Our Perspectives Archives - Page 8 of 16

Our thoughts and opinions about gas extraction and related topics

H 2 O Where Did It Go?

March 19, 2014/by FracTracker Alliance

By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

A Water Use Series

Many of us do our best to stay current with the latest research related to water impacts from unconventional drilling activities, especially those related to hydraulic fracturing. However, after attending presentations and reading recent publications, I realized that I knew too little about questions like:

How much water is used by hydraulic fracturing activities, in general?
How much of that can eventually be used for drinking water again?
How much is removed from the hydrologic cycle permanently?

To help answer these kinds of questions, FracTracker will be running a series of articles that look at the issue of drilling-related water consumption, the potential community impacts, and recommendations to protect community water resources.

Ceres Report

We have posted several articles on water use and scarcity in the past here, here, here and here. This article in the series will share information primarily from Monika Freyman’s recent Ceres report, Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Stress: Water Demand by the Numbers, February 2014. If you hunger for maps, graphs and stats, you will feast on this report. The study looks at oil and gas wells that were hydraulically fractured between January 2011 and May 2013 based on records from FracFocus.

Class 2 UI Wells

Water scarcity from unconventional drilling is a serious concern. According to Ceres analysis, horizontal gas production is far more water intensive than vertical drilling. Also, the liquids that return to the surface from unconventional drilling are often disposed of through deep well injection, which takes the water out of the water cycle permanently. By contrast, water uses are also high for other industries, such as agriculture and electrical generation. However, most of the water used in agriculture and for cooling in power plants eventually returns to the hydrological cycle. It makes its way back into local rivers and water sources.

In the timeframe of this study, Ceres reports that:

97 billion gallons of water were used, nearly half of it in Texas, followed by Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Colorado and North Dakota, equivalent to the annual water need of 55 cities with populations of ~ 5000 each.
Over 30 counties used at least one billion gallons of water.
Nearly half of the wells hydraulically fractured since 2011 were in regions with high or extremely high water stress, and over 55% were in areas experiencing drought.
Over 36% of the 39,294 hydraulically fractured wells in the study overlay regions experiencing groundwater depletion.
The largest volume of hydraulic fracturing water, 25 billion gallons, was handled by service provider, Halliburton.

Water withdrawals required for hydraulic fracturing activities have several worrisome impacts. For high stress and drought-impacted regions, these withdrawals now compete with demands for drinking water supplies, as well as other industrial and agricultural needs in many communities. Often this demand falls upon already depleted and fragile aquifers and groundwater. Groundwater withdrawals can cause land subsidence and also reduce surface water supplies. (USGS considers ground and surface waters essentially a single source due to their interconnections). In some areas, rain and snowfall can recharge groundwater supplies in decades, but in other areas this could take centuries or longer. In other areas, aquifers are confined and considered nonrenewable. (We will look at these and additional impact in more detail in our next installments.)

Challenges of documenting water consumption and scarcity

Tracking water volumes and locations turns out to be a particularly difficult process. A combination of factors confuse the numbers, like conflicting data sets or no data, state records with varying criteria, definitions and categorization for waste, unclear or no records for water volumes used in refracturing wells or for well and pipeline maintenance.

Along with these impediments, “chain of custody” also presents its own obstacles for attempts at water bookkeeping. Unconventional drilling operations, from water sourcing to disposal, are often shared by many companies on many levels. There are the operators making exploration and production decisions who are ultimately liable for environmental impacts of production. There are the service providers, like Halliburton mentioned above, who oversee field operations and supply chains. (Currently, service providers are not required to report to FracFocus.) Then, these providers subcontract to specialists such as sand mining operations. For a full cradle-to-grave assessment of water consumption, you would face a tangle of custody try tracking water consumption through that.

To further complicate the tracking of this industry’s water, FracFocus itself has several limitations. It was launched in April 2011 as a voluntary chemical disclosure registry for companies developing unconventional oil and gas wells. Two years later, eleven states direct or allow well operators and service companies to report their chemical use to this online registry. Although it is primarily intended for chemical disclosure, many studies, like several of those cited in this article, use its database to also track water volumes, simply because it is one of the few centralized sources of drilling water information. A 2013 Harvard Law School study found serious limitations with FracFocus, citing incomplete and inaccurate disclosures, along with a truly cumbersome search format. The study states, “the registry does not allow searching across forms – readers are limited to opening one PDF at a time. This prevents site managers, states, and the public from catching many mistakes or failures to report. More broadly, the limited search function sharply limits the utility of having a centralized data cache.”

To further complicate water accounting, state regulations on water withdrawal permits vary widely. The 2011 study by Resources for the Future uses data from the Energy Information Agency to map permit categories. Out of 30 states surveyed, 25 required some form of permit, but only half of these require permits for all withdrawals. Regulations also differ in states based on whether the withdrawal is from surface or groundwater. (Groundwater is generally less regulated and thus at increased risk of depletion or contamination.) Some states like Kentucky exempt the oil and gas industry from requiring withdrawal permits for both surface and groundwater sources.

Can we treat and recycle oil and gas wastewater to provide potable water?

Will recycling unconventional drilling wastewater be the solution to fresh water withdrawal impacts? Currently, it is not the goal of the industry to recycle the wastewater to potable standards, but rather to treat it for future hydraulic fracturing purposes. If the fluid immediately flowing back from the fractured well (flowback) or rising back to the surface over time (produced water) meets a certain quantity and quality criteria, it can be recycled and reused in future operations. Recycled wastewater can also be used for certain industrial and agricultural purposes if treated properly and authorized by regulators. However, if the wastewater is too contaminated (with salts, metals, radioactive materials, etc.), the amount of energy required to treat it, even for future fracturing purposes, can be too costly both in finances and in additional resources consumed.

