Posts

Appalachian Ohio: Where Coal Mining, Fracking, and National Politics Converge

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.

Belmont County

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.

Utica Wells Permits in Belmont County, Ohio Q1-2012 to Q1-2018

Figure 1. Monthly and cumulative hydraulically fractured wells in Belmont County, Ohio between Q1-2012 and Q1-2018

Photos of coal mining operations in Belmont County, OH. Flyovers courtesy of SouthWings:

An End to Coal

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).

Coal Production by State (Thousand Tons, 2016)

Figure 2. Total coal produced across the twenty-five coal producing states, the Appalachian region, Western Basins (2016, tons, Data Courtesy of Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Profile and Energy Estimates)

Mapping Coal and Fracking

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.

View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

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).

US Coal Mines and Mines Owned by Robert Murray

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.

Percent of Energy Infrastructure in Congressional Districts that went for GOP Presidential Candidates in 2016, 2012, and 2008

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?

Oh Say, did you see him; it was early this morning.
He passed by your houses on his way to the coal.
He was tall, he was slender, and his dark eyes so tender
His occupation was mining, West Virginia his home
It was just before noon, I was feeding the children,
Ben Moseley came running to give us the news.
Number eight was all flooded, many men were in danger
And we don’t know their number, but we fear they’re all doomed.
– “West Virginia Mine Disaster” © Jean Ritchie, Geordie Music Publishing


By Ted Auch, Great Lakes Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

Endnote

  1. Murray is listed as the owner of 45 coal mining facilities, 35 surface mines, and 77 underground mines according to data compiled from the Department of Labor

Download Relevant Data (Zip Files)

Falcon Pipeline: Cumulative Development & Compounded Risks

Part of the Falcon Public EIA Project

In this final section of the Falcon Public EIA Project, we explore the Falcon pipeline’s entanglements with a region already impacted by a long history of energy development. Featured in this article are where the Falcon pipeline intersects underground mining facilities, strip mines, other hazardous pipelines, active oil and gas wells, as well as a very large compressor station. We utilize this information to locate spaces where cumulative development also has the potential for compounded risk.

Quick Falcon Facts

  • 20 miles of the Falcon run through under-mined areas; 5.6 miles through active mines
  • 18 miles of the Falcon run through surface-mined areas; also coal slurry waste site
  • Shares a right-of-way with Mariner West pipeline for 4 miles in Beaver County
  • 11 well pads, as well as a compressor station, are within the potential impact radius

Map of Falcon relative to mined areas and other energy-related development

The following map will serve as our guide in breaking down where the Falcon intersects areas that have experienced other forms of energy development. Expand the map full-screen to explore its contents in greater depth. Some layers only become visible as you zoom in. A number of additional features of the map are not shown by default, but can be turned on in the “layers” tab. These include information on geological features, water tables, soil erosion characteristics, as well as drinking reservoir boundaries. Click the “details” tab in full-screen mode to read how the different layers were created.

View Map Fullscreen | How FracTracker Maps Work


Mined Lands

The Falcon pipeline intersects a surprising number of active and inactive/abandoned mine lands. While the location of active mines is fairly easy to obtain from mine operators, finding data on abandoned mines is notoriously difficult. State agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), have digitized many legacy maps, but these resources are known to be incomplete and inaccurate in many locations.

AECOM’s engineers used data layers on active and abandoned mine lands maintained by state agencies in OH, WV, and PA. FracTracker obtained this data, as well, as shown on the interactive map. Shell states in their permits that AECOM’s engineers also went through a process of obtaining and digitizing paper maps in areas with questionable mine maps.

