FracTracker in the news and press releases

HB 1950 votes and numbers of wells
FracTracker Alliance

Covert Affairs in the Commonwealth

/by

trans·par·ent  [trans-pair-uhnt, -par-]

adjective

    1. admitting the passage of light through interstices.
    2. easily seen through, recognized, or detected: transparent excuses.

antonyms:  opaque  |  secretive  |  HB 1950

While House Bill 1950 is not actually listed as an antonym to “transparent” in the dictionary, its passing certainly acted that way. On February 8, 2012, PA’s HB 1950 was quickly bullied through the Senate and House with very little public transparency on what it contained. The lack of transparency during the move to pass the bill is similar to that of a drilled wells map for PA (yes, that’s a corny GIS joke). It now awaits the signature of Gov. Corbett – who has thanked the General Assembly for passing it. While HB 1950 institutes a sort-of impact tax that counties can decide whether or not to implement, the fee is the lowest in the country and is dependent partly on the [low] commercial price of gas. The bill also reduces the ability of local municipalities from individually zoning drilling (including pipelines). Tack onto all of that the fact that the data on these wells is just not up to speed with the pace of drilling. In one of Matt’s recent post about how many permits there are in PA right now, he notes that not even the PA DEP numbers can give you a straight answer. These numerical discrepancies make you wonder how thoroughly any permitting site assessments can be conducted when not all of the well locations can be accounted for. That issue makes the PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center’s recent report looking at drilling data even more frightening. Their analysis revealed that the gas drilling industry was responsible for 3,355 Marcellus Violations  between 2008 and 2011, many of which were not simply paperwork violations. At least the money set aside in the proposed state budget for improving emergency response on drills sites will be well worth it.

Ah yes, the proposed state budget… This intriguing reading was introduced by the Governor on the 8th, as well. According to John Quigley there is much to love and even more to hate in the 2012-13 budget proposal. To start off, this version of the budget WOULD NOT reopen the state forests to more leasing, something that many environmental groups were concerned could happen to help alleviate the state’s budget deficit. However, the Keystone Fund monies ($46 million) WOULD be reallocated into the general fund. This would be a major setback to conservation work because normally the money would be granted out to land trusts and conservation groups. That means less conservation work all around – at a time when it’s is needed more than ever.

There is much more to all of these issues, but instead of reinventing the wheel, here is a nice summary about the lack of transparency related to HB 1950. If you are interested in seeing how your representative voted on HB 1950, click on these links: PA House Roll Call Votes | PA Senate Roll Call Votes or check out the map below showing two layers of data on the:

  1. Number of wells per PA Senate district on a light to dark purple spectrum (darker indicates more wells)
  2. Vote on HB 1950, with green hatching indicating “yes” votes and red hatching indicating “no” votes.
To get the most out of this map: zoom in to your area of interest, click on the identify “i” button, and then click on a place on the map that you would like to learn more about.

 

FracTracker Alliance

Where is public health at the Marcellus table?

/by

Missing from the Table: Role of the Environmental Public Health Community in Governmental Advisory Commissions Related to Marcellus Shale Drilling

Below is the abstract for an article submitted by Goldstein, Kriesky, and Pavliakova to Environmental Health Perspectives, a prestigious peer-reviewed journal about today’s most pressing environmental health issues. Or, download the entire article (PDF).  Note: As of 6-25-12, the EHP link above is not working because their website is down. The link to the full PDF will be provided as soon as possible.

This is Public Health stickerThe Marcellus Shale is a vast natural gas field underlying parts of Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Virginia and Maryland. Rapid development of this field has been enabled by advances in hydrofracking techniques that include injection of chemical and physical agents deep underground. Response to public concern about potential adverse environmental and health impacts has led to the formation of state and national advisory committees.

We review the extent to which advisory committees formed in 2011 by the US Department of Energy and the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania contain individuals with expertise pertinent to human environmental public health. We also analyze the extent to which human health issues are of concern to the public by reviewing the presentations to the public meeting of the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board Natural Gas Subcommittee.

At a public hearing held by the President’s Natural Gas Subcommittee 62.7% of those not in favor of drilling mentioned health issues. Although public health is specified to be a concern in the executive orders forming these three advisory committees, we could identify no individuals with health expertise among the 52 members of the Pennsylvania Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission; the Maryland Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative Advisory Commission; or the Secretary of Energy’s Natural Gas Subcommittee.