It is difficult to find any peer reviewed case studies on using recycled wastewater for public drinking purposes, but perhaps an effective technology that is not cost prohibitive for impacted communities is in the works. In an article in the Dallas Business Journal, Brent Halldorson, a Roanoke-based Water Management Company COO, was asked if the treated wastewater was safe to drink. He answered, “We don’t recommend drinking it. Pure distilled water is actually, if you drink it, it’s not good for you because it will actually absorb minerals out of your body.”

Can we use sources other than freshwater?

How about using municipal wastewater for hydraulic fracturing? The challenge here is that once the wastewater is used for hydraulic fracturing purposes, we’re back to square one. While return estimates vary widely, some of the injected fluids stay within the formation. The remaining water that returns to the surface then needs expensive treatment and most likely will be disposed in underground injection wells, thus taken out of the water cycle for community needs, whereas municipal wastewater would normally be treated and returned to rivers and streams.

Could brackish groundwater be the answer? The United States Geological Survey defines brackish groundwater as water that “has a greater dissolved-solids content than occurs in freshwater, but not as much as seawater (35,000 milligrams per liter*).” In some areas, this may be highly preferable to fresh water withdrawals. However, in high stress water regions, these brackish water reserves are now more likely to be used for drinking water after treatment. The National Research Council predicts these brackish sources could supplement or replace uses of freshwater. Also, remember the interconnectedness of ground to surface water, this is also true in some regions for aquifers. Therefore, pumping a brackish aquifer can put freshwater aquifers at risk in some geologies.

Contaminated coal mine water – maybe that’s the ticket? Why not treat and use water from coal mines? A study out of Duke University demonstrated in a lab setting that coal mine water may be useful in removing salts like barium and radioactive radium from wastewater produced by hydraulic fracturing. However, there are still a couple of impediments to its use. Mine water quality and constituents vary and may be too contaminated and acidic, rendering it still too expensive to treat for fracturing needs. Also, liability issues may bring financial risks to anyone handling the mine water. In Pennsylvania, it’s called the “perpetual treatment liability” and it’s been imposed multiple times by DEP under the Clean Streams Law. Drillers worry that this law sets them up somewhere down the road, so that courts could hold them liable for cleaning up a particular stream contaminated by acid mine water that they did not pollute.

More to come on hydraulic fracturing and water scarcity

Although this article touches upon some of the issues presented by unconventional drilling’s demands on water sources, most water impacts are understood and experienced most intensely on the local and regional level. The next installments will look at water use and loss in specific states, regions and watersheds and shine a light on areas already experiencing significant water demands from hydraulic fracturing. In addition, we will look at some of the recommendations and solutions focused on protecting our precious water resources.

Class II Oil and Gas Wastewater Injection and Seismic Hazards in CA

March 15, 2014/by Kyle Ferrar, MPH

By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

In collaboration with the environmental advocacy groups Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean Water Action, The FracTracker Alliance has completed a proximity analysis of the locations of California’s Class II oil and gas wastewater injection wells to “recently” active fault zones in California. The results of the analysis can be found in the On Shaky Ground report, available for download at www.ShakyGround.org.¹

Production of oil and natural gas results in a large and growing waste stream. Using current projections for oil development, the report projects a potential 9 trillion gallons of wastewater over the lifetime of the Monterey shale. In California the majority of wastewater is injected deep underground for disposal in wells deemed Class II wastewater injection. The connection between seismic activity and underground injections of fluid has been well established, but with the current surge of shale resource development the occurrence of earthquakes in typically seismically inactive regions has increased, including a recent event in Ohio covered by the LA Times. While both hydraulic fracturing and wastewater injection wells have been linked to the induction of seismic activity, the impacts of underground injection wells used for disposal are better documented and linked to larger magnitude earthquakes.

Therefore, while hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has also been documented to induce seismic activity, the focus of this report is underground injection of waste fluids.

Active CA Faults

A spatial overview of the wastewater injection activity in California and recently active faults can be viewed in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1. California’s Faults and Wastewater Injection Wells. With this and all maps on this page, click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map to view it fullscreen and to see the legend and more details.

The focus of the On Shaky Ground report outlines the relationship between does a thorough job reviewing the literature that shows how the underground injection of fluids induces seismic activity. The proximity analysis of wastewater injection wells, conducted by The FracTracker Alliance, provides insight into the spatial distribution of the injection wells. In addition, the report M7.8 earthquake along the San Andreas fault could cause 1,800 fatalities and nearly $213 billion in economic damages.² To complement the report and provide further information on the potential impacts of earthquakes in California, FracTracker created the maps in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Shaking Assessments

Figure 2 presents shaking amplification and shaking hazards assessments. The dataset is generated from seismic evaluations. When there is an earthquake, the ground will amplify the seismic activity in certain ways. The amount of amplification is typically dependent on distance to the earthquake event and the material that comprises the Earth’s crust. Softer materials, such as areas of San Francisco built on landfills, will typically shake more than areas comprised of bedrock at the surface. The type of shaking, whether it is low frequency or high frequency will also present varying hazards for different types of structures. Low frequency shaking is more hazardous to larger buildings and infrastructure, whereas high frequency events can be more damaging to smaller structure such as single family houses. Various assessments have been conducted throughout the state, the majority by the California Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey.