[av_font_icon icon=’ue83f’ font=’entypo-fontello’ style=” caption=” link=” linktarget=” size=’40px’ position=’left’ color=”][/av_font_icon]

Shell states that their analysis shows that 16.8 miles of the Falcon pipeline travel through under-mined areas. Our analysis using the same dataset suggests the figure is closer to 20 miles. Of these 20 miles of pipeline:

  • 5.6 miles run through active coal mines and are located in Cadiz Township, OH (Harrison Mining Co. Nelms Mine); Ross Township, OH (Rosebud Mining Co. Deep Mine 10); and in Greene Township, PA (Rosebud Mining Co. Beaver Valley Mine). 
  • More than 18 miles run through areas that have been historically surface-mined (some overlapping under-mined areas).
  • Of those 18 miles, 1.5 miles run through an active surface mine located in Cadiz Township, OH, managed by Oxford Mining Company.

Beaver Valley Mine

The Beaver Valley Mine in Greene Township, PA, appeared to be of particular importance in Shell’s analysis. Of the three active mines, Shell maintained an active data layer with the mine’s underground cell map for reference in selecting routes, seen in the image below. Note how the current route changed since the map was originally digitized, indicating that a shift was made to accommodate areas around the mine. The FracTracker interactive map shows the mine based on PA DEP data, which is not as precise as the mine map AECOM obtained from Rosebud Mining.

Digitized map of Beaver Valley Mine

[av_font_icon icon=’ue83f’ font=’entypo-fontello’ style=” caption=” link=” linktarget=” size=’40px’ position=’left’ color=”][/av_font_icon]

Rosebud Mining idled its Beaver Valley Mine in 2016 due to declining demand for coal. However, Rosebud appears to be expanding its workforce at other mines in the area due to changing economic and political circumstances. We don’t know exactly why this particular mine was highlighted in Shell’s analysis, or why the route shifted, as it is not directly addressed in Shell’s permit applications. Possibilities include needing to plan around areas that are known to be unfit for the pipeline, but also perhaps areas that may be mined in the future if the Beaver Valley Mine were to restart operations.

Coal Slurry Site, Imperial PA

As discussed in other segments of the Falcon Public EIA Project, Shell intends to execute 19 horizontal directional drilling (HDD) operations at different sites along the pipeline. A cluster of these are located in Allegheny and Washington counties, PA, with extensive historical surface mining operations. A 2003 DEP report commented on this region, stating:

All of the coal has been underground mined. Most of the coal ribs and stumps (remnants from the abandoned underground mine) have been surface mined… The extensive deep mining, which took place from the 1920’s through the 1950’s, has had a severe effect on groundwater and surface water in this watershed.

[av_font_icon icon=’ue83f’ font=’entypo-fontello’ style=” caption=” link=” linktarget=” size=’40px’ position=’left’ color=”][/av_font_icon]

Shell’s applications note that AECOM did geotechnical survey work in this and other surface-mined areas co-located with proposed HDD operations, concluding that the ”majority of rock encountered was shale, sandstone, limestone, and claystone.” However, at one proposed HDD (called “HOU-06”) the Falcon will cross a coal waste site identified in the permits as “Imperial Land Coal Slurry” along with a large Palustrine Emergent (PEM) wetland along Potato Garden Run, seen below.

A Falcon HDD crossing under a wetland and coal slurry site

Foreign Pipelines

In addition to its entanglements with legacy coal mining, the Falcon will be built in a region heavily traveled by oil and gas pipelines. More than 260 “foreign pipelines” carrying oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids, were identified by AECOM engineers when selecting the Falcon’s right-of-way (note that not all of these are directly crossed by the Falcon).

Owners of these pipelines run the gamut, including companies such as Williams, MarkWest, Columbia, Kinder Morgan, Energy Transfer Partners, Momentum, Peoples Gas, Chesapeake, and Range Resources. Their purposes are also varied. Some are gathering lines that move oil and gas from well pads, others are midstream lines connecting things like compressor stations to processing plants, others still are distribution lines that eventually bring gas to homes and businesses. FracTracker took note of these numbers and their significance, but did not have the capacity to document all of them for our interactive map.

