Therefore, in the map below, we have done an analysis of the Delmarva Pipeline route – which we estimated from documents – and calculated the number of times the proposed pipeline crosses wetlands and streams along its route from northern Maryland to its terminus in Accomack County, VA.
In all, there were 172 stream crossings and 579 traverses of wetlands mapped by the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory. Be sure to zoom in on the map above to view the detail. These wetland and stream crossings included:
in Virginia:
88 forested wetlands
13 emergent wetlands
27 riverine wetlands
9 ponds
And in Maryland:
276 forested wetlands
90 riverine wetlands
35 emergent wetlands
13 estuarine wetlands
11 ponds
5 lakes
Rather than focusing on threats to these natural resources or environmental justice issues associated with the nearly 200-mile pipeline, industry is utilizing a different tactic, preferring to view the project as an “economic justice issue [that] would allow the area to have access to low-cost fuels.”
For the Eastern Shore residents of Maryland and Virginia, it remains to be seen whether potential lower energy costs justify the risks of contaminated waterways, property damage, and a shifting shoreline associated with climate change driven by use of fossil fuels.
By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
Energy use — whether for heating, cooking, transportation, or manufacturing — is a fact of life for humans on our planet. From the most subsistence-level village life, to the largest metropolises in the world, energy is consumed. But fossil fuels are not a sustainable source of energy. Fossil fuels, by their very nature, are finite in quantity, and increasingly more expensive to extract as the most accessible stores are tapped.
Fossil fuel consumption by-products are driving CO2 and methane to accumulate in the atmosphere, leading towards what most scientists think will be a tipping point to irreversible climate chaos (see image below).
Alternatives to fossil fuels not only exist, but in many cases, are becoming more affordable (see additional information on solar afforability here) than the environmentally-destructive oil, gas, and coal-burning options. Technological advances are changing the way people around the world can live, with cleaner, greener, and more equitable energy sources, as well as more conservation-focused consumption patterns.
Recognizing the benefits to transitioning away from fossil fuels, communities across the US and world-wide, are saying NO to fossil fuel extraction and YES to renewable energy: solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power, as well as electric vehicles when the electricity that supplies them is renewably generated. Below, and in the following map, we are tracking this movement to a clean energy future.
At least 35 communities in California and WashingtonState have passed resolutions against off-shore drilling. On the East Coast, from Florida to New York State, 44 municipalities have passed resolutions opposing seismic blasting, a form of exploration for oil and gas that has disastrous impacts on marine life, including threatened and endangered marine mammals. What’s further, 105 communities have come out against a combination of offshore drilling and seismic blasting, and at least 26 have taken a stand against offshore drilling.
In Florida, where several bills that would prohibit fracking statewide have been in play for the past few years, individual municipalities have registered their opposition. 43 have signed resolutions opposing fracking, and 7 communities, including Zephyr Hills, Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, Coconut Creek, Dade City, Estero, and St. Petersburg, have passed full ordinances against fracking within their boundaries. In addition to resolutions against drilling in 25 Florida counties, 13 counties in Florida have passed legislation fully banning fracking. These counties are Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Citrus, Indian River, Madison, Osceola, Pinellas, Seminole, St. Lucie, Volusia, Wakulla, and Walton.
In Connecticut, where the geology is not suitable for oil and gas extraction, communities are still proactively protecting themselves against one byproduct of extreme oil and gas extraction: fracking waste disposal. While historically, there are no known instances of fracking waste being exported to Connecticut for disposal, as of March 2018, 46 municipalities are considering rules to ban future disposal of oil and gas wastes within their boundaries, while another 45 have already outlawed the practice, as of late May 2018.
New York State has had a state-wide ban against high-volume hydraulic fracturing since December of 2014. New York led the way in home-rule backed municipal bans and moratoria (temporary prohibitions). Since 2011, 92 NYS municipalities have instituted bans against fracking, and 96 towns, cities, and village have passed moratoria — most of which have now expired. At least another 88 municipalities have also considered banning the practice, prior to the more comprehensive state-wide ban.
The state of Vermont has also banned fracking, and Maryland has instituted a long-term moratorium. Outside of New York State, another 51 municipalities — from Australia to Italy, and New Jersey to California — have passed local ordinances banning fracking. Five countries — Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Germany, and Scotland — have banned the practice altogether. The countries of Wales, The Netherlands, and Uruguay have active moratoria. Moratoria are also currently in place in Cantabria, Spain; Victoria, Australia; Newfoundland, Canada; Paraná, Brazil; Entre Rios, Argentina; and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, as well as the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.
Crossing Boundaries
Coordinated efforts are happening — across state lines, linking urban and rural communities — to fight new fossil fuel infrastructure on local and regional levels. On both sides of the New York / Connecticut border, communities are uniting against the Cricket Valley Energy Center, an 1,100 MW fracked gas-powered plant that opponents say presents environmental and human health risks and diverts NYS’s renewable energy focus back to fossil fuels.
More than 30 communities in Pennsylvania along the route of the proposed PennEast pipeline have passed resolutions opposing that pipeline. Nearly 80 communities in New York and New Jersey have come out against the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline, designed to carry light crude from the Port of Albany to the Atlantic Coast refineries. And a plan by Crestwood/ Stagecoach Energy to store hydrocarbons in abandoned salt caverns along the shores of Seneca Lake in the scenic Finger Lakes Region of central New York met unprecedented sharp opposition. As of early 2018, over 32 towns and counties, and close to 400 local businesses had signed resolutions opposing the gas storage plans. Pressure from business and government interests likely contributed to scaling down of the storage plans from butane, ethane, and natural gas, to only LNG.
Unconventional Bans
A 2013 ban on fracking in Hawai’i was met initially with some puzzlement, since there are no oil and gas deposits within the lava-created rock that makes up the Big Island. However, this ban was not against fracking for gas; rather, it dealt with fracking to harness geothermal energy. The Puna Geothermal Venture Plant, located on Hawaii’s highly geologically active East Rift Zone, was controversial when it was built twenty-five years ago. Now, with lava already on the property and poised to potentially inundate the facility, opponents are pushing for its complete closure — if the plant survives the massive flow from Kilauea, now devastating Lower Puna, that started in early May 2018.
Transportation Concerns
Fossil fuels are transported through a variety of mechanisms. Pipelines are the most common means of conveyance; the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that 3 million miles of oil and gas transmission and delivery pipelines crisscross the US. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimated in 2014 that there were nearly 1.6 million miles of gas transmission pipelines in the US, and another 160,521 miles of oil pipelines. Pipeline safety has been a concern for years, and as pipeline build-out continues, so does the litany of accidents due to failures.
A widely used alternative to moving light crude via pipelines is to transport it by rail, from oil fields in Canada and the Dakotas to coastal refineries. In 2014, crude oil production from North Dakota was nearly 1 million barrels per day. The same year, Texas was producing 2.9 million barrels per day. Statistics from the Association of American Railroads (NY Times, 4/12/2014) indicate that in 2013, 407,642 carloads (700 barrels = 1 carload) of crude oil were shipped across the US. That’s more than 285 million barrels, or about 80% of the crude oil shipped to port, that were transported via rail.
Accidents resulting from the derailment of freight cars carrying crude oil can be disastrous to both human communities, and to the environment. The Lac-Mégantic derailment in July, 2013 resulted in a death toll of 47, and the near complete devastation of the downtown of this small Quebec town. Benzene contamination at the site was heavy, and the Chaudière River was contaminated with 26,000 gallons of the light crude, which impacted towns 50 miles downstream.
The disaster at Lac-Mégantic led to a rallying cry among policy-makers, regulators, and environmentalists, who continued to raise awareness of the risks of “crude by rail”, or, as the freight cars are often known, “bomb trains”. Within 2 years after the disaster, over 180 communities from Washington State, to California, to New York, and New Jersey, passed local resolutions demanding better safety regulations, and exhorting officials to stop shipping crude through their communities.
Earlier research by FracTracker Alliance on “bomb train” routes through major New York urban centers like Buffalo and Rochester showed dozens of K-12 public and private schools are within the ½-mile blast zones. Without adequate evacuation plans, the injury or loss of life — were a derailment to happen within the cities — could be extensive. The importance of public critique about the transportation of light crude by rail cannot be overstated.