Despite recognition of the environmental public health concerns related to drilling in the Marcellus Shale, neither state nor national advisory committees selected to respond to these concerns contained recognizable environmental public health expertise.

Read more»

Full Citation: Goldstein BD, Kriesky J, Pavliakova B. 2012. Missing from the Table: Role of the Environmental Public Health Community in Governmental Advisory Commissions Related to Marcellus Shale Drilling. Environ Health Perspect :-. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104594.  Received: 07 October 2011; Accepted: 10 January 2012; Online: 10 January 2012

FracTracker Alliance

TOXMAP: Learn about toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing

/by

The National Library of Medicine’s TOXMAP now provides information on the toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Companies involved in hydraulic fracturing are not currently required to report to the US EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program and so are not represented in TOXMAP. However, TOXMAP provides information on many of the most toxic chemicals used.

TOXMAP is a Geographic Information System (GIS) – like FracTracker’s DataTool – from the Division of Specialized Information Services of the US National Library of Medicine (NLM) that uses maps of the United States to help users visually explore data from the US Environmental Protection Agency TRI and Superfund Programs.

Violations Jan-Sept 2011 PA (EHS highlighted with red dots)
FracTracker Alliance

A discussion on regulation and safety

/by

By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – DrPH Student in Environmental & Occupational Health; Communications Specialist for FracTracker.org

As natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale region of our country moves forward, people in many states are debating over the best ways to regulate the natural gas industry. I’m not going to get into the impact fee discussion in this piece, although it is an obvious point of contention that needs addressed in PA immediately. Rather, I’d like to propose a way to manage the permitting and future development of the companies operating in this field.

Pipeline Safety

There are 2.5 million miles of pipelines in the U.S., the majority of which are for gas transmission and distribution. A recent 4-part series by the Philadelphia Inquirer brought to light the real and potential dangers of the gas pipeline system, which is being expanded in PA to handle the Marcellus gas destined for the market. The biggest concern highlighted in these articles in my opinion is the lack of oversight anywhere in the process – especially when our regulatory officials cannot even locate the pipelines. (Specific geographic locations of pipelines are often held close to the chest due to the perception that this information poses a risk to national security and infrastructure.)

Pipelines do fail, as demonstrated by the toxic liquid spills map below. This graphic was created by the New York Times, who in a earlier article discussed the lack of human and fiscal resources available to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – noting that although the number of spills have declined, pipelines are still responsible for approximately 100 significant spills per year.

NYTs: U.S. Pipeline Incidents 1990 - June 2011

NEW YORK TIMES | Source: Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

If you’d like to be able to find where pipelines are located (approximately) in your county, visit the U.S. DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) website for Pipeline Safety Awareness. The site also provides you with data about pipeline incidents. In case you would rather not go diving through the raw data, below are some U.S. pipeline incident datasets and example maps from 2010 – Nov 2011 data that  Matt Kelso obtained from PHMSA:

  • PHMSA Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Incidents: Dataset | Map
  • PHMSA Gas Distribution Pipeline Incidents: Dataset | Map
  • PHMSA Gas Transmission Pipeline Incidents: Dataset | Map
(You can do a lot more with this data, such as filtering it by whether surface water remediation was necessary or by the type of contaminant that was released.)

Violations in PA

Violations Jan-Sept 2011 PA (EHS highlighted with red dots)

Violations Jan-Sept 2011 PA (EHS violations in red)

Another concern about natural gas drilling is the risk of environmental health and safety incidents occurring throughout the rest of the drilling process.1

The map to the left created using Data.FracTracker.org shows all of the violations that were issued to drillers from Jan-Sept. 2011 in Pennsylvania. The red dots are the violations that fall under the DEP’s loose category of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS).2

As you can see, EHS incidents do occur, but is that the whole story? Perhaps we should be asking ourselves, who exactly is responsible for these incidents – pipelines and the like? When you look more closely at the data the industry’s safety record becomes less monolithic than at first glance.