Figure 2. California Earthquake Shaking Amplification and Class II Injection Wells

Landslide Hazards

Below, Figure 3. Southern California Landslide and Hazard Zones expands upon the map included in the On Shaky Ground report; during an earthquake liquefaction of soil and landslides represent some of the greatest hazards. Liquefaction refers to the solid earth becoming “liquid-like”, whereas water-saturated, unconsolidated sediments are transformed into a substance that acts like a liquid, often in an earthquake. By undermining the foundations of infrastructure and buildings, liquefaction can cause serious damage. The highest hazard areas shown by the liquefaction hazard maps are concentrated in regions of man-made landfill, especially fill that was placed many decades ago in areas that were once submerged bay floor. Such areas along the Bay margins are found in San Francisco, Oakland and Alameda Island, as well as other places around San Francisco Bay. Other potentially hazardous areas include those along some of the larger streams, which produce the loose young soils that are particularly susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction risks have been estimated by USGS and CGS specifically for the East Bay, multiple fault-slip scenarios for Santa Clara and for all the Bay Area in separate assessments. There are not regional liquefaction risk estimate maps available outside of the bay area, although the CGS has identified regions of liquefaction and landslide hazards zones for the metropolitan areas surrounding the Bay Area and Los Angeles. These maps outline the areas where liquefaction and landslides have occurred in the past and can be expected given a standard set of conservative assumptions, therefore there exist certain zoning codes and building requirements for infrastructure.

Figure 3. California Liquefaction/Landslide Hazards and Class II Injection Wells

Press Contacts

For more information about this report, please reach out to one of the following media contacts:

Alan Septoff
Earthworks
(202) 887-1872 x105
aseptoff@earthworksaction.org

Patrick Sullivan
Center for Biological Diversity
(415) 632-5316
psullivan@biologicaldiversity.org

Andrew Grinberg
Clean Water Action
(415) 369-9172
agrinberg@cleanwater.org

References

Arbelaez, J., Wolf, S., Grinberg, A. 2014. On Shaky Ground. Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Action. Available at ShakyGround.org
Jones, L.M. et al. 2008. The Shakeout Scenario. USGS Open File Report 2008-1150. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

What Does Los Angeles Mean for Local Bans and Moratoria in California?

March 4, 2014/by Kyle Ferrar, MPH

By Kyle Ferrar, CA Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

California Regulations.

As confusing as you may think the regulatory structure is in your state (if you are not fortunate enough to be a Californian), just know that California’s regulatory structure is more complicated. Nothing in California’s recent history has clarified this point like the current debate over “fracking” regulations (hydraulic fracturing, as well as acidizing and other stimulation techniques). Since the passage of California State Bill 4 (SB-4), there have been significant concerns for self-rule and self-determination for individual communities. Further complicating the issue are the fracking activities being conducted from the offshore oil rig platforms located in federal waters. In addition to federal regulation, the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources is the premier regulatory authority for oil and gas drilling and production in the state. The State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board hold jurisdiction over the states surface and groundwater resources, while the California Air Districts regulate air quality along with the California Air Resources Board. It is no surprise that a report published by the Wheeler Institute from the University of California, Berkeley found that this regulatory structure where several state and federal agencies share responsibility is not conducive to ensuring hydraulic fracturing is conducted safely.[1]

A Ban in Los Angeles, CA

The most recent local regulatory activity comes from the Los Angeles City Council. On Friday February 28, 2014, the City Council voted on and passed a resolution to draft language for a citywide ban of all stimulation techniques. The resolution calls for city zoning code to be amended in order to prohibit hydraulic fracturing activities in L.A. until the practices are proven to be safe. A final vote will then be cast to approve the final language. If it passes, Los Angeles will be the largest city in the United States to ban hydraulic fracturing. The FracTracker “Local Actions and Regulations Map” has been updated to include the Los Angeles resolution/ordinance, as well as the resolution supporting a statewide ban by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the moratorium in Santa Cruz County, and a resolution by the University of California, Berkeley Student Government. See all California’s local actions and regulations in the figure below. Click on the green checked boxes for a description of each action.

Click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map for the legend and to view the map fullscreen.

State Bill 4 Preemption

Since the passage of California’s new regulatory bill SB-4, there has been a lot of confusion and debate whether the new state regulations preempt local jurisdictions from passing their own laws and regulations, and specifically moratoriums and bans. The county of Santa Cruz has a moratorium on fracking, but it was passed prior to the enactment of SB-4. Additionally Santa Cruz County is not a hotbed of drilling activity like Los Angeles or Kern. The team of lawyers representing the county of Ventura, where wells are actively being stimulated, came to a very different conclusion than the Los Angeles City Council. After reviewing SB-4, Ventura County came to the conclusion that lower jurisdictions were blocked from enacting local moratoriums. Draft minutes from the December 17, 2013 meeting quote, “The legal analysis provided by County Counsel indicates that the County is largely preempted from actively regulating well stimulation treatment activities at both new and existing wells. However, the County is required under CEQA to assess and address the potential environmental impacts from such activities requiring a discretionary County approval of new well sites.”[2]

On the other hand, independent analyses of the language in California SB-4 show that the legal-ese does not contain any provision that supersedes related local regulations. Rather, the bill preserves the right of local governments to impose additional environmental regulations.[3] The regulations do not expressively comment on the ability of local regulations to pass a moratorium or permanent ban. Additionally, DOGGR has supported a court decision that the SB-4 language expressly prohibits the state regulatory agency from enforcing the California Environmental Quality Act (according to the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources).[4] As for local measures, a recent article by Edgcomb and Wilke (2013) provides multiple examples of precedence in California and other states for local environmental bans and regulations in conjunction with less restrictive state law.[3] Of course, any attempt to pass a ban on fossil fuel extraction or development activities where resource development is actively occurring will most likely be met with litigation and a lawsuit from industry groups such as the Western States Petroleum Association. Industry representatives charge that the ordinance is an unconstitutional “taking” of previously leased mineral rights by private property owners.[5,6] Pay close attention to this fight in Los Angeles, as there will be repercussions relevant to all local governments in the state of California, particularly those considering bans or moratoriums.