Transitions to renewable energy
communities making it happen
The answer to a clean and renewable energy future, while rooted in the resistance to fossil fuel build out, consists of much more than protesting, and saying “NO”. A clean energy future requires goal-setting, and a vision to commit to change. It takes communities investing in a healthy future for all community members—today, tomorrow, and into the next century.
To that end, nearly 350 communities worldwide (so far) have set tangible goals to transition off fossil fuels – see map above. These communities are our beacons for a sustainable planet. They take seriously the dangerous ecological cascades posed by climate change and have made creative and conscious commitments to future generations of Earth’s biota.
350
Communities Worldwide
As of early 2018, at least 62 cities in the US have set goals for being powered by renewable energy before the middle of the 21st century according to Sierra Club’s tally of municipalities striving for clean energy power. Five of these communities — Kodiak Island, AK; Rock Port, MO; Greensburg, KS, Burlington, VT; and Aspen, CO, have already met their goals. EcoWatch collected information on over 100 cities around the world that are now powered by at least 70% renewables, and the organization CDP noted close to 200 cities and towns with ambitious targets for renewable power within the next two decades.
Across the US, over 27,300 MW of commercial solar has been installed as of April, 2018. And currently, wind turbines provide close to 59,000 MW of clean energy, nationwide. As of June, 2018, there were more than 18,000 electric vehicle charging stations across the country. While many municipalities are committed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, we have a long way to go. Change must happen exponentially in order to meet ambitious goals of even 50% renewable energy in the next decade. For example, in 2011, New York State was meeting approximately 19% of its energy needs from renewable energy—largely from hydropower. Governor Cuomo’s “50 by 30” plan—mandating a clean energy standard of 50% renewables by 2030—sets forth goals that will require aggressive advocacy, the will of decision-makers, economic funding and incentives, education, and the steadfast insistence of the citizenry if we are to have a chance at slowing climate change and curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Other resources on resistance
On every continent of the planet, there are citizen-based movements to address the impacts of coal on the environment. CoalSwarm has compiled a dynamic listing on a country-by-country basis. Similarly, a sister project, FrackSwarm, is a clearinghouse for citizen’s movements around the world that are addressing the impacts of fracking. Both CoalSwarm and FrackSwarm advocate strongly for a movement to clean energy everywhere. Both sites feature detailed background information on movements around the world and are partner projects to SourceWatch and the Center for Media and Democracy.
Halt the Harm Network, another organization closely allied with FracTracker Alliance, has developed a robust network of groups leading the fights against the oil and gas industry. Their database is searchable by skills, geography, and interests. Many of the organizations included in their database are also included in this map of resistance advocacy and activism groups fighting for a clean energy future.
Last, but not least, in 2017, FracTracker Alliance partnered with E2 to create a resource called “Mapping Clean Energy: New York”. You can view the maps that show clean energy jobs, solar, wind, and electric vehicle resources here. FracTracker also developed clean energy interactive maps for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri.
Next steps
FracTracker will continue to update our Clean Energy Action Maps project, and actively solicit input and feedback from the public. If your advocacy group is not listed on our maps above, please complete the form at the bottom of the project page. We’ll compile public input, and regularly add new organizations to this resource.
Of note: We will soon be retiring our Alliance Map in favor of these maps, as we believe it is extremely important to capture the depth and breadth of the movements against fossil fuels and in support of renewables. This project is our effort to make connections across the globe, whether or not we are in direct communication with the groups on the maps.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/The-Resistance-Feature.jpg400900Karen Edelsteinhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKaren Edelstein2018-06-28 10:04:362021-04-15 15:01:15Tracking the Movement Against Fossil Fuels
By Guest Author: Austin Sachs, Director and founder of Protect and Divest
In most major social movements where there is an imbalance power, divestment has been a necessary part for progress, whether in South Africa or now in the environmental movement against fossil fuels. Yet, too often in the environmental movement, divestment is only pursued when all other options have run their course and failed. If we want a climate neutral society for generations to come, we must pursue divestment alongside all other actions – and alongside this divestment, a reinvestment into a society we want to see.
So where does this all start? Divestment begins with each of us looking into our financial accounts and seeing who we are funding with them. And that is exactly what Protect and Divest did last year. We researched the funding of the Atlantic Coast, Mountain Valley, Sabal Trail and Atlantic Sunrise pipelines to know where our money was going.
Along the entire East Coast, the TransCo Pipeline connects all these pipelines, but this infrastructure is also all connected by the same banks who are funding each and every single pipeline project. These banks range from the US banks of Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, CitiBank, and Bank of America to the International banks of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), Scotiabank and the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ. What we truly found is that no one bank is guilty alone – The entire financial industry is banking on the destruction of our beautiful home!
So where do we go if the banking industry is against a sustainable future? Well, luckily the entire industry is not against sustainability, and some heavily promote it. One of these options is Amalgamated Bank, who has promised to never invest depositor’s money into fossil fuels. Across this nation are countless credit unions doing the same for their members, who see money as a necessary tool of sustainability.
Protect and Divest has now launched our Divest the Commonwealth campaign to take our pledge one step further and move Virginia’s government funds out of fossil fuels, as well. Over $330 million dollars of the Virginia Retirement System is invested in fossil fuels. And of the stock of Duke Energy, one of the main builders of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, 10 state pensions plans hold over $785 million in it. If the banks are guilty, so are our government pensions and funds. And it’s not like there are no sustainable options. Blackrock, the FTSE Group, and the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have come together to develop the FTSE ex-Fossil Fuels Index Series, a fossil fuel free index fund.
Divest the Commonwealth is working to build grassroots effort to move this money. We have started and are supporting city council resolutions from Harrisonburg, VA to Arlington, VA to Richmond, VA and are adding more weekly. Together, the cities and counties of Virginia will begin to bring about the future we want to see. Together, we will create a future we can be proud of.
Join us today and divest today! Every dollar, signature, and voice counts in making sure our money is where our mouth is. This is the way we create a world we want to live and one that we can tell our children about!
Austin Sachs is the director and founder of Protect and Divest, created to build a market solution to climate change. Brought to the environmental movement by the Standing Rock crisis, Austin has worked endlessly to create a world we can all be proud within the economic and political models existing today!
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Divest-Cover.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2018-05-29 10:00:542021-04-15 15:01:18Divestment – A Necessary Step Towards a Climate Neutral Society
The city of Los Angeles is considering a 2,500-foot setback safety buffer between residences and oil and gas wells. Support for the proposal is being led by the grassroots group Stand Together Against Neighborhood Drilling (STAND-LA). The push for a setback follows a recent report by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. According to Stand LA:
The report, requested by both the Los Angeles County Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council, outlines the health impacts faced by residents living, attending school or worshiping near one of Los Angeles County’s 3,468 active oil wells, 880 of which operate in the City of Los Angeles.
The Department outlines the clear health impacts on residents living near active oil wells, including: adverse birth outcomes, increased cancer risk, eye, nose and throat irritation, exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, neurological effects such as headaches and dizziness, gastrointestinal effects such as nausea and abdominal pain, and mental health impacts such as depression, anxiety or fatigue.
This information is, of course, nothing new. Living near oil and gas extraction activities, and specifically actively producing wells, has been shown in the literature to increase risks of various health impacts – including asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, cancer, birth defects, nervous disorders and dermal irritation, among others.1
Spatial Assessment
While Los Angeles would benefit the most from any type of setback regulation due to the county and city’s high population density, the rest of the state would also benefit from the same.
We conducted an assessment of the number of California citizens living proximal to active oil and gas production wells to see who all would be affected by such a change. Population counts were estimated for individuals living within 2,500 feet of an oil and gas production well for the entire state. An interactive map of the wells that fall within 2,500 feet of a residence in California is shown just below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. California 2,500’ oil and gas well buffer, above. The map shows a 2,500’ buffer around active oil and gas wells in California. Wells that are located within 1,000’; 1,500’; and 2,500’ from a residence, hospital or school are also shown in the map. The counts of individuals located within 2,500’ of an active well are displayed for census tracts.
Population Statistics
The number and percentage of California residents living within 2,500 feet of an active (producing) oil and gas well are listed below:
Total At-Risk Population
859,699 individuals in California live within 2,500 feet of an active oil and gas well
% Non-White
Of the total, 385,067 are “Non-white” (45%)
% Hispanic
Of the total, 341,231 are “Hispanic” (40%) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau2
We calculated population counts within the setbacks for smaller census-designated areas, including counties and census tracts. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Population Counts by County
County
Total Pop.