Focusing on the Bad Actors

The PR surrounding natural gas drilling is controversial at best. We have seen blanket statements about how safe – and dangerous – natural gas drilling and pipelines can be. We all must recognize that the answer lies somewhere in between. However, where is the perfect medium located, and how do we address the root of the problems that do arise?

One approach that is taken by some regulatory bodies such as OSHA is to focus on the bad actors. In two of his more recent posts, FracTracker’s Matt Kelso analyzed the ‘bad actors’ that exist within the violations issued in PA. While this is certainly not an easy or straightforward task, he was able to identify operators with the highest and lowest violations per well drilled, as well as trends between 2010 and 2011. Check out these analyses here: Part 1 |  Part 2.

Bad actors are not good for the industry’s PR or the Commonwealth’s residents. If the agencies responsible for issuing drilling permits quantitatively began to take violation trends into account, this would allow the safer drillers to continue operating, while limiting those with a less than appealing track record.

1 One of the great changes made by the PA Department of Environmental Protection in the last 2 years has been the transfer from the paper record system for keeping track of the violations they issue to a digital version that allows people access to the comprehensive, raw data. This is certainly also something that should be on NY’s Department of Environmental Conservation radar prior to issuing its first permit for high volume hydraulic fracturing.

2 EHS violations are a loose category because often times when we sift through the data we will find administrative oversights like paperwork mislabeled as EHS, and more serious spills and fires mislabeled as administrative.

Map of Pavilion WY
FracTracker Alliance

EPA: Fracking and Groundwater Contamination

/by
Map of Pavillion, WY

Pavillion, WY

The Internet is alive today after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a report that indicates hydraulic fracturing (used when drilling for natural gas in tight shale formations) can contaminate groundwater. Residents of Pavillion, WY have been complaining about the state of their groundwater for some time now. The draft EPA report lends credibility to their claims with the finding that chemicals associated with the process were found in some deep water aquifers in the area. And when you look at all of the evidence around this issue – outside of the EPA’s study – the results are even more ‘ground-breaking.’

Having said that, there are a few questions regarding the EPA report/research. No field study could ever account for all of the potential confounders and variables – especially given the amount of resources the EPA had at its disposal to conduct this work. However, some of the most significant questions that I would like to see answered before this draft is finalized include:

  1. How representative is the data from the two monitoring wells in relation to residents’  drinking water wells?
  2. Has the potential for surface contamination of the monitoring wells been ruled out?
  3. Why weren’t the duplicate samples that were analyzed by separate labs also able to detect 2-BE?

These questions (and surely more) are exactly why this is only a draft report. According to the EPA, it will be available for a 45-day public comment period. A subsequent 30-day peer-review process will be led by a panel of independent scientists to ensure that the results that stay on the records are accurate.

Gas leases in Dryden NY
FracTracker Alliance

Gas Lease Review by the New York Times

/by
Gas leases in the southeastern corner of the Town of Dryden (approximately).

Example lease map. Source: LivinginDryden.org

 

The New York Times has collected more than 111,000 oil and gas leases and related documents through open records requests. Over 100,000 of the documents in the archive are from Tarrant County, Tex., roughly 3,200 are from New York, and the remainder are from states including Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

To see all of the leases that have been collected by the New York Times, click here.

 

Some quick tidbits about what they found:

  • Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops.
  • Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling.
  • In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors.
  • Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions without additional approval from landowners.
FracTracker Alliance

Study Offers 7 Safeguards For Hydraulic Fracturing

/by

Duke University Press Release

A new report by Duke University researchers offers several health and environmental measures for North Carolina lawmakers to consider as they debate legalizing horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.

The study, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, looks at potential environmental hazards and how lawmakers in other states are factoring health and environmental risks into regulatory approaches targeting the natural gas extraction method.

”If North Carolina legalizes shale gas extraction, we need to consider what’s worked best in other states and avoid what hasn’t,” said Rob Jackson, Nicholas professor of global environmental change at the Nicholas School of the Environment. “That’s the only way to get it right.”

Legislation passed earlier this year has moved North Carolina closer to producing shale gas, and is directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to complete a study on the effects of hydraulic fracturing, often called “fracking,” by May, 2012.