[1] Kiparsky, Michael and Hein, Jayni Foley. 2013. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California, a Wastewater and Water Quality Perspective. Wheeler Institute for Water Law and Policy. Center for Law Energy and the Environment, University of California Berkeley School of Law.

[2] Ventura County Board of Supervisors. December 17, 2013. Meeting Minutes and Video. Accessed March 2, 2014. [http://www.ventura.org/bos-archives/agendas-documents-and-broadcasts]

[2] Edgcomb, John D Esq. and Wilke, Mary E Esq. January 10, 2014. Can Local Governments Ban Fracking After New California Fracking Legislation? Accessed March 3, 2014. [http://californiafrackinglaw.com/can-local-governments-ban-fracking-after-new-california-fracking-legislation/]

[3] Hein, Jayni Foley. November 18, 2013. State Releases New Fracking Regulations amid SB 4 Criticism, Controversy. Accessed February 27, 2014. [http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/11/18/state-releases-new-fracking-regulations-amid-sb-4-criticism-controversy/]

[4] Fine, Howard. February 28, 2014. L.A. Council Orders Fracking Moratorium Ordinance. Los Angeles Business Journal. [http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2014/feb/28/l-council-orders-fracking-moratorium-ordinance/]

[5] Collier, Robert. March 3, 2014. L.A. fracking moratorium – the difficult road ahead. Climate Speak. Accessed March 4, 2014. [http://www.climatespeak.com/2014/03/la-fracking-moratorium.html]

[6] Higgins, Bill. Schwartz, Andrew. Kautz, Barbara. 2006. Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff. Institute for Local Government. Available at [http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__Takings_1.pdf]

Western States: Please Abandon the PLSS!

February 24, 2014/by Matt Kelso, BA

By Matt Kelso, Manager of Data and Technology

Increasingly, the FracTracker Alliance is asked about oil and gas extraction on a national scale. To that end, we are in the process of developing a national dataset of oil and gas wells. Since the data is curated at the state level, it is a challenge to get consistent data formatting from state to state. However, most states at least have the decency to release their location data in decimal degree (DD), that familiar format of latitude and longitude values where users of the data don’t need to calculate the location using three different columns of degrees, minutes, and seconds (DMS).

For example, a DMS point of 45°12’16.4″N, 95°55’12.5″W could be written more tidily in DD as 45.204556, -96.920139. Two numbers, one discrete place on the globe (a random point in rural South Dakota, as it turns out).

Here is how that same location is properly designated using the Public Land Survey System: “NW 14 T120N R51W Fifth Principal”

Fig. 1 Public Land Survey System. Source: National Atlas

In English, that is the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 120 North, Range 51 West Fifth Principal. If we wanted to, the quarter section could itself be split into four quarters, and each of those units could be split again, resulting in, for example the SE quarter of the NE quarter of the NW quarter of section 14, Township 120 North, Range 51 West Fifth Principal (See Fig. 1).

To the uninitiated, the PLSS is a needlessly complex system of describing locations in the American West that was devised by Thomas Jefferson to grid out the wild American frontier. As such, it is not altogether surprising that it became the legal definition of place in many western states.

What is surprising is that the system is still in use, at least to the exclusion of other systems. Many states release oil and gas data with multiple geographic systems, including the PLSS, State Plane, UTM, and decimal degrees. This is an acceptable approach, as it caters to cartographers using technology ranging from the eighteenth through twenty-first centuries.

Accuracy Issues

My issue with the PLSS isn’t just that it is annoying. PLSS data are readily available, after all. Differing formats of the various data attributes can be worked out. However, there is inherently an accuracy issue with a system that uses a predefined area to define a point location. If you wanted to use it to describe an area such as a well pad, it is entirely possible that a typical drilling site might straddle four different sections, let alone quarter-quarter-quarter (QQQ) sections. For that matter, well pads could easily span multiple township and range designations, as well.

Fig. 2 PLSS sections in New Mexico

Statewide shapefiles that are as detailed as sections are quite large, and are the most detailed data that most data sources offer. This means that the best we can usually do with well data published in PLSS is draw the well at the centroid, or geographical center-point of the section, which in theory is one square mile. Given that the hypotenuse of a square mile block is 1.44 miles, the distance from the centroid to any of the corners is 0.72 miles, or about 3,800 feet, which is the potential error for mapping using PLSS section centroids. While that lack of accuracy is unsatisfying for the FracTracker Alliance, the whole system is a potential nightmare for first responders, in an industry where serious things can go wrong.

In some states, the entire land areas were never even gridded out. New Mexico, for example, has Native American reservations and extensive lands grants that were issued when the region was under Spanish and Mexican control (Fig. 2).

On top of all of that, those square mile sections are not always square. These sections are based on field surveys that were mostly conducted in the 19th century. Walking straight lines in rough terrain isn’t actually all that easy, and in many cases, areas with ferrous deposits in the soil can interfere with the functionality of a magnetic compass. If we take a closer look at the New Mexico sections map (Fig. 3 below), we can see that error is significant.

Moving Forward

Fig. 3 Areas in green show PLSS Sections in North-Central New Mexico. Areas in white were not gridded out as a part of the survey.