Impacted Pop.
Impacted % Non-White
Impacted % Hispanic
Los Angeles
9,818,605
541,818
0.54
0.46
Orange
3,010,232
202,450
0.25
0.19
Kern
839,631
71,506
0.34
0.43
Santa Barbara
423,895
8,821
0.44
0.71
Ventura
823,318
8,555
0.37
0.59
San Bernardino
2,035,210
6,900
0.42
0.59
Riverside
2,189,641
5,835
0.46
0.33
Fresno
930,450
2,477
0.34
0.50
San Joaquin
685,306
2,451
0.55
0.42
Solano
413,344
2,430
0.15
0.15
Colusa
21,419
1,920
0.39
0.70
Contra Costa
1,049,025
1,174
0.35
0.30
Table 1 presents the counts of individuals living within 2,500 feet of an active oil and gas well, aggregated by county. Only the top 12 counties with the highest population counts are shown. “Impacted Population” is the count of individuals estimated to live within 2,500 feet of an oil and gas well. The “% Non-white” and “% Hispanic” columns report the estimated percentage of the impacted population of said demographic. There may be some overlap in these categories.
Conclusions
California is unique in many ways, beautiful beaches and oceans, steep mountains, massive forests, but not least of all is the intensity of the oil and gas industry. Not only are some of the largest volumes of oil extracted from this state, but extraction occurs incredibly close to homes, sometimes within communities – as shown in the photo at the top of this post.
The majority of California citizens living near active production wells are located in Los Angeles County – well over half a million people. LA County makes up 61% of Californians living within 2,500 feet of an oil and gas well, and half of them are non-white minority, people of color.
Additionally, the well sample population used in this analysis is limited to only active production wells. Much more of California’s population is exposed to pollutants from the oil and gas support activities and wells. These pollutants include acidic vapors, hydrocarbons, and diesel particulate matter from exhaust.
Our numbers are, therefore, a conservative estimate of just those living near extraction wells. Including the other activities would increase both the total numbers and the demographic percentages because of the high population density in Los Angeles.
For many communities in California, therefore, it is essentially impossible for residents to escape oil and gas pollution.
The Analysis – How it was done!
Since the focus of this assessment was the potential for impacts to public health, the analysis was limited to oil and gas wells identified as active – meaning they are producing or are viable to produce oil and/or natural gas. This limitation on the dataset was justified to remain conservative to the most viable modes of exposure to contaminants from well sites. Under the assumption that “plugged,” “buried,” or “idle” wells that are not producing (or at least reporting production figures to DOGGR) do not purvey as much as a risk of air emissions, the main route of transport for pollutants to the surrounding communities is via air emissions from “producing” oil and gas wells. The status of wells was taken from DOGGR’s “AllWells.zip” dataset (downloaded 3/7/18).
Analysis Steps:
The first step was to identify oil and gas wells in California affected by 2,500’ and shorter setbacks from occupied dwellings. To achieve this, the footprints of occupied dwellings were identified, and where there was not a data source available the footprints were digitized.
Using GIS tools, 2,500’ buffers were generated from the boundary of the occupied dwellings and a subset of active oil and gas wells located within the buffer zone were generated.
A combination of county and city zoning data and county parcel data was used to direct the selection of building footprint GIS data and the generation of additional building footprint data. Building footprint data is readily available for a number of California cities, but was not available for rural areas.
Existing footprint data was vetted using zoning codes.
Areas located within 2,500’ of well-heads were prioritized for screening satellite imagery in areas zoned for residential use.
Analytical Considerations
Buildings and facilities housing vulnerable populations were also included. Vulnerable populations include people such as children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. These areas pose an elevated risk for such sensitive populations when they live near hazardous sites, such as oil fields in LA. A variety of these types of sites were included in the GIS analysis, including schools and healthcare facilities.
GIS techniques were used to buffer active oil and gas wells at 2,500 feet. GIS shapefiles and 2010 Decennial census data was downloaded from American Fact Finder via Census.gov for the entire state of California at the census block level.2 Census block GIS layers were clipped to the 2,500-foot buffers. Population data found in Summary File 1 for the 2010 census was attached to the clipped census block GIS layers. Adjusted population counts were calculated according to the proportion of the area of the census block falling within the 2,500’ buffer.
In August 2016, Shell Pipeline announced plans to develop the Falcon Ethane Pipeline System, a 97-mile pipeline network that will carry more than 107,000 barrels of ethane per day through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, to feed Shell Appalachia’s petrochemical facility currently under construction in Beaver County, PA.
FracTracker has covered the proposed Falcon pipeline extensively in recent months. Our Falcon Public EIA Project explored the project in great detail, revealing the many steps involved in risk assessments and a range of potential impacts to public and environmental health.
Shell’s response to these events has invariably focused on their intent to build and operate a pipeline that exceeds safety standards, as well as their commitments to being a good neighbor. In this article, we investigate these claims by looking at federal data on safety incidents related to Shell Pipeline.
Contrary to claims, records show that Shell’s safety record is one of the worst in the nation.
The “Good Neighbor” Narrative
Maintaining a reputation as a “good neighbor” is paramount to pipeline companies. Negotiating with landowners, working with regulators, and getting support from implicated communities can hinge on the perception that the pipeline will be built and operated in a responsible manner. This is evident in cases where Shell Pipeline has sold the Falcon in press releases as an example of the company’s commitment to safety in public comments.
Figure 1. Shell flyer
A recent flyer distributed to communities in the path of the Falcon, seen in Figure 1, also emphasizes safety, such as in claims that “Shell Pipeline has a proven track record of operating safely and responsibility and remains committed to engaging with local communities regarding impacts that may arise from its operations.”
Shell reinforced their “good neighbor” policy on several occasions at a recent Shell-sponsored information meeting held in Beaver County, stating that, everywhere they do business, Shell was committed to the reliable delivery of their product. According to project managers speaking at the event, this is achieved through “planning and training with first responders, preventative maintenance for the right-of-way and valves, and through inspections—all in the name of maintaining pipeline integrity.”
Shell Pipeline also recently created an informational website dedicated to the Falcon pipeline to provide details on the project and emphasize its minimal impact. Although, curiously, Shell’s answer to the question “Is the pipeline safe?” is blank.
U.S. Pipeline Incident Data
Every few years FracTracker revisits data on pipeline safety incidents that is maintained by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). In our last national analysis we found that there have been 4,215 pipeline incidents resulting in 100 reported fatalities, 470 injuries, and property damage exceeding $3.4 billion.
These numbers were based on U.S. data from 2010-2016 for natural gas transmission and gathering pipelines, natural gas distribution pipelines, and hazardous liquids pipelines. It is also worth noting that incident data are heavily dependent on voluntary reporting. They also do not account for incidents that were only investigated at the state level.
Shell Pipeline has only a few assets related to transmission, gathering, and distribution lines. Almost all of their pipeline miles transport highly-volatile liquids such as crude oil, refined petroleum products, and hazardous liquids such as ethane. Therefore, to get a more accurate picture of how Shell Pipeline’s safety record stacks up to comparable operators, our analysis focuses exclusively on PHMSA’s hazardous liquids pipeline data. We also expanded our analysis to look at incidents dating back to 2002.
Shell’s Incident Record
In total, PHMSA data show that Shell was responsible for 194 pipeline incidents since 2002. These incidents spilled 59,290 barrels of petrochemical products totaling some $183-million in damages. The below map locates where most of these incidents occurred. Unfortunately, 34 incidents have no location data and so are not visible on the map. The map also shows the location of Shell’s many refineries, transport terminals, and off-shore drilling platforms.
Open the map fullscreen to see more details and tools for exploring the data.
PHMSA’s hazardous liquid pipeline data account for more than 350 known pipeline operators. Some operators are fairly small, only maintaining a few miles of pipeline. Others are hard to track subsidiaries of larger companies. However, the big players stand out from the pack — some 20 operators account for more than 60% of all pipeline miles in the U.S., and Shell Pipeline is one of these 20.
Comparing Shell Pipeline to other major operators carrying HVLs, we found that Shell ranks 2nd in the nation in the most incidents-per-mile of maintained pipeline, seen in table 1 below. These numbers are based on the total incidents since 2002 divided by the number of miles maintained by each operator as of 2016 miles. Table 2 breaks Shell’s incidents down by year and number of miles maintained for each of those years.