Shared Rights-of-Way

However, we did include one pipeline, the Mariner West, because of its importance in the Falcon’s construction plans. Mariner West was built in 2011-2013 as part of an expanding network of pipelines initially owned by Sunoco Pipeline but now operated by Energy Transfer Partners. The 10-inch pipeline transports 50,000 barrels of ethane per day from the Separator plant in Houston, PA, to processing facilities in Canada. Another spur in this network is the controversial Mariner East 2

Mariner West is pertinent to the Falcon because the two pipelines will share the same right-of-way through a 4-mile stretch of Beaver County, PA, as shown below.

The Falcon and Mariner West sharing a right-of-way

Reuse of existing rights-of-way is generally considered advantageous by pipeline operators and regulatory agencies. The logistics of sharing pipelines can be complicated, however. As noted in Shell’s permit applications:   

Construction coordination will be essential on the project due to the numerous parties involved and the close proximity to other utilities. Accurate line location was completed; however, verification will also be key, along with obtaining proper crossing design techniques from the foreign utilities. A meeting with all of pipeline companies will be held to make sure that all of the restrictions are understood prior to starting construction, and that they are documented on the construction alignment sheets/bid documents for the contractor(s). This will save a potential delay in the project. It will also make working around the existing pipelines safe.

[av_font_icon icon=’ue83f’ font=’entypo-fontello’ style=” caption=” link=” linktarget=” size=’40px’ position=’left’ color=”][/av_font_icon]

Shell’s attention to coordinating with other utility companies is no doubt important, as is their recognition of working near existing pipelines as a safety issue. There are elevated risks with co-located pipelines when they come into operation. This was seen in a major pipeline accident in Salem Township, PA, in 2016. One natural gas line exploded, destroying nearby homes, and damaged three adjacent pipelines that took more than a year to come back onlineThese findings raise the question of whether or not Class Location and High Consequence Area assessments for the Falcon should factor for the exponential risks of sharing a right-of-way with Mariner West.

Oil & Gas Extraction

The remaining features included on our map relate to oil and gas extraction activities. The Falcon will carry ethane from the three cryogenic separator plants at the pipeline’s source points. But the wet, fracked gas that supplies those plants also comes from someplace, and these are the many thousands of unconventional gas wells spread across the Marcellus and Utica shale.

[av_font_icon icon=’ue83f’ font=’entypo-fontello’ style=” caption=” link=” linktarget=” size=’40px’ position=’left’ color=”][/av_font_icon]

We found 11 unconventional oil and gas pads, hosting a combined 48 well heads, within the Falcon’s 940-foot PIR. We also found a large compressor station operated by Range Resources, located in Robinson Township, PA. This is shown below, along with a nearby gas pad.

A well pad and compressor station in Falcon’s PIR

We noted these well pads and the compressor station because Class Location and HCA risk analysis may account for proximity to occupied businesses and homes, but does not always consider a pipeline’s proximity to other high-risk industrial sites. Nevertheless, serious incidents have occurred at well pads and processing facilities that could implicate nearby hazardous liquid pipelines. By the same measure, an accident with the Falcon could implicate one of these facilities, given they are all within the Falcon’s blast zone.

* * *

Related Articles

Drilling on PA state lands

Energy development is happening on your state lands, Pennsylvania

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).

Fee Simple - Mineral rights on state lands

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:

  1. Mineral ownership of the land,
  2. Legal authority to lease the land, and
  3. 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.

Oil and Gas Wells on State Lands in PA


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Coal Mining

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:
Public lands and coal mining map - PA

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.

Infographic regarding state land potential for wind energy

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.

PA Wind Potential on State Lands


View map fullscreen | How FracTracker maps work

Additional Renewables

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.

Coal fired power plants in North America

NYS targets an end to coal power

By Karen Edelstein, Eastern Program Coordinator

It’s been just over a year since New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made public his administration’s decision to ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing in the state. A formal ban was established in June 2015. While Cuomo’s politics and record may be controversial on some fronts, he has most certainly shown important leadership in some facets of energy policy. Significantly, activists and environmental advocacy groups have been especially strong during the Cuomo administration, pressing the governor daily to take seriously the responsibility and planning that New York State must demonstrate in light of the realities of climate change.