Luckily, we live in an age where technology makes Thomas Jefferson’s valiant attempt at a coordinate system obsolete. Decimal degree is a format that is well understood by GPS devices, Google Maps, sophisticated GIS software, and for the most part, the general public. For mapping purposes, decimal degree is so easy to use and so widely established that other systems, especially the PLSS, come across as needlessly opaque.

This situation is not even analogous with the United States’ famous reluctance to embrace the metric system. It takes some adjustment for people to start thinking in terms of kilograms and meters instead of pounds and feet. PLSS isn’t remotely intuitive as a coordinate system, even among those who use it all the time. It’s time to abandon this as a way of conveying location. I’d like to think that Thomas Jefferson, as a forward-thinking individual, would agree.

Sustainability and Unconventional Drilling: Pt. II

January 30, 2014/by Guest Author

Different Definitions, Shared Discourse

By Jill Terner, PA Communications Intern, FracTracker Alliance

In the previous installment of this three part blog series, I focused on how industry defines sustainability, and how industry mobilizes research done on unconventional drilling in an attempt to label drilling a sustainable practice. That sustainability lends itself to industry’s mostly economic definition. Other groups, which for the sake of this series I will refer to as pro-environmental groups, use a different definition while sharing discourse with industry. This pattern makes sustainability a good example of a boundary object¹. The versatile nature of a concept like sustainability makes it possible for different groups of people to talk about it, while each maintains their own understanding of what it is. Here, I will look at sustainability through the lens of groups charged with environmental regulation and protection, and discuss how they might use the same science as industry to tell a different story.

Sustainability Defined by Environmental Groups

While industry adheres to an economic model of sustainability, pro-environmental groups factor in environmental and social sustainability. These three facets – economic, environmental, and social – comprise a more holistic definition of sustainability, wherein the benefits of one facet do not outweigh the costs associated with another². Focusing only on one component while downplaying others, then, would be inherently unsustainable. In particular, this view means recognizing that things like water quality and the environment are not entities we can separate from things we may care more about, like economic development³.

For example, Perkins (2012) suggests taking this holistic approach to development by rejecting one-or-the-other thinking and by decentralizing community decision-making. Through this people-and-place specific method of development regulation, the voices of all participants are heard. This process leads to representation of both industrial and pro-environmental interest groups, which, in turn, propagates social equity because everyone’s voices are being heard.

In terms of economic sustainability, environmental groups view unconventional drilling as a double-edged sword. While industry related job creation might see positive gains, other sectors of the local economy may be at a loss, particularly arenas that rely on environmental conservation⁴. As many of the areas slated to host drilling are non-metropolitan areas where activities like agriculture, hunting, and fishing are popular, environmental interest groups warn against drilling in these regions for economic reasons. Just as general sustainability should be viewed holistically, so should economic sustainability; all sectors of the local economy should be considered, not just those related to drilling.

A good way to illustrate this point would be to look at areas like the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and the southern tier of New York. Here, outdoor tourism related industries accounted for over $200 million in 2008⁴. A potential secondary source of income for these areas is owners of second homes that are used to escape the harshness of everyday life. Public fear of industrial consequences, regardless or whether those fears are entirely realistic, could stymy these income sources for areas located over shale formations. The industrial consequences themselves could render the environment untenable to future re-development of outdoor recreational industries⁴.

Environmentally speaking, regulatory groups and local leaders view sustainable practices as those that occur with the least amount of environmental impact possible³. Air and water pollution primarily related to industry emissions are a major concern, however other environmental threats are also common. These include diesel emissions from truck traffic introduced by industry, degradation of the natural landscape due to industry activity, as well as noise and light pollution^{5, 6}. All of these things must be mitigated in order to substantiate environmental sustainability.

Acknowledging that introducing industry to a community could have different direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts on different demographics and acting on this intersectionality constitutes social sustainability². That is to say, social sustainability means making sure that all groups of a community are involved in the implementation of development, and reaching out to those members who stand to be negatively impacted by industry’s presence. As I mentioned above, making sure that all interests within a community receive fair and adequate representation is one way to do this. As one can imagine, these three components of sustainability are dynamic and connected, and weighing them against one another results in something unsustainable.

How Environmental Regulatory Groups Use Science

As I mentioned in my previous installment of this series, little detailed research has been conducted on any impacts of unconventional drilling on local economies. As a result of this, many environmental regulation and protection groups look at economic patterns that have occurred in other cities and countries. One analogy that researchers have used is that of the “resource curse.”⁴ This is the tendency for areas rich in natural resources to be economically poor and experience relatively slow economic growth, typically due to conflicting national and state level interests. Proponents of environmental regulation and protection warn against rapid growth of extractive practices in resource rich areas, as it could ultimately lead to a decline in economic growth and stymieing of community betterment.

Related to the “resource curse” is the boom-bust cycle^{4, 5}. Pro-environmental groups pay equal or more attention to the bust as well as the boom. While pro-industry groups may highlight the positive economic outcomes associated with industry, those favoring regulation are quick to speak up about the research done on the bust that often follows. The bust doesn’t necessarily negate the positive findings related to the boom, however such a historical pattern makes it clear that there could be just as many negative consequences for modern day unconventional O&G extraction.

Similar to focusing on the flipside of economic impacts, regulatory groups also draw from research done on the environmental and social impacts of unconventional drilling. These components of sustainability often don’t figure into the equation in industry-funded studies⁴, so considering them sheds more light on the holistic definition of sustainability. Environmentally speaking, pro-environmental groups focus on studies that address a cumulative hazard, rather than just that of one or two emissions. That is, instead of saying that levels of two or three notable pollutants are below EPA thresholds, studies should refer to the cumulative effect of all the possible pollutants.