Table 1: U.S. Pipeline operators ranked by incidents-per-mile
Operator
HVL Incidents
HVL Pipeline Miles
Incidents Per Mile (2016)
Kinder Morgan
387
3,370
0.115
Shell Pipeline
194
3,490
0.056
Chevron
124
2,380
0.051
Sunoco Pipeline
352
6,459
0.049
ExxonMobile
240
5,090
0.048
Colonial Pipeline
244
5,600
0.044
Enbride
258
6,490
0.04
Buckeye Pipeline
231
7,542
0.031
Magellan Pipeline
376
12,928
0.03
Marathan Pipeline
162
5,755
0.029
Table 2: Shell incidents and maintained pipeline miles by year
Year
Incidents
Pipeline Miles
Total Damage
Notes
2002
15
no PHMSA data
$2,173,704
2003
20
no PHMSA data
$3,233,530
2004
25
5,189
$40,344,002
Hurricane Ivan
2005
22
4,830
$62,528,595
Hurricane Katrina & Rita
2006
10
4,967
$11,561,936
2007
5
4,889
$2,217,354
2008
12
5,076
$1,543,288
2009
15
5,063
$11,349,052
2010
9
4,888
$3,401,975
2011
6
4,904
$2,754,750
2012
12
4,503
$17,268,235
2013
4
3,838
$10,058,625
2014
11
3,774
$3,852,006
2015
12
3,630
$4,061,340
2016
6
3,490
$6,875,000
2017
9
no PHMSA data
$242,800
2018
1
no PHMSA data
$47,000
As of 3/1/18
Cause & Location of Failure
What were the causes of Shell’s pipeline incidents? At Shell’s public informational session, it was said that “in the industry, we know that the biggest issue with pipeline accidents is third party problems – when someone, not us, hits the pipeline.” However, PHMSA data reveal that most of Shell’s incidents issues should have been under the company’s control. For instance, 66% (128) of incidents were due to equipment failure, corrosion, welding failure, structural issues, or incorrect operations (Table 3).
Table 3. Shell Pipeline incidents by cause of failure
Cause
Incidents
Equipment Failure
51
Corrosion
37
Natural Forces
35
Incorrect Operation
25
Other
20
Material and/or Weld Failure
15
Excavation Damage
11
Total
194
However, not all of these incidents occurred at one of Shell’s petrochemical facilities. As Table 4 below illustrates, at least 57 incidents occurred somewhere along the pipeline’s right-of-way through public areas or migrated off Shell’s property to impact public spaces. These numbers may be higher as 47 incidents have no mention of the property where incidents occurred.
Table 4. Shell Pipeline incidents by location of failure
Location
Incidents
Contained on Operator Property
88
Pipeline Right-of-Way
54
Unknwon
47
Originated on Operator Property, Migrated off Property
3
Contained on Operator-Controlled Right-of-Way
2
Total
194
On several occasions, Shell has claimed that the Falcon will be safely “unseen and out of mind” beneath at least 4ft of ground cover. However, even when this standard is exceeded, PHMSA data revealed that at least a third of Shell’s incidents occurred beneath 4ft or more of soil.
Many of the aboveground incidents occurred at sites like pumping stations and shut-off valves. For instance, a 2016 ethylene spill in Louisiana was caused by lightning striking a pumping station, leading to pump failure and an eventual fire. In numerous incidents, valves failed due to water seeping into systems from frozen pipes, or large rain events overflowing facility sump pumps. Table 5 below breaks these incidents down by the kind of commodity involved in each case.
Table 5. Shell Pipeline incidents by commodity spill volumes
Commodity
Barrels
Crude Oil
51,743
Highly Volatile Liquids
6,066
Gas/Diesel/Fuel
1,156
Petroleum Products
325
Total
59,290
Impacts & Costs
None of Shell’s incidents resulted in fatalities, injuries, or major explosions. However, there is evidence of significant environmental and community impacts. Of 150 incidents that included such data, 76 resulted in soil contamination and 38 resulted in water contamination issues. Furthermore, 78 incidents occurred in high consequence areas (HCAs)—locations along the pipeline that were identified during construction as having sensitive environmental habitats, drinking water resources, or densely populated areas.
Table 6 below shows the costs of the 194 incidents. These numbers are somewhat deceiving as the “Public (other)” category includes such things as inspections, environmental cleanup, and disposal of contaminated soil. Thus, the costs incurred by private citizens and public services totaled more than $80-million.
Table 6. Costs of damage from Shell Pipeline incidents
Private Property
Emergency Response
Environmental Cleanup
Public (other)
Damage to Operator
Total Cost
$266,575
$62,134,861
$11,024,900
$7,308,000
$102,778,856
$183,513,192
A number of significant incidents are worth mention. For instance, in 2013, a Shell pipeline rupture led to as much as 30,000 gallons of crude oil spilling into a waterway near Houston, Texas, that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. Shell’s initial position was that no rupture or spill had occurred, but this was later found not to be the case after investigations by the U.S. Coast Guard. The image at the top of this page depicts Shell’s cleanup efforts in the waterway.
Another incident found that a Shell crude oil pipeline ruptured twice in less than a year in the San Joaquin Valley, CA. Investigations found that the ruptures were due to “fatigue cracks” that led to 60,000 gallons of oil spilling into grasslands, resulting in more than $6 million in environmental damage and emergency response costs. Concerns raised by the State Fire Marshal’s Pipeline Safety Division following the second spill in 2016 forced Shell to replace a 12-mile stretch of the problematic pipeline, as seen in the image above.
Conclusion
These findings suggest that while Shell is obligated to stress safety to sell the Falcon pipeline to the public, people should take Shell’s “good neighbor” narrative with a degree of skepticism. The numbers presented by PHMSA’s pipeline incident data significantly undermine Shell’s claim of having a proven track record as a safe and responsible operator. In fact, Shell ranks near the top of all US operators for incidents per HVL pipeline mile maintained, as well as damage totals.
There are inherent gaps in our analysis based on data inadequacies worth noting. Incidents dealt with at the state level may not make their way into PHMSA’s data, nor would problems that are not voluntary reported by pipeline operators. Issues similar to what the state of Pennsylvania has experienced with Sunoco Pipeline’s Mariner East 2, where horizontal drilling mishaps have contaminated dozens of streams and private drinking water wells, would likely not be reflected in PHMSA’s data unless those incidents resulted in federal interventions.
Based on the available data, however, most of Shell’s pipelines support one of the company’s many refining and storage facilities, primarily located in California and the Gulf states of Texas and Louisiana. Unsurprisingly, these areas are also where we see dense clusters of pipeline incidents attributed to Shell. In addition, many of Shell’s incidents appear to be the result of inadequate maintenance and improper operations, and less so due to factors beyond their control.
As Shell’s footprint in the Appalachian region expands, their safety history suggests we could see the same proliferation of pipeline incidents in this area over time, as well.
NOTE: This article was amended on 4/9/18 to include table 2.
The head of Murray Energy Corporation, Robert Murray, is very close to the highest office in the land. Such an association demands a close look at the landscape from which this corporation and its founder arouse.
Belmont County, Ohio’s most famous tycoon Robert Murray has established a close relationship with the Trump administration. This connection dates back to his $300,000 contribution to Trump’s inauguration. The intimacy of this relationship has been given new weight recently when it was revealed that a hug between Mr. Murray and the Department of Energy’s Secretary Rick Perry preceded a meeting where Mr. Murray presented the administration with a memo outlining a 16-point plan for removing some of the burdensome regulations put in place by Mr. Murray’s least favorite person former President Barack Obama.
Among the few consistent themes from this most inconsistent of presidents has been a fondness for coal and steel, where brawny men do essential work and are threatened not by shifting economics, but by greenies and weenies who want to shut them down. Mr Trump and Mr Murray both want environmental rules rolled back—Mr Murray because it would be good for his bottom line, and Mr Trump because a second consistent aim of his presidency is to reverse anything done by Barack Obama. It is doubtful whether policy shifts alone could revive coal mining, but the attempt to do so says much about how vested interests operate in this administration… Mr Trump played a hard-nosed businessman on TV, but Mr Murray is the real thing. – The Economist, 2018
Not only has Mr. Murray succeeded in capturing the hearts and minds of the Trump administration, he has demanded that his $300,000 contribution get his longtime Oklahoman lawyer, and former aide to the senate’s chief climate skeptic James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the #2 spot behind Scott Pruitt at the EPA. Mr. Murray is so powerful that he managed to get Perry & Co. to fire the photographer that took the photo of the tender moment between Messrs. Perry and Murray.