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo delivered his annual State of the State address. Among the high points of the talk was a commitment to a full phase-out of coal-burning power plants by 2020. Coal, once more affordable alternative to other fossil fuels, is no longer an attractive option from both an economic and environmental standpoint. Despite advances in scrubber technology, coal burning still emits more particulate waste into the atmosphere than other fuels, and leaves behind copious quantities of fly ash containing radioactivity and heavy metals. Historically, fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials have been disposed of in landfills. While current disposal methods using landfill liner technologies do attempt to safeguard against groundwater contamination, during earlier decades, these waste products from burning coal were buried in unlined pits, some of which are now actively leaching into waterways and groundwater.

Existing coal burning power plants being shut down, but what’s next?

In New York State, many old, polluting coal plants are now only partially in service or completely shuttered. They did at one time, however, have the capacity to supply over 2100 MW of power to the state. While it’s generally accepted from an economic and environmental standpoint that New York should be transitioning away from coal, the next steps are more fraught with controversy. Several communities, such as those around the likely-to-be-closed Dunkirk (Chautauqua County, 520 MW),  as well as Huntley (Niagara County, 380 MW), and Cayuga (Tompkins County, 315 MW) power plants feel that a repowering of these plant with natural gas provides an important economic stabilizer for the surrounding communities. Another smaller coal-burning plant, Greenidge Generation (Seneca County, 107 MW) has been shuttered for several years. A recent local economic development initiative to re-start that plant with a conversion to natural gas met with considerable resistance from environmental groups. This development also resulted in a notification from the US Environmental Protection Agency indicating that proper procedure for restarting the plant had not been followed, setting back the timetable on the project indefinitely.

Coal Burning Power Plants in North America, Zoomed in to NYS

View full screen map | How to work with our maps

Cayuga Power, which has been operating at a deficit for several years as a coal burning plant, is subsidized through a surcharge that is levied on every ratepayer within the system, with each monthly bill. According to The Sierra Club, these subsidies amount to over $4M a month charged to NYSEG ratepayers for the Cayuga plant, alone. Elected officials, as well as citizen groups concerned with the impacts of natural gas on the environment, are pressing for other viable options to repowering the plant from coal to natural gas, currently estimated to cost over $500M for the Cayuga Plant, alone. These options include solar power – or, in the case of the Cayuga power plant, upgrades to a short stretch of transmissions lines for less than $100M, in lieu of repowering. In either case, the upgrade costs would be passed on to the consumer. Transmission line upgrades would actually obviate the need for the power plant itself, conserving the energy that is now lost through inefficiencies in the system. Repowering the plant would also necessitate the construction of a highly controversial 7-mile-long pipeline from the Town of Dryden, which would significantly raise the carbon footprint of Tompkins County through due to predicted fugitive methane emissions. The power utility, itself, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) has said that they prefer the option of upgrading the lines, rather than converting the plant to run on natural gas. Another study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis also found the Cayuga repowering proposition unviable. Proponents of repowering cite the impacts that shutting down the plant would have on the local Lansing School district, which–unlike any of the surrounding school districts–has benefited for several decades from tax revenues generated by the plant.

Environmental concerns about continuing to invest in fossil fuel technologies like natural gas as an alternative to coal include the entire life cycle of methane extraction, from the air and water quality risks that occur during the process of unconventional drilling (high volume hydraulic fracturing), to environmental and public health impacts of pipelines and compressor stations that convey the gas to the power plants, to the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere as a byproduct of natural gas combustion at these fossil-fuel burning plants.

Of course, energy conservation and making lifestyle changes to how we individually, and collectively, approach energy consumption are at the heart of the changes that need to occur if we are to slow climate change caused by the dramatic upswing of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere during the past 50 years.