Authors of Duke’s own study say if North Carolina legislators allow natural gas production through hydraulic fracturing, they should consider seven measures to help avoid and mitigate any possible negative effects. These include:

  1. Securing baseline data on groundwater prior to shale gas production and at each stage of the drilling process;
  2. Funding for regulatory programs and an agency to carry them out;
  3. Planning for withdrawals from area water supplies related to the production;
  4. Minimizing the risks of spills and contamination caused by equipment failure and human error by implementing safety requirements;
  5. Thinking through options for the disposal and treatment of wastewater resulting from the hydraulic fracturing process;
  6. Assessing the impacts on air quality and assure attainment of federal ground-level ozone standards; and
  7. Requiring some degree of disclosure regarding the chemicals used in fracturing fluid.

“Lawmakers have the unique opportunity to decide whether or not hydraulic fracturing is appropriate for the state,” said Jonas Monast, director of the climate and energy program for the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions. “Before making a decision, we need to understand the full range of potential economic, environmental, and health impacts.”

The paper “Considering Shale Gas Extraction in North Carolina: Lessons Learned in Other States,” is written by Sarah Plikunas, Brooks Rainey Pearson and Jonas Monast of Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and Rob Jackson and Avner Vengosh of the Nicholas School of the Environment. To read it, click here.

Update from US EPA on Hydraulic Fracturing Study
FracTracker Alliance

US EPA Proceedings of the Technical Workshops for the Hydraulic Fracturing Study

/by

In its Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriations Report, the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Conference Committee identified the need for a focused study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. EPA scientists, under this Administration and at the direction of Congress, are undertaking a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing (HF) on drinking water resources.

The scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in HF, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.

 

EPA held four technical workshops from February through March 2011 to explore the following focus areas:

The goal of the technical workshops was three-fold:

  1. Inform EPA of the current technology and practices being used in hydraulic fracturing,
  2. Identify research related to the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, and
  3. Provide an opportunity for EPA scientists to interact with technical experts. EPA invited technical experts from the oil and natural gas industry, consulting firms, laboratories, state and federal agencies, and environmental organizations to participate in the workshops.

EPA will use the information presented in these abstracts and presentations to inform research that effectively evaluates the relationship between HF and drinking water.  Learn more»

FracTracker Alliance

Flood Control and Shale Gas Wells

/by
Flooding from Hurricane Irene in Wilkes-Barre PA

Photo Credit: Salvation Army, Randall Thomas, Wilkes-Barre, PA

Pennsylvania is no stranger to water and flooding, as we receive between 38 and 45 inches of rain per year on average. Unfortunately, the storms that hit the region starting on August 27th were more than we could handle – to say the least. During this time Hurricane Irene and the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee burdened the eastern portion of the state with flooding at water levels that rivaled Hurricane Agnes (1972).

While most residents hit hardest by flooding focused on protecting their families, homes, and livelihoods, others throughout the Commonwealth were also concerned about the impact that rising water levels could have on natural gas well pads. This is especially an issue for those sites operating in floodplains with open frac ponds. According to the reports we have been able to gather no shale gas well sites were compromised or sustained environmental damage in PA.  Apparently, Marcellus Shale drillers were advised to prevent overflows from wastewater/’frac’ ponds by the governor, although due to a communication loophole it is unclear as to whether all of the relevant sites temporarily shut down during the inclement weather. Regardless, with the number of wells being drilled in PA especially in the northeast, being able to prevent any incidents during these storms is quite a feat on the part of the drillers and should be recognized as such. Industry reports also indicate that drilling companies provided financial contributions, expertise, equipment, work hours, and supplies to aid in the flood relief efforts. Learn more about these contributions here.

We ask that if you have any knowledge that contradicts this information, please let us know and contact your local representative to report the incident.