With regards to unconventional drilling, preliminary and industry funded studies found that the amount of CO₂ released was half that of conventional coal combustion. Later, however, burgeoning research indicated that other pollutants, such as ground level ozone in the air and heightened levels of manganese, strontium, and toluene in the water table can pose a great risk when considered together⁷.

Additionally, pro-environmental groups focus on the social costs of unconventional drilling. By doing community based participatory research⁸, as well as focusing on noise and light pollution as consequences that can detract from residents’ quality of life, researchers often find that the presence of industry in communities can be taxing on residents⁹. Although there is a lack of research on the social impacts of drilling, what little has been done has indicated that if existing social inequalities are not addressed as part of the holistic definition of sustainability, they can worsen after industry becomes present in a community⁴. Importantly, those who promote regulation espouse the viewpoint that these social burdens are not a necessary cost of industry that might be mollified by economic boons. On the contrary, the social piece is equally as important as the economic and environmental portions of the sustainability pie.

Next Time

In the final installment of this three part series, I will discuss how these two different definitions of sustainability inform the court of public opinion when it comes to the development of unconventional drilling.

Sources

1. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.

2. Perkins, N. D. (2012). The fracturing of place: The regulation of Marcellus Shale development and the subordination of local experience. (research paper). Retrieved from Duquesne University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series. (2012-17).

3. Dernbach, J. C., & Bernstein, S. (2003). Pursuing sustainable communities: Looking back, looking forward. The Urban Lawyer, 35(3), 495-532.

4. Barth, J. M. (2013). The economic impact of shale gas development on state and local economies: Benefits, costs, and uncertainties. New Solutions, 23(1), 85-101.

5. Brasier, K. J., Filteau, M. R., McLaughlin, D. K., Jacquet, J., Stedman, R. C., Kelsey, T. W., & Goetz, S. J. (2011). Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: a comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. Journal of Rural Sociology, 26(1), 32-61.

6. Korfmacher, K. S., Jones, W. A., Malone, S. L., & Vinci, L. F. (2013). Public health and high volume hydraulic fracturing. New Solutions, 23(1), 13-31.

7. Smith, K.R., Frumkin, H., Balakrishnan, K., Butler, C. D., Chafe, Z. A., Fairlie, I., Kinney, P., Kjellstrom, T., Mauzerall, D. L., McKone, T. E., McMichael, A. J., & Schneider M. (2013). Energy and human health. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 159-188.

8. Perry, S. L. (2013). Using ethnography to monitor the community health implications of onshore unconventional oil and gas developments: examples from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale. New Solutions, 23(1), 33-53.

9. Ferrar, K. J., Kriesky, J., Christen, C. L., Marshall, L. P., Malone, S. L., Sharma, R. K., Michanowicz, D. R., & Goldstein, B. D. (2013). Assessment and longitudinal analysis of health impacts and stressors perceived to result from unconventional shale gas development in the Marcellus Shale region. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 19(2), 104-112.

Letter of Inquiry from a Public Health Professional

January 13, 2014/by Guest Author

By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator

I recently came across a letter by Dr. Alan Ducatman, MS, MD, Professor of Public Health and Medicine at WVU in Donald Strimbeck’s updates. It stuck me by its sincerity, logical tone, and reasonableness.

Dr. Ducatman’s letter begins by commenting on the gas industry’s response to a surface spill in Garfield County. The industry’s response to this spill, an Energy In Depth Blog (12/20/13), includes the following statement, “We all know spills are bad and can cause problems, so what exactly did they expect to find?”

Dr. Ducatman’s letter looks past the rather snide tone of the response to commend the industry for its honest acknowledgement that spills do occur and bad things can and do happen. Dr. Ducatman notes that, although the response “lacks consistency with past and present behavior in public forums,” he hopes to see it become a “consistent and reasonable position” in the future.

The letter then calls on industry to be more scientific and open in their communications regarding other issues such as quality assurance, worker safety, well casing failures, leaks, water testing impediments, public protection practices, and reporting, while reminding the industry of the human and economic costs of externalities and the “terrible weight” of these collateral impacts on communities.

It occurred to me, upon reading this letter that more of us need to ask questions of the industry and take action to protect and support our impacted communities. Not only do we need more professional researchers like Dr. Ducatman asking questions, we also need many more people on the ground documenting what is happening around them to hold the industry accountable.

FracTracker Alliance aims to empower and equip volunteers to track and document unconventional gas and oil activities. Options for engagement include:

Trail Logbook – addressing trail-based observations about physical and experiential conflicts related to oil and gas development
The US Map of Suspected Well Water Impacts – aggregating cases of home drinking water problems that may be associated with oil and gas exploration
The new FracTracker mobile app (for iPhones) – making it easy to take photos and record information on various oil and gas impacts in your neighborhood or afar. We are currently in the pilot testing phase of this app, which can also be used to contribute data to the other two programs described above.

These programs depend on crowdsourced information from you and others to grow a national database on the extensive footprint of the industry. Check out our website and projects to see where you fit.

In addition, we always welcome your ideas on how our mapping and other services can help your community’s efforts to protect its health and natural resources.

Contact me to learn more about how you can become a part of the FracTracker team, and a special thank you to Dr. Alan Ducatman for his letter reenergizing this important conversation.

If you are one of those people ready to work together in a concerted effort towards a more positive energy future, FracTracker needs you.

Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator
Cassidy@FracTracker.org
304-312-2063

So, Where’s that North Carolina Map?

