New York State is not the only area where opposition to fracking and its related activities is emerging. A 108-mile proposed PennEast pipeline between Wilkes-Barre, PA and Mercer County, New Jersey is facing municipal movements against its construction, as well. The 36-inch diameter pipeline will likely carry 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. According to some sources, this proposed pipeline is the only one in NJ that is not in compliance with the state’s standard of co-locating new pipelines with an existing right-of-way.1
PennEast Pipeline Oppositions
Below is a dynamic, clickable map of said opposition by FracTracker’s Karen Edelstein, as well as documentation associated with each municipality’s current stance:
And in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, municipalities are working to ban, reroute, or regulate heavily the Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline (opposition map shown below):
Northeast Energy Direct Proposed Pipeline Paths and Opposition Resolutions in MA & NH
Why is this conversation important?
Participation in government is a beneficial practice for citizens and helps to inform our regulatory agencies on what people want and need. This surge in opposition against oil and gas activity such as pipelines or well pads near schools highlights a broader question, however:
If not pipelines, what is the least risky form of oil and gas transportation?
Oil and gas-related products are typically transported in one of four ways: Truck, Train, Barge, or Pipeline.
Drilling mud spill from truck accident
Lac-Mégantic oil train derailment
Using a barge to transport frac sand
Gas pipeline construction in PA forest
Trucks are arguably the most risky and environmentally costly form of transport, with spills and wrecks documented in many communities. Because most of these well pads are being built in remote areas, truck transport is not likely to disappear anytime soon, however.
Transport by rail is another popular method, albeit strewn with incidents. Several, major oil train explosions and derailments, such as the Lac-Mégantic disaster in 2013, have brought this issue to the public’s attention recently.
Moving oil and gas products by barge is a different mode that has been received with some public concern. While the chance of an incident occurring could be lower than by rail or truck, using barges to move oil and gas products still has its own risks; if a barge fails, millions of people’s drinking water could potentially be put at risk, as highlighted by the 2014 Elk River chemical spill in WV.
So we are left with pipelines – the often-preferred transport mechanism by industry. Pipelines, too, bring with them explosion and leak potential, but at a smaller level according to some sources.2 Property rights, forest loss and fragmentation, sediment discharge into waterways, and the potential introduction of invasive species are but a few examples of the other concerns related to pipeline construction. Alas, none of the modes of transport are without risks or controversy.
Footnotes
Colocation refers to the practice of constructing two projects – such as pipelines – in close proximity to each other. Colocation typically reduces the amount of land and resources that are needed.
By Matt Unger and Gianna Calisto, FracTracker PA Interns
Recently, a Grist.com article, entitled Hey! Did somebody frack my favorite beer? caught our attention here at FracTracker Alliance. In the piece, a concerned citizen questioned whether or not fracking could be affecting what many consider to be the crown jewel of Pennsylvania brewing – Yuengling. The author responded very thoroughly, but needed a map to help show the locations of breweries closest to drilling. To help identify any potential problems and hopefully allow the Commonwealth’s beer drinkers to drink easily tonight, we’ve pulled together such a map.
The PA Beer and Unconventional Drilling Map
Click on the map to explore the breweries and nearby drilling activity
On this map you will see all of the drilled wells (orange), permitted wells (purple), and breweries / brewpubs that we could find in Pennsylvania as of 11-16-2014. The data was gathered from the PA DEP website and The Beer Mapping Project, as well as from a tool our map below contains that allows the viewer to measure distances between two points.
The breweries/brewpubs in the South Central and South Eastern parts of the state are located quite a long distance away from unconventional well pads. This means that Yuengling is likely safe so long as there are no pipeline or traffic incidents nearby!
Even the other areas of Pennsylvania show that brewing near areas of fracking is relatively uncommon. However, there are a few exceptions, particularly in the North Eastern and South Western parts of the