Awkwardness aside, these situations could reasonably lead one to conclude that Perry and Pruitt are competing for Murray’s favor in the event they choose to run for higher office and need a patron with deep pockets. Mr. Murray would be in a real pickle if they both chose to run for the highest office in the land, with two fawning candidates potentially offering to one-up the other in terms of incentives and/or regulatory carve outs for Mr. Murray’s beloved King Coal.
Once the heart of Ohio Coal Country, Belmont Co. is now a major player on the hydraulic fracturing landscape, as well.
Given the growing influence of Mr. Murray and the coal industry writ large we thought it was time to do a deep dive into how Mr. Murray’s Appalachian Ohio home county of Belmont and surrounding counties have been altered by coal mining. We were also interested in how the coal industry has come to interact with the hydraulic fracturing industry, which has drilled 542 Utica wells in Belmont County alone since March 2012. These wells amount to 20% of all fracked wells in Ohio as of January 2018. The rate at which Utica wells are being permitted in Belmont County is actually increasing by about 1.5 to 2 permits per month or 5.5 to 7.8 times the statewide average (Figure 1).
Belmont County also happens to be the “all-time leader in coal production in Ohio” having produced 825 million tons since 1816 (ODNR, 2005). All of this means that the Ohio county that produces the most coal is also now The Buckeye State’s most actively drilled county.
Figure 1. Monthly and cumulative hydraulically fractured wells in Belmont County, Ohio between Q1-2012 and Q1-2018
However, the days of coal’s dominance – and easily mineable coal – in Ohio appear to be coming to an end.
Per mine, Ohio’s mines produce about 30% of the national average and 43% of the state averages (Figure 2). Ohio’s mines only produce about 10% of what the mega Western mines produce on a per-mine basis, and much less than states like New Mexico and Texas, as well.
Even with automation, the barriers to a return of coal in Appalachia are formidable given that most of the easily recoverable coal has already been mined. Additionally, the landscape is more formidable and not as conducive to the large strip-mine and dragline operations of the Powder River Basin, which produce roughly 8.5 million tons of coal per mine, compared to an average of 330,000 tons per mine in Appalachia. (Figure 2).
The below map depicts parcels owned by coal mining companies in the Ohio counties of Belmont, Noble, Guernsey, and Muskingum, as well as previously mined and/or potential parcels based on owner and proximity to existing mines.
We also incorporated production data (2001 to 2016) for 116 surface and strip coal mines in these and surrounding counties, natural gas pipelines, hydraulically fractured laterals, and Class II Salt Water Disposal (SWD) injection wells as of January 2018.
There are few areas in the United States where underground coal mining and fracking are taking place simultaneously and on top of each other. What could possibly go wrong when injecting massive amounts of fracking waste at high pressures into the geology below, while simultaneously pumping billions of gallons of water into hydraulically fractured laterals and mining coal at similar depths?
In the coming months and years we will be monitoring Belmont County, Ohio as an unfortunate case-study in determining the answer to such a unique question.
At the present time:
Murray Energy, its subsidiaries, and other coal companies own approximately 15% of Belmont County.
Coal companies and their associated real-estate firms and subsidiaries have mined or own approximately 5,615 square miles across the Noble, Belmont, Guernsey, and Muskingum counties.
The 116 mines in this map have mined an average of 3.22 million tons of coal since 2001 and more than 373 million tons in total. Mr. Murray’s mines account for 50% of this amount, producing nearly 15 times more coal per mine than the other 112 mines.
Collectively, these mines have contributed 1.09 billion tons of CO2 and CH4+N2O in CO2 equivalents to atmospheric climate change, or 68 million tons per year (MTPY). This volume is equivalent to the annual emissions of nearly 60 million Americans or 19% of the population.
Murray’s mines alone have contributed enough greenhouse gases (CO2+CH4+N2O) to account for the emissions of 9.2% of the US population since 2001. Each Murray mine is belching out 8.41 million tons of greenhouse gases per year or roughly equivalent to the emissions of 463,489 Americans.
Relevant data for this map can be found at the end of this article.
Broader Implications
Robert Murray’s influence and mining impacts extend well beyond Appalachian Ohio.
Mr. Murray’s is the primary owner of 157 mines and associated facilities1 across eleven states – and five of the six major Lower 48 coal provinces – from Utah and North Dakota to Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Figure 3). Mr. Murray likes to highlight his sage purchases of prime medium and high volatility bituminous coal real-estate over the years on his company’s website. However, nowhere in his corporate overview does he mention his most notorious mine: the abandoned and sealed underground Crandal Canyon Mine, Emery County, Utah. It was at this mine on August 6, 2007 that a collapse trapped six miners and resulted in their deaths, along with the deaths of three rescue workers. Mr. Murray told the BBC that he had had an emotional breakdown and hadn’t deserted anyone living in a little trailer adjacent to the mine’s entrance every day following the collapse. Furthermore, Mr. Murray blames such events on subsidiaries like Grenwal Resources Inc., which happens to be the owner of record for the Crandal Canyon Mine and is one of thirty-three unique subsidiaries owned by Mr. Murray (data download).
Figure 3. US Coal Mines by type and Mines Owned by Robert Murray highlighted in turquoise
Table 1. Robert Murray coal mine ownership by mine status
Status
Number of Mines
Abandoned
68
Abandoned and Sealed
62
Active
12
Non-Producing
10
Temporarily Idled
5
Total
157
The Politics of Energy
Robert Murray and his fellow fossil fuel energy brethren’s bet on Trump paid off, with Trump winning 99% of the vote in congressional districts where coal mines exist (Figure 4). Such a performance bested the previous GOP candidates of McCain and Romney even though they had achieved an impressive 96% of the vote. Interestingly, Trump did nearly as well in congressional districts dominated by wind farms and ethanol refineries where more than 87% of the electorate was white.
Figure 4. Presidential election results for GOP candidates in voting districts where various forms of energy are produced and/or processed, 2016, 2012, and 2008
Trump & Co. promised these districts that his administration would breathe life into the fossil fuel industry. True, Trump, Pruitt, Perry, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are greasing the skids for the industry’s revival. In terms of annual production, however, it is far from certain that such moves will translate into the types of boost in employment promised by Trump during the 2016 campaign. Even if production does return, executives like Murray admit that the advent of efficiencies and extraction technologies means that the industry is mining more coal per miner than ever before:
“Trump has consistently pledged to restore mining jobs, but many of those jobs were lost to technology rather than regulation and to competition from natural gas and renewables, which makes it unlikely that he can do much to significantly grow the number of jobs in the industry,” said Murray. “I suggested that he temper his expectations. Those are my exact words,” said Murray. “He can’t bring them back.” – The Guardian, March 27, 2017
Conclusions and Next Steps
It remains to be seen how the coal mining and fracking industry’s battle for supremacy will play out from a socioeconomic, health, environmental, and regulatory perspective. While many people understand that coal jobs aren’t coming back, we shouldn’t doubt the will of the Trump administration and friends like Robert Murray to make sure that profits can still be extracted from Appalachia.
Will the fracking industry and coal barons agree to get along, or will they wage a war on multiple fronts to marginalize the other side? Will this be another natural resource conflagration? If so, how will the people – and species like the “near-threatened” Hellbender Salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) or the region’s recovering Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) population that live in the disputed Appalachian communities respond? How will their already stressed day-to-day existence be affected? To this point, the fossil fuel industry has managed to blame everyone but itself for the tepid to non-existent job growth in their sectors.
The Appalachian landscape has been deeply scarred and fragmented by coal mining, and now it is experiencing a new colonizing force in the form of the hydraulic fracturing industry. When Appalachia realizes that automation, globalization, and natural gas, are the key drivers to the downfall of coal, will they bring fire, brimstone, and pitchforks to the doorstep of Murray Energy of the fracking companies? Or is Appalachia’s future merely that of an extraction colony?
The City of Arvin, with a population of about 20,000, is located in Kern County, California just 15 miles southeast of Bakersfield. Nicknamed ‘The Garden in the Sun,’ Arvin is moving forward with establishing new regulations that would limit oil and gas development within the city limits.