New York State’s Renewable Energy Agenda

Cuomo and the State Legislature have shown additional and ongoing interest in moving New York towards a clean energy future. They have been establishing appealing tax incentives for renewable energy, including:

Cuomo’s REV, or Reforming the Energy Vision, attempts to take a comprehensive look at an energy strategy across many sectors of New York. REV targets for 2030 include a goal of 50% of all NYS’s energy being met by renewable sources, a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas levels based on 1990 levels (and an overall emission cut of 80% by 2050), and based on 2012 levels, a 25% reduction on building energy use. The strategy also looks to support the growth of the clean energy sector, energy education to residents and businesses, natural resources protection, and job creation in the energy sector.

New York is taking important steps for a cleaner energy future, but should continue to put more resources towards incentives for renewable resources, as well as outreach and education to municipal, residential, and commercial energy consumers.

We have very little time to waste.

Hydrocarbon Industrial Complex Map In Detail

Below is a brand new map from our team that contains multiple data layers that speak to the myriad players and facilities involved in the North American hydrocarbon network – from upstream processing facilities to transporters and export terminals. This map helps us to demonstrate the complexity of the hydrocarbon industry, because we often assume that hydraulic fracturing or related extractive techniques are local issues. However, there is actually a tremendous – and growing – interconnectivity between production, transport, processing, usage, storage, and export.


To see a fullscreen version of this map, along with a legend and description, click on the arrows in the upper right hand corner of the map.

Data Descriptions

EIA Sources: Peak Shavers, Underground Natural Gas Storage, Compressor Station, Natural Gas HUBs, and Pipeline Data

Peak Shavers are:

…used for storing surplus natural gas that is to be used to meet the requirements of peak consumption later during winter or summer. Each peak-shaving facility has a regasification unit attached but may or may not have a liquefaction unit…[they] depend upon tank trucks to bring LNG from other nearby sources to them. Of the approximate 113 active LNG facilities in the United States, 57 are peak-shaving facilities. The other LNG facilities include marine terminals, storage facilities, and operations involved in niche markets such as LNG vehicular fuel. Learn more

The data included in this map include 109 Peak Shavers vs. the aforementioned 57.

  • Regional distribution: 7 Central US, 12 Midwest, 53 Northwest, 24 Southeast, 5 Southwest, 8 Western
  • 106 of which are active and 3 under construction

The Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities (UNGSF) layer is an EIA-defined collection of 413 facilities1, a definition that includes “pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, and pipeline shippers with an inventory management tool, seasonal supply backup, and access to natural gas needed to avoid imbalances between receipts and deliveries on a pipeline network.” (For a more detailed description of UNGSF, see the EIA’s description)

Compressor Stations are designed to ensure:

…that the natural gas flowing through any one pipeline remains pressurized, compression of this natural gas is required periodically along the pipe…usually placed at 40 to 100 mile intervals along the pipeline. The natural gas enters the compressor station, where it is compressed by either a turbine, motor, or engine…[they] gain their energy by using up a small proportion of the natural gas that they compress.

For a more detailed discussion of the importance and design of compressor stations, refer to NaturalGas.org’s The Transportation of Natural Gas.

  • This layer includes: 1,756 compressor stations with the following regional distribution: 207 Canadian, 344 Central US, 14 Gulf Coast, 169 Midwest, 249 Northeast, 191 Southeast, 450 Southwest, and 132 Western stations
  • The mean and total horsepower across 1,417 of these facilities is 10,411 and 18,282,484, respectively, with average and total throughput of 660 and 1,159 Billion Cubic Feet (BCF)2.

Natural Gas HUBs are broken down by operator type with 26 “Market Center”, 31 “Market Hub”, 3 “Production Hub”, and 3 “Storage Hub” facilities included.