January 9, 2014/by Matt Kelso, BA

Sometimes, one vote really does make a difference. When the North Carolina state legislature attempted to override then-Governor Beverly Perdue’s veto of a bill designed to allow hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in the Tar Heel State back in July 2012, one legislator pressed the wrong button, and was not allowed to correct her vote. With that, proponents of the law had enough votes, and historical laws banning horizontal production wells and injection wells were stricken from the books.

So now that it’s legal, where’s the North Carolina map?

Our maps section has maps for over 30 states, numerous maps of national interest, and one for British Columbia, as well. There have certainly been numerous requests from people in North Carolina in the year and a half since Governor Perdue’s veto was overridden for us to map their state.

It’s true that our small staff is still working on backlog of states to be added to our collection of shale viewer maps. It’s also true that some states produce insufficient data to map their unconventional oil and gas efforts. For example, neighboring Tennessee’s Department of Environment & Conservation has no data at all available on their website (a fact that I have verified through personal correspondence).

But in North Carolina, the reasons are different. While horizontal drilling and injection wells are now legal, essentially paving the way for development with hydraulic fracturing, the law that was passed over the veto mandated that the Mining and Energy Commission develop a regulatory framework for the modern drilling techniques. The Commission is still in the process of putting that together, and should be finished by October 1, 2014.

So stay tuned.

This post was updated on February 13, 2015 to fix a broken link and provide a more accurate estimate for the number of shale viewer maps we offer.

Renewal

January 3, 2014/by FracTracker Alliance

By Brook Lenker, Executive Director, FracTracker Alliance

This isn’t a call for membership (we really don’t have members, but we do accept donations through the donate button on our home page), it’s a pause for gratitude, reflection, and sharing of good news and good will as we begin 2014.

In our expanding efforts to communicate impacts of the global oil and gas industry and inform actions that positively shape our energy future, the FracTracker Alliance is pleased to have Mary Ellen Cassidy join the staff as Community Outreach Coordinator. Mary Ellen has a diverse background as a teacher, researcher, and program director. She has a passion for energy issues – including promoting awareness of climate change and the need for energy conservation and efficiency – and her research has focused primarily on extractive industries’ impacts on community watersheds. FracTracker’s national outreach and education initiatives will be the thrust of her new role. Those initiatives include an emphasis on crowd-sourced data collection.

Crowdsourcing is – by the Wikipedia definition – “the practice of obtaining needed…services or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people,” and we see great opportunity to learn more about the effects of hydraulic fracturing via observations, photos, and measurements from people across the country and around the world. With Mary Ellen aboard and a new mobile app, our capacity to foster crowdsourcing can blossom and the more we learn, the more we can show, tell, and enlighten.

Mary Ellen also gives FracTracker a missing presence in West Virginia – where many communities are grossly burdened by the heavy foot of shale gas development. While her role is different from our state coordinators, her location in Wheeling presents advantages for partnering with West Virginia organizations and institutions underscoring our vision to be a leading resource on oil and gas issues and a trusted asset to the concerned public. We are rooted in collaboration.

From West Virginia to California, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and everything in between, our work and reach is empowered by our funders, enriched by our partners, and in service of communities and people in need. The first two renew and infuse our vigor; the latter we hope will find renewal in 2014 through the collective efforts of many.

So as we continue our quest for truth and transparency in a new year, I profusely thank my smart, energetic and hyper-dedicated staff – Sam, Matt, Karen, Ted, Gwen, Kyle, and Mary Ellen – for their ceaseless efforts. My appreciation also flows to the FracTracker board– John, Mike, Brian, Ben, and Sara – for their ongoing guidance.

On behalf of the staff and board, I extend a world of thanks to our funders, past and present:

Heinz Endowments
George Gund Foundation
Park Foundation
11^th Hour Project
Hoover Foundation
Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds
William Penn Foundation

And we thank the multitude of grassroots groups – of various sizes and geographies -and academic researchers who tirelessly address the challenges of unconventional fossil fuels. If we haven’t worked together in the past, perhaps this is the year we can.

Finally, we thank the thousands of people who have visited FracTracker.org, who follow us via social media, or met us at conference or training. We hope we’ve been informative, helpful, and invigorative…fueling a new-found energy.

Sustainability and Unconventional Drilling: Different Definitions, Shared Discourse

December 18, 2013/by Guest Author

By Jill Terner, PA Communications Intern, FracTracker Alliance

In 1987, at the World Commission on Environment conference, sustainable development was recognized internationally for the first time. Sustainability in this sense is broadly defined as both the goal and process of serving present needs while not precluding the ability of future generations to serve their needs¹. This general definition has lent itself well to becoming the cornerstone of arguments for and against drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing.

A largely economic definition of sustainability is behind many pro-drilling agendas, while environmental sustainability is mainly what informs regulatory or anti-drilling viewpoints². Though these two parties make different uses of the term sustainability, they still share discourse on this topic. This common use that overlies differing connotations renders sustainability what Star & Griesemer (1989) would term a boundary object³.

Over the course of this blog series, I will look at how both industry and environmental regulatory committees are using the science at their disposal to make a case for or against unconventional drilling as a sustainable practice. Finally, I will finish by discussing how the shared discourse that uses these competing definitions impacts the court of public opinion.

Sustainability Defined by Industry

From an industrial perspective, sustainability is viewed in an economic light. Social, environmental, and other facets of sustainability aren’t ignored, though. Rather, they are seen as part of a cost-benefit equation wherein the potential impacts of industrial presence on communities and the environment are quantified and measured against the potential economic benefits associated with tapping into unconventional oil and gas reserves^2,4.