Setback Map
The new ordinance proposes setback distances for sensitive sites including hospitals and schools, as well as residentially and commercially zoned parcels. The proposal establishes a 300-foot buffer for new development and 600’ for new operations.
In the map below, FracTracker Alliance has mapped out the zoning districts in Arvin and mapped the reach of the buffers around those districts. The areas where oil and gas well permits will be blocked by the ordinance are shown in green, labeled “Buffered Protected Zones.” The “Unprotected Zones” will still allow oil and gas permits for new development.
There are currently 13 producing oil and gas wells within the city limits of Arvin, 11 of them are located in the protected zones. Those within the protected zones are operated by Sun Mountain Oil and Gas and Petro Capital Resources. They were all drilled prior to 1980, and are shown in the map below.
Information on the public hearings and proposals can be found in the Arvin city website, where the city posts public notices. As of January 24, 2018, these are the current documents related to the proposed ordinance that you will find on the webpage:
In December of 2016, Committee for a Better Arvin, Committee for a Better Shafter, and Greenfield Walking Group, represented by Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, sued Kern County. The lawsuit was filed in coordination with EarthJustice, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The Importance of Local Rule
Self-determination by local rule is fundamental of United States democracy, but is often derailed by corporate industry interests by the way of state pre-emption. There is a general understanding that local governments are able to institute policies that protect the interests of their constituents, as long as they do not conflict with the laws of the state or federal government. Typically, local municipalities are able to pass laws that are more constrictive than regional, state, and the federal government.
Unfortunately, when it comes to environmental health regulations, states commonly institute policies that preserve the rights of extractive industries to access mineral resources. In such cases, the state law “pre-empts” the ability of local municipalities to regulate. Local laws can be considered the mandate of the people, rather than the influence of outside interest on representatives. Therefore, when it comes to land use and issues of environmental health, local self-determination must be preserved so that communities are empowered in their decision making to best protect the health of their citizens.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arvin_bakersfield_re.jpg400900Kyle Ferrar, MPHhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngKyle Ferrar, MPH2018-01-30 11:59:072021-04-15 15:01:28Arvin, CA – a City in the Most Drilled County in the Country – files for a Setback Ordinance
Decisions to drill or mine on public lands, however, are often extremely complicated.
By Allison M. Rohrs, Saint Francis University, Institute for Energy
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has historically been, and continues to be, home to an abundant array of energy resources like oil, gas, coal, timber, and windy ridgetops. Expectedly, these natural resources are found both on publicly and privately held land.
In Pennsylvania, the bulk of public lands are managed by two separate state agencies: The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), which manages the state’s forest and park system, and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), which manages the state’s game lands. Both of these state agencies manage oil, gas, and coal extraction as well as timbering on state property. Interestingly, neither of the agencies have utility-scale renewable energy generation on their land.
Some of Pennsylvania’s best wind resources can be found on the mountain ridges in the Commonwealth’s state forests and game lands, however, all proposals to build utility-scale wind farms have been denied by state agencies.
(Note: there are other state and federal agencies managing lands in PA, however, we focused our research on these two agencies specifically.)
Surprised to see that state lands have been greatly developed for different fossil industries but denied for wind energy, The Institute for Energy set out on a yearlong endeavor to collect as much information as we could about energy development on PA public lands. Using formal PA Right to Know requests, we worked with both DCNR and PGC to examine development procedures and management practices. We reviewed hundreds of available state agency reports, scientific documents, and Pennsylvania energy laws and regulations. We also worked with FracTracker Alliance to develop interactive maps that depict where energy development has occurred on state lands.
After a comprehensive review, we realized, like so much in life, the details are much more complicated than a simple yes or no decision to develop an energy project on state lands. Below is a brief summary of our findings, organized by energy extraction method:
Land/Mineral Ownership in Pennsylvania
One of the most significant issues to understand when discussing energy resources on state lands is the complexity of land ownership in Pennsylvania. In many instances, the development of an energy resource on publicly owned land is not a decision, but instead an obligation. In Pennsylvania, property rights are often severed between surface and subsurface ownership. In many cases, surface owners do not own the mineral rights beneath them, and, by PA law, are obligated to allow reasonable extraction of such resource, whether it be coal, oil, or gas. In Pennsylvania, approximately 85% of state park mineral rights are owned by someone other than the Commonwealth (severed rights).
Legal Authority to Lease
It is critical to note that DCNR and PGC are two entirely separate agencies with different missions, legal structures, and funding sources. This plays a significant role in decisions to allow oil, gas, and coal development on their properties. Both agencies have explicit legal authority under their individual statutes that allow them to lease the lands for mineral extraction. This becomes more of an issue when we discuss wind development, where legal authority is less clear, particularly for DCNR.
Oil and Gas Extraction
Oil and gas wells have been spudded on state parks, state forests, and state game lands. The decision to do so is multifaceted and ultimately decided by three major factors:
Mineral ownership of the land,
Legal authority to lease the land, and
Potential impacts to the individual agency.
There is currently a moratorium on new surface leases of DCNR Lands. Moratoriums of such nature have been enacted and removed by different governors since 2010. Although there are no new lease agreements, extraction and production is still occurring on DCNR land from previously executed lease agreements and where the state does not own the mineral rights.
The Game Commission is still actively signing surface and non-surface use agreements for oil and gas extraction when they determine the action is beneficial to achieving their overall mission.
Revenues from the oil and gas industry play a significant role in the decision to drill or not. Both agencies have experienced increasing costs and decreasing revenues, overall, and have used oil and gas development as a way to bridge the gap.
Funds raised from DCNR’s oil and gas activities go back to the agency’s conservation efforts, although from 2009 to 2017, the State Legislature had directed much of this income to the state’s general fund to offset major budget deficits. Just this year, the PA Supreme Court ruled against this process and has restored the funds back to DCNR for conservations purposes.
All revenues generated from oil and gas development on state game lands stays within the Game Commission’s authority.
Along with positive economic benefits, there remains potential health and environmental risks unique to development on these public lands. Some studies indicate that users of these public lands could have potential exposure to pollution both in the air and in the water from active oil and gas infrastructure. The ease of public access to abandoned and active oil and gas infrastructure is a potential risk, as well. On the environmental side, many have argued that habitat fragmentation from oil and gas development is contradictory to the missions of the agencies. Both agencies have independent water monitoring groups specific to oil and gas activities as well as state regulated DEP monitoring. The potential negative effects on ground and surface water quality is an issue, however, mainly due the vast size of public lands and limited dwellings on these properties.
Use the map below to explore the PA state parks, forests, and game lands that have active oil and gas infrastructure.
Thousands of acres of state forests and game lands have been mined for coal. Like oil and gas, this mineral is subject to similar fee simple ownership issues and is governed by the same laws that allow oil and gas extraction. DCNR, has not signed any virgin coal mining leases since the 1990s, but instead focuses on reclamation projects. There are coal mining operations, however, on forest land where DCNR does not own the mineral rights. The Game Commission still enters into surface and non-surface use agreements for mining.
In many circumstances, mining activity and abandoned mines were inherited by the state agencies and left to them to reclaim. Environmental and health impacts of mining specific to state land are generally attributed more to legacy mining and not to new mining operations.
Acid mine drainage and land subsidence has destroyed rivers and riparian habitats on these lands purposed for conservation.
The ease of public access and limited surveillance of public lands also makes abandoned mines and pits a dangerous health risk. Although threats to humans and water quality exist, abandoned mines have been noted for actually creating new bat habitat for endangered and threatened bat species.
Originally, we sought to quantify the total acreage of public lands affected by coal mining and abandoned mines; however, the dataset required to do so is not yet complete.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is currently in the process of digitizing over 84,000 hand drawn maps of mined coal seams in PA, an expected 15-year project.
Today, they have digitized approximately 30,000. The static map below demonstrates the areas with confirmed coal mining co-located on state lands:
Renewables
The discussion about renewable energy development in PA is almost as complex as the fossil industries. There are no utility-scale renewables on state owned land. Both DCNR and the Game Commission have been approached by developers to lease state land for wind development, however all proposals have been denied.
Even when DCNR owns the surface rights, they still cite the lack of legal authority to lease the land for wind, as their statute does not explicitly state “wind turbines” as a lawful lease option.