  • Regional distribution: 9 in Canada, 7 across the Central US, 4 in the Midwest, 8 in the Northeast, 4 in the Southeast, 24 in the Southwest, and 7 in the Western US.
  • All facilities were activated between 1994 and 1998
  • Status: 5 Canceled, 13 Inactive, 36 Operational, and 9 Proposed HUBs

Pipeline segments are parsed by type: a) 69 sections totaling 1,627 miles described as “Gathering” at an average diameter of 17 inches, b) 18,905 segments totaling 127,049 miles as “Interstate” with an average diameter of 15 inches, and  c) 15,152 “Intrastate” segments totaling 66,939 miles and an average diameter of 2.8 inches.

Select states statistics:

  1. 7,450 segments were located in Texas with a total length of 44,600 miles,
  2. 1,313 segments were located in California with a total length of 6,370 miles,
  3. 2,738 segments in Louisiana with a  total length of 15,330,
  4. New York and New Jersey are home to a combined 2,315 pipeline segments with a total length of 4,015 miles,
  5. 859 segments and 5,935 miles in Ohio,
  6. Great Lakes bordering states contain 6,841 pipeline segments totaling 33,457 miles,
  7. Pacific Northwest states including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana contain 1,765 segments totaling 6,121 miles,
  8. Gulf Coast states sans Texas contain 3,886 pipeline segments totaling 25,775 miles.

The above datasets were compiled by Ted Auch and Daniel Berghoff of the FracTracker Alliance or sourced from the US Energy Information Administration via their Natural Gas data portal and their analysts Tu Tran and Robert King.

US River and Coastal Export/Import Ports

US inland (i.e., Mississippi River) and coastal ports are the singular ways in which all manner of hydrocarbons are transported to downstream processing facilities and subsequently used domestically or exported. The data contained herein include 12 Mississippi, 7 Ohio and Tennessee River, and 11 Columbia river ports along with 16 Great Lakes/St. Lawrence river ports (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of inland and coastal US and territories ports as of December 2013.

State

Number of Ports

State

Number of Ports

AK

40

MO

2

AL

7

MS

3

AR

2

NC

2

CA

9

NJ

2

CT

3

NY

6

DE, VA, MD, & DC

6

OH

2

FL

17

OK

2

GA

2

OR

13

HI

7

PA

2

IA

1

PR

1

ID

1

RI

1

IL

4

SC

1

KY

2

TN

4

LA

13

TX

11

MA

3

VI

1

ME

2

WA

6

MI

6

WI

4

MN

4

WV

2

US Coal Plants & Emissions

We were pointed to this data by Source Watch’s “Coal Swarm” project’s Director Ted Nace and researcher Joshua Frank. Learn more. The layer includes coal used, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and mercury (Hg). Also included are the number of deaths across a variety of categories and emergency room visits attributed to each coal plant, along with estimates of the valuation of each of these. The raw data are available from the the US EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) comprehensive data portal with the “Version 1.0” ZIP file containing: “spreadsheet files, state import-export files, Technical Support Document, file structure document, Summary Tables, GHG output emission rates, the EUEC2010 paper, and graphical representations of eGRID subregion and NERC region maps. Data in this file encompasses years 2009, 2007, 2005 and 2004.” The data were most recently updated on May 10, 2012 in order to include 2009 data.

Transload Facilities Directory

Directory Description:

Rail-to-truck transload facilities where cargo is transferred between tank trucks and water or rail transportation…These bulk material handling companies also provide information such as products handled, services and equipment available, and methods for dry bulk product transfer…These intermodal locations are owned or operated by trucking companies, railroads, or independent bulk terminal operators. Unless the prohibition is stated, these businesses have indicated they allow outside carriers to load products at their facilities. Learn more

Services Key:

  • Products handled: a. Acids, b. Chemicals (liquid), c. Chemicals (dry), d. Asphalt, e. Foods (liquid), f. Foods (dry), g. Plastics (dry), h. Petroleum products
  • Services/equipment available: a. Air compressor, b. Scale, c. Blending meters, d. Sampling service, e. Hot water heating, f. Steam heating, g. Tank trailer cleaning, h. Liquid storage tanks, i. Liquid pumps
  • Dry bulk product transfer by: a. Vacuum trailer, b. Auger, c. Blower, d. Gravity (trestle), e. Portable vacuum/air conveyor, f. Bulk conveyor