FracTracker Alliance

Governor Unveils County Drilling Fee, Other Marcellus Shale Proposals

/by

Reposted from PA Environment Digest

Proposal calls for 75% of fee revenues to remain local, 25% to the state

Gov. Tom Corbett today said he agrees with 94 of the 94 recommendations made by his Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission and will be recommending legislation authorizing counties to adopt a drilling fee whose revenue would be split between the state (25 percent) and local governments (75 percent) to offset costs imposed by natural gas development. The recommendations not adopted by the Governor include: forced pooling, re-writing the authority of local governments to regulate drilling linked to a drilling fee and adding natural gas to Tier II of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards. The Governor’s Office did not release legislative language or mention which recommendations would be adopted by legislation, regulation or policy. However, he said about one-third require legislative changes; more than 50 are policy-oriented and can be accomplished within the state agencies. The legislative priorities outlined today will be submitted to the legislative leadership in the near future. The governor has instructed the relevant Cabinet Secretaries to create implementation plans for the policy-oriented recommendations and to submit them to his office within 30 days. “This natural resource will fuel our generating plants, heat our homes and power our state’s economic engine for generations to come,” Corbett said. “This growing industry will also provide new career opportunities that will give our children a reason to stay here in Pennsylvania. We are going to do this safely and we’re going to do it right, because energy equals jobs.”

County Drilling Fee

Under the Governor’s drilling fee proposal, counties with Marcellus or Utica natural gas shales are authorized to adopt a per well drilling fee starting at $40,000 per sell and decreasing to $10,000 per well in four years. A county may provide for a fee credit of up to 30 percent if the driller makes approved investments in natural gas infrastructure, which include setting up natural gas fueling stations or natural gas public transit vehicles. “Estimates show that this impact fee will bring in about $120 million in the first year, climbing to nearly $200 million within six years,” Corbett said. “As the number of wells grows, so will the revenue. Almost all of the money it brings in will go to benefit the places experiencing the impact.” A quarter of the fee revenues would be sent to state government for several specific uses:

  • 4.5 percent– up to $2 million– to the PA Emergency Management Agency for emergency response planning, training and coordination;
  • 3.75 percent– up to $2 million– to the Office of State Fire Commissioner to develop and support first responder activities;
  • 3.75 percent– up to $2 million– to the Department of Health for collecting and disseminating information and supporting outreach activities for investigating health complaints related to shale gas development;
  • 7.5 percent– up to $2 million– to the Public Utility Commission for inspection and enforcement of pipelines;
  • 10.5 percent– up to $10 million– to plug abandoned oil and gas wells and provide for the enforcement of oil and gas programs requirements; and
  • 70 percent and an balance remaining to PennDOT for road and bridge maintenance and repair and transportation infrastructure improvements in counties hosting shale gas development.

Seventy-five percent of the revenues would be retained at the local level and allocated to counties (36 percent), host municipalities (37 percent) and 27 percent to municipalities in shale counties distributed by population and highway miles. Local governments could use the funding for road and bridge repair, water, stormwater and drinking water systems, reclaiming surface and subsurface water supplies, GIS and other information technology, project to increase the availability of housing to low income residents, delivery of social services including domestic relations, drug and alcohol treatment, job training and counseling, court system costs and conservation districts inspection and oversight of natural gas development.

Other Recommendations

As a part of this proposal, Corbett announced a series of prudent standards related to unconventional drilling, including:

  • Increasing the well setback distance from private water wells from the current 200 feet to 500 feet, and to 1,000 feet from public water systems;
  • Increasing the setback distance for wells near streams, rivers, ponds and other bodies of water from 100 feet to 300 feet;
  • Increasing well bonding from $2,000 up to $10,000;
  • Increasing blanket well bonds from $25,000 up to $250,000;
  • Expanding an unconventional gas operator’s “presumed liability” for impairing water quality from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet from a gas well, and extending the duration of presumed liability from 6 months after well completion to 12 months;
  • Enabling DEP to take quicker action to revoke or withhold permits for operators who consistently violate rules;
  • Doubling penalties for civil violations from $25,000 to $50,000; and
  • Doubling daily penalties from $1,000 a day to $2,000 a day.

Corbett’s proposal also seeks to help secure energy independence and reduce reliance on foreign oil by developing “Green Corridors” for natural gas vehicles with refueling stations at least every 50 miles and within two miles of key highways; by amending the PA Clean Vehicles Program to include “bi-fuel” vehicles (diesel and natural gas); by helping schools and mass transit systems to convert fleets to natural gas vehicles; by stabilizing electric prices by using natural gas for generating electricity; and by encouraging the development of markets for natural gas and natural gas byproducts, such as within the plastics and petrochemical industries.

A summary of the Governor’s proposal is available online. Visit the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission webpage for a complete copy of the July report.