The Game Commission does have the legal authority to lease its land for wind development, but has denied 19 out of 19 requests by developers to do so, citing many environmental and surface disturbances as the primary reason.
The development of wind projects in PA has slowed in the past five years, with only one new commercial wind farm being built. This is due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that many of windiest locations on private lands have been developed.
We estimate that 35% of the state’s best wind resource is undevelopable simply because it is on public land.
Like all energy development, wind energy has potential environmental and health impacts, too. Wind could cause habitat fragmentation issues on land purposed for conservation. The wind energy industry also has realized negative effects on bird and bat species, most notably, the endangered Indiana bat. Health impacts unique to public lands and wind development include an increased risk of injury to hunters and recreators related to potential mechanical failure or ice throw off the blades. Unlike fossil energies, however, wind energy has potential to offset air emissions.
We estimate that wind development on PA public lands could offset and estimated 14,480,000 tons of CO2 annually if fully developed.
Commercial wind turbines are currently being installed at hub heights of 80-100 meters where the annual average wind resource is 6.5 m/s or greater. The following map demonstrates areas of Pennsylvania where the wind speeds are 6.5 m/s or greater at 100 meters, including areas overlapping state lands, where no utility scale development has occurred.
Biomass is organic material, such as wood, that is considered renewable because of its ability to be replenished. The harvesting of such wood (timber) occurs on both DCNR and PGC lands and provides funding for these agencies.
Small-scale wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and biomass projects do exist on PA public lands for onsite consumption, however no renewables exist on a commercial or utility scale.
Both the fossil and renewable energy industries are forecasted to grow in Pennsylvania in the years to come. The complex decisions and obligations to develop energy resources on PA public lands should include thoughtful management and fair use of these public lands for all energy resources.
For more information and details, check out the entire comprehensive report on our website: www.francis.edu/energy.
This work was supported by The Heinz Endowments.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PA-State-Lands-Drilling-Lenker.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2017-12-19 11:42:542021-04-15 15:02:04Energy development is happening on your state lands, Pennsylvania
We live in a complex environment of local, regional, national, and international issues. We are constantly bombarded with a news cycle that regenerates at increasingly dizzying speeds. How can we possibly know what is truly important when hyped up twitter controversies clog up our news feeds?
In this quantity-over-quality culture, many of the most important issues and fights for civil rights and energy justice become casualties of a regression to ignorance.
At FracTracker, we disagree with this tactic – especially as it relates to the protests at Standing Rock. FracTracker has previously written about these demonstrations (shown in the map above), and has also analyzed and mapped data on oil spills from pipelines in North Dakota. We will continue FracTracker’s coverage of Standing Rock and the Water Protectors who fought – and continue to fight – the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), known as the Black Snake.
Following the Fight
For those unaware, the fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline operated by Energy Transfer Partners, continues. While the project was green-lighted by the Trump Administration and Bakken oil began flowing in June of 2017, the court has returned the permits to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the initial approval of the pipeline did not undergo adequate study of its environmental consequences. The finding stated that the Army Corps provided a flawed model, inadequate for predicting the full impacts of a leak under Lake Oahe. The model does not consider what would happen in the event of a leak under the lake. It models only benzene — one of many toxic chemicals present in crude oil — and models its movement in an unrealistic manner. Energy Transfer Partners claims the model is conservative, but it massively underestimates the potential impacts on human health and wildlife. The Army Corps provides no plan to contain an underground leak or clean contaminated soil and groundwater under Lake Oahe.
On a related note, DAPL’s parent company, Energy Transfer Partners, said in a recent annual report that it may not have sufficient liquid assets to finance a major cleanup project and would likely pass those costs onto local landowners and federal taxpayers. Energy Transfer Partners has since filed a racketeering lawsuit seeking $300 million in damages from the Red Warrior Camp at Standing Rock.
… the agency could simply revise or update its environmental review and again conclude that no EIS (environmental impact statement) is required. If that happens, additional legal challenges are likely. The Tribe believes this court decision should trigger a full EIS, including consideration of route alternatives, just as the Obama administration proposed in December.
Normally, when a permit is issued in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), operations are suspended, which would have forced the DAPL to shut down while the review is conducted. Contrary to the usual protocol, on October 11, 2017 a federal judge ruled that the pipeline will remain operational pending the environmental review by the Army Corps. Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II has said in a statement, however, “Just because the oil is flowing now doesn’t mean that it can’t be stopped.”
More Information and Resources
The Lakota People’s Law Project (LPLP) has been a resource to Lakota country – an area comprised of nine Indian reservation in North and South Dakota – since 2004. The LPLP supports a number of campaigns including divestment and energy justice, and has published several reports:
Special thanks to the Lakota People’s Law Project and Rachel Hallett-Ralston for the information provided.
In January of 2017, 76 Water Protectors including Chase Iron Eyes were arrested on land granted to the Standing Rock Lakota Sioux Tribe under the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. Chase Iron Eyes, Lead Counsel of the Lakota People’s Law Project, has been charged with felony incitement to riot and misdemeanor criminal trespass. In the interview above, Chase Iron Eyes discusses his involvement with Standing Rock and the political pressures to make an example out of him. Read the Lakota People’s Law Project petition here.
By Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
The River Healers have droned multiple fracking sites in the Greater Chaco Area (New Mexico) impacted by explosions, fires, spills, and methane. See what they are finding. Hear their story.
By Tom Burkett – River Healer Spokesperson, New Mexico Watchdog
The Greater Chaco region is known to the Diné (Navajo) as Dinétah, the land of their ancestors. It contains countless sacred sites that date to the Anasazi and is home of the Bisti Badlands and Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a World Heritage Site. Currently WPX Energy has rights to lease about 100,000 acres of federal, state, and Navajo allottee lands in the oil rich San Juan Basin, which includes Greater Chaco.1 WPX Energy along with other fracking companies plan to continue establishing crude oil fracking wells on these sacred lands, although the Greater Chaco community has spoken out against fracking and continue to call for more safety and oversight from New Mexico state regulatory bodies such as the EMNRD Oil Conservation Division.
The River Healers pulled EMNRD records that show over 8,300 spills in New Mexico had been reported by the the fracking industry to EMNRD between 2011-2016 (map below). This is thousands more than reported by the Environmental Protection Agency. The records also showed how quickly reports of spills, fires, and explosions were processed by the EMNRD as ‘non-emergency’ and accepted industry reports that no groundwater had been contaminated.
Zoomed in view of the River Healers’ NM fracking spills map. Learn more
Daniel Tso, Member of the Navajo Nation and Elder of the Counselor Chapter, led us to fracking sites in Greater Chaco that had reported spills and fires. Daniel Tso is one of many Navajo Nation members working on the frontlines to protect Greater Chaco, their ancestral land, and their pastoral ways of life from the expanding fracking industry. Traveling in white trucks and cars we blended in with the oil and gas trucks that dot indigenous community roads and group around fracking pads on squares federally owned land. Years of watchdogging the fracking destruction on their sacred land was communicated through Tso’s eyes looking over the landscape for new fracking disruption and a calm voice,
… the hurt on the sacred landscapes; the beauty of the land is destroyed, this affects our people’s mental, spiritual, and emotional health.
At each site our eyes were scanning the fracking sites and terrain for drone flight patterns while the native elders were slowly scanning the ground for pottery shards and signs of their ancestors. Arroyos sweep around the fracking pads and display how quickly the area can flash flood from rain that gathers on the striated volcanic ash hills of the badlands.
Fracking Regulation in NM
The EMNRD Oil Conservation Division has only 12 inspectors that are in charge of overseeing over 50,000 wells scattered throughout New Mexico.2 Skepticism around EMNRD’s ability to regulate not only comes from a short staff being stretched across 121,598 square miles of New Mexico’s terrain, but thousands of active fracking sites continue to report spills, fires, and explosions every year.3 Even more problematic is that Ken McQueen, Cabinet Secretary of EMNRD formerly served as Vice President of WPX Energy.4 Ken McQueen managed WPX Energy’s assets in the Four Corners area of New Mexico, Colorado, and in addition, part of Wyoming. New Mexico Governor, Susana Martinez’s appointment of McQueen severely compromises the state’s ability to impartially oversee WPX Energy and regulate the fracking industry. Governor Martinez has been called to clean up the EMNRD, and rid the regulatory body of cabinet members more interested in protecting the assets of WPX than the health and rights of New Mexicans. Tso remarks,
The sacrifices of indigenous communities continue for a society that thinks gasoline comes from a gas station. That thinks oil is a commodity that is unending resource. This is unfortunate, and ultimately compromises our physical health. Yet this doesn’t matter to the industry. They want every last drop of crude oil even if it is cost prohibitive.