Intermodal Tank Containers

Those facilities “that have actual storage depot operations. The operators specialize in both the handling and storage of ISO containers.” Learn more

Intermodal tanks are:

… intermodal container[s] for the transport of liquids, gases and powders as bulk cargo…built to the [International Organization for Standardization] Standard, making it suitable for different modes of transportation. Both hazardous and non-hazardous products can be transported in tank containers. A tank container is a vessel of stainless steel surrounded by an insulation and protective layer of usually Polyurethane and aluminum. The vessel is in the middle of a steel frame. The frame is made according to ISO standards and is 19.8556 feet (6.05 meters) long, 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) wide and 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) or 8.374 feet (2.55 meters) high. The contents of the tank ranges from 27,000 to 40,000 liters (5,900 to 8,800 imp gal; 7,100 to 11,000 U.S. gal). There are both smaller and larger tank containers, which usually have a size different from the ISO standard sizes. The trade organization @TCO estimates that at the end of 2012 the global fleet of tank containers is between 340,000 and 380,000. (Wikipedia definition)

Services Key: a. Storage, b. Cleaning, c. Container shuttle service, d. Container drayage, e. Steam/electric heat, f. Rail siding, g. Repair/refurbishing, h. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) certification, i. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification, j. ISO 9000 certification, k. 2.5- and 5-year ABS testing, l. Reefer tank repairs, m. Parts supply

Abbreviations: SC=straddle carrier, TLSL=top-lifting side-loader, D/D=drop-deck

MarkWest Facilities

Facility locational data gathered from the company’s operations website.

Cargo Tank Repair Directory

“Bulk Transporter’s Cargo Tank Trailer Repair Directory…the most comprehensive listing of repair facilities that service tank trucks and tank trailers. Additionally, many of these facilities offer custom fabrication. Most listings include services offered, but tank truck operators are encouraged to contact the facilities directly for more information…The first six items listed on the “Services Key” are the DOT tests and inspections required by federal law. Companies listing “R” or “U” stamps were asked to provide Bulk Transporter with a record of their accreditation. The federal CT registration number also was requested for the tank repair shops in the directory.” Learn more

Repair Services Key:

1. External visual inspection, 2. Internal visual inspection, 3. Lining inspection, 4. Leakage test, 5. Pressure retesting, 6. Thickness testing, 7. MC330/331 retesting, 8. Vapor recovery testing, 9. Bottom-loading conversion, 10. Major barrel repair, 11. Tank passivation, 12. Sandblasting/painting, 13. Tank changeouts, 14. Tank degassing, 15. Tank cleaning (for repair only), 16. Custom fabrication, 17. Purchase wrecked trailers, 18. Pick-up & delivery, 19. Lining repair, 20. ASME “U” stamp, 21. National Board “R” stamp

Soon To Be Added Data:

Tank Cleaning Directory

The Commercial Tank Cleaning Directory…information…was supplied by the operators of commercial and carrier-owned tank wash facilities that provide cargo tank interior cleaning. Directory listings may include product limitations such as “food grade only” or “no hazmat.” Learn more


Footnotes

[1] 407 active and 6 inactive facilities; Region –

  1. 259 “Consuming East” primarily within depleted reservoirs providing supplemental backup and/or peak period supply,
  2. 49 “Consuming West” primarily for domestic US and Alberta gas to flow at constant rates, and
  3. 105 “Producing” facilities which are primarily responsible for hydrocarbon basin export connectivity, transmission, and distribution and allow for the storage of currently redundant natural gas supply; Field Type Affiliation – 43 aquifers, 331 depleted fields, and 39 salt domes. Learn more

[2] These total horsepower and throughput figures are up from 13.4 million and 743 BCF in 1996.