The primary, direct economic benefit reported to be associated with this industry’s presence in communities is job creation. Industry leaders espouse the notion that allowing drilling in an area opens up job opportunities for rig workers. Extractive industries are typically located in economically depressed, non-metropolitan areas⁶. Thus, the benefit of employment and inferred family support is a great touted advantage⁴.

Additional direct benefits are associated with leasing of both land and mineral rights to grant drilling access to industry. Selling the mineral rights below a plot of land can be a lucrative option for those who own them. However, the mineral rights owners are not always the same people as those who own the land above the minerals to be leased. As such, landowners must be mindful of what is going on with the minerals beneath their property.

Ancillary businesses may also reap economic benefits associated with industry. Primarily, businesses that supply the materials needed in the construction and maintenance of the drilling operation can potentially benefit from industry presence. More indirectly, unrelated businesses such as hotels and restaurants in the community may stand to benefit from the influx of wealth associated with residents’ newfound employment.

These direct and indirect economic consequences are commonly viewed as a positive investment in the community by industry, and the local political leaders that support industry’s presence. If residents allow drilling, industry claims, they are making an investment towards economic stability and sustainability – which will be propagated by the influx of wealth due to job creation. Negative environmental and social impacts that may occur alongside this economic boon typically fall short of outweighing its benefits in the eyes of the industry.

How Industry Makes Use of Current Research

At present, there is relatively little scientific research done on the impacts of unconventional drilling. What research does exist on the sustainable impacts of unconventional drilling consists largely of studies funded by industry⁴. As hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new practice, more research continues to burgeon and inform questions regarding economic, social, and environmental impacts from all angles.

One way industry gets around the lack of pre-existing research is to do input-output analysis⁴. This analysis links the primary industry with ancillary ones through tables of coefficients, and calculates the estimated direct and indirect economic impacts through calculations using that table. While some of the calculated benefits may be viewed positively across the board, public perception of these gains may be different in different locations⁵, making it tough to generalize acceptance of findings.

Relatedly, industry also takes research done on the economic benefits incurred by communities and states where unconventional drilling has been in place longer, and applies the methods or results to areas where drilling is new⁴. For example, coefficients generated from an input-output equation from a Texas community could be used to project benefits for a community in New York. Analogy can be a powerful tool, and with the lack of research on current industrial practices, it is the best tool to use in certain circumstances. However, as geographic, economic, social, and environmental contingencies are different between locations of drilling, comparison may be somewhat limited.

Additionally, many pro-industry groups are dedicated to refuting scientific studies that have been put out by academics, environmental regulatory bodies, or independent researchers. For example, the website Energy in Depth published a thorough critique of the HBO documentary Gasland, debunking it point-by-point. When scientific research cannot be entirely disproved, promoting the benefits of unconventional drilling over the costs of another dirtier fuel, like coal, is also another way to promote drilling. While these cost-benefit-analyses can be legitimate, they often fail to incorporate the use and potential benefits of other energy resources, like wind.

What’s Next?

In the next installment of this series, I will discuss how regulatory committees are defining sustainability, and how they are mobilizing science towards their definition.

References

1. Dernbach, J. C., & Bernstein, S. (2003). Pursuing sustainable communities: Looking back, looking forward. The Urban Lawyer, 35(3), 495-532.

2. Finewood, M. H., & Stroup, L. J. (2012). Fracking and the neoliberalization of the hyrdo-social cycle in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, (147), 72-79.

3. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.

4. Barth, J. M. (2013). The economic impact of shale gas development on state and local economies: Benefits, costs, and uncertainties. New Solutions, 23(1), 85-101.

5. Perkins, N. D. (2012). The fracturing of place: The regulation of Marcellus Shale development and the subordination of local experience. (research paper). Retrieved from Duquesne University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series. (2012-17).

6. Freudenburg, W.R., and L.J. Wilson. “Mining the data: Analyzing the economic implications of mining for nonmetropolitan regions.” Sociological Inquiry. 72.4 (2002): 549-575. Print.

The awkward “k” in “fracking”

November 8, 2013/by FracTracker Alliance

Note

This post has been archived. It is provided here for informational purposes only.

By Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH – Manager of Science and Communications, FracTracker Alliance

We are often asked why there is no “k” after “frac” in our name, FracTracker. This makes for lively conversations at parties, I assure you. Quite frankly, the etymology of the term “fracking” would make for its own interesting study, especially if you include fans of Battlestar Galactica in your research.

Truth-be-told, our name stemmed from an intense academic vs communications debate. FracTracker originally started as a project within the University of Pittsburgh. As many people in the field of know, academics are not known for brevity in the naming of projects or publications. We wanted a name that embodied both the research and community aspects of our work but was short enough to say all in one breadth. Calling such a new initiative “The Mapping of Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction Data at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities,” while accurate, just doesn’t flow off the tongue nicely.

At the time “fracking” was a term used in some circles to refer to the entire process of extracting natural gas and oil using non-traditional methods – even though it technically only refers to the hydraulic fracturing of a well to stimulate hydrocarbon retrieval. A project partner of ours suggested the name “FrackTracker,” since we planned to track all activity related to unconventional oil and gas drilling. According to people who work in industry, however, including a “k” in the word fracking just doesn’t make sense… And rightly so; there is no “k” in the phrase hydraulic fracturing, so why should there be one in fracking? Even though fracking is now a term commonly used to discuss the industry as a whole, we still decided to omit the awkward “k” just in case.

#didntneedtoknow but #thanks

FracTracker became an independent non-profit in 2012 called FracTracker Alliance. Learn more about us >