The River Healers maintain that Governor Martinez is complicit in the exploitation of human water rights as long as the EMNRD remains a compromised and unreliable regulatory body.
New Mexico governmental assimilation with the oil and gas industry is presented to the Greater Chaco indigenous communities in the form of 90,000-lb gross weight oilfield trucks. Western Refining started rolling out trucks with larger-than-life prints of state and county law enforcements officers and military personnel at the same time water protectors at Standing Rock were being arrested and assaulted by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department in North Dakota.5 The indigenous-led movement to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline from desecrating sacred land and threatening rights to clean water has drawn greater resistance to oil and gas projects around the country.
Indigenous solidarity is felt in Greater Chaco, but Western Refining’s blatant propaganda campaign demonstrates how oil and gas corporations continue to threaten and silence the communities they extract oil from by displaying the paid power of state and federal law enforcement. The River Healers view this as a direct form of intimidation that aims to further a corporate ideology and remind native communities of the violence they experienced at the hand of the United States Federal Government in the past. The Western Refining campaign is a direct form of corporate-sponsored terrorism and should be grounds to ban their ability to use images of law enforcement officers to further their interests. Furthermore, the state should discontinue paying for officers to patrol facking roads and pads and instead use state funds to make state regulatory bodies work for the communities most impacted by the oil and gas industries.
What we are finding
Drone surveillance of fracking sites in Greater Chaco show how quickly the fracking industry has exploited a state government tied to the interests of a booming and unchecked resource extraction industry. In Greater Chaco this element of time is more deeply understood through the lens of the indigenous community.
Ultimately, the health of the fauna and flora are devastated. The adaptation of the delicate ecosystem is forever destroyed. Their recovery and healing will take years and years.
The Anasazi Kivas in Chaco Canyon took over 300 years to construct, while drill rigs such as Cyclone 32 take less than 10 days to drill 6,500 ft wells in the canyon plateau. We hiked 12 miles of the sacred Chaco Wash, pulled water samples, and saw the red palm of the Supernova Petrograph clinging to the understory of the canyon wall, clearly taking notice of what is happening above.
We deeply thank members of the Navajo Nation for inviting us into their lives, and our hearts stand with them in solidarity. Protect Greater Chaco! Dooda Fracking!
River Healers Site Videos
Site 1
Nageezi, NM
County: San Juan
Kimbeto Wash/Chaco River
GPS: 36°14’22.38”, -107°43’51.38”
This particular site caught fire on June 11th, 2016 and was allowed to burn until July 14th. The fracking fire and contaminates spread to areas north and south of the fracking pad, burning Juniper trees within 200 feet of residential buildings. This fire is not the only documented case in the Greater Chaco Area where communities were disrupted and evacuated in the middle of the night. While community members remain concerned about their health, WPX reported that the incident was not an emergency and that no damage was caused to groundwater.
Site 2
Nageezi, NM
County: San Juan
Kimbeto Wash/Chaco River
GPS: 36°13’43.23″, -107°44’28.72″
Drone surveys of this particular site show Cyclone 32, a 1500 Horsepower 755 ton drill rig manufactured in Wyoming. The drill rig is transported through Greater Chaco communities on small dusty single lane dirt roads used by the community members and school buses. The drilling is heard and seen moving from pad to pad. The rig is establishing multiple drill heads on pockets of land tucked along the Kimbeto Wash, a tributary to the Chaco River and sacred source of water security for members of the Greater Chaco Area in Nageezi, New Mexico.
Site 3
Nageezi, NM
County: San Juan
Kimbeto Wash/Chaco River
GPS: 36°13’27.51″, -107°45’3.24″
No video available
Site 4
Counselor, NM
County: Rio Arriba
Canada Larga River
GPS: 36°13’18.19″, -107°28’56.24″
Drone surveys show Lybrook Elementary School only 1600ft from a WPX Energy fracking site. The crude oil tanks of the site can be seen from the classroom windows of the school. The elementary school was moved to this location in 2006 because it was right across the highway from a large and expanding natural gas plant and had to relocate elementary students to a safe location.
Although the WPX Energy site is established on federal land, this area of Counselor, New Mexico is referred to as ‘The Checkerboard’ because of the quadrants of federal land that break up tribal land. The 5 well heads are highlighted to show that these pockets of federal land are being fracked with a high concentration of fracking wells. By drilling multiple wells in one pad location fracking companies are able to quickly drain the plays of crude oil under the the Greater Chaco Area and avoid signing contracts with the native property owners that live and attend school in the area they are fracking.
Drone surveys show crude oil being fracked within 840 ft of an indigenous community in Sandoval County, NM (Greater Chaco). The fracking site is located in the path of the community water supply, which had to be routed around the wellhead and crude tanks. The underground water line remains only 110 ft from active fracking activity.
Particular communities in Greater Chaco are dependent upon pastoral industry and the health of their livestock. Horses owned by the indigenous community are seen grazing on open and unprotected fracking pads. Many of these fracking pads have recorded spills of either fracking fluid, wastewater, or crude oil and pose health risks to the livestock grazing on potentially contaminated grasses and wastewater.
A Western Refining (WPX) crude truck can be seen driving down the community road. These dirt roads were designed to support local community traffic and school buses but are now heavily used by the fracking industry. 90,000-lb gross weight oilfield trucks haul the volatile crude oil through pastoral lands, endangering livestock and community members. Fracking companies continue to level dirt roads to accommodate the weight of their crude trucks. The practice cuts roads deep into the landscape. Roads in Greater Chaco now resemble trenches and make travel dangerous, block scenic views of ancestral land, and hinder the ability to monitor livestock and fracking development.
Site 6
Nageezi, NM
County: San Juan
Kimbeto Wash/Chaco River
GPS: 36°15’20.46”, -107°41’43.14”
Drone surveys show 3 well heads, crude tanks, and compressors north of Hwy 550 in Nageezi, NM. The location is of importance because it shows how flaring is used to burn off methane caused by fracking and the transportation processes of crude oil. The River Healers droned this site when workers were not present and the flare tower was turned off for safety concerns, but the flame can usually be seen all the way from Hwy 550 tucked into the distinct hills of the Bisti Badlands. Such methane hotspots are of concern because methane causes severe health risks for individuals living near crude oil facilities. NASA has identified two large methane gas clouds in new Mexico. The methane gas is concentrated above fracking occurring in the San Juan Basin and Permian Basin and disproportionately affects the air quality of Greater Chaco, Four Corners Region, Farmington, and South East region of New Mexico.
Two unlined wastewater pits can be seen on the edge of the fracking pad near the well heads and compressors. Erosion caused by water drainage can be seen leading from the well heads and compressor areas directly to the wastewater pits. Drainages can also be seen coming directly out of the waste water pits and going into the Upper Kimbeto Wash, a tributary of the Chaco River. It is illegal for fracking companies to keep fracking wastewater in unlined pits in the state of New Mexico. The River Healers reported this possible water violation to the EMNRD Oil Conservation Division (a state regulatory body for the fracking industry). EMNRD replied that WPX Energy maintains that the wastewater is caused by stormwater runoff and contains no fracking contaminates. This is the first time we have heard of the fracking industry creating stormwater runoff pits and find the practice to be unusual. Further skepticism that these runoff pits are not contaminated comes from research about the site. In June of 2016, WPX Energy reported a spill of 600 gallons of crude oil at this site because of a fire. WPX maintains that no groundwater was impacted and marked the incident as not an emergency.
The River Healers organize anonymous watchdog operations and tactical campaigns to protect water. The artist collective is engaged in direct action through analyzing, exposing, and bringing down systematic abuses of water rights. The River Healers work to accelerate theories of water democracy, decentralize aesthetics of environmentalism, and expose corporate sponsored water terrorism. ‘Water is a commons – No one has the right to destroy’
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/River-healers-video-feature.jpg400900Guest Authorhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngGuest Author2017-09-21 09:30:482021-04-15 15:02:33Protect Greater Chaco: Drone surveillance of regional fracking sites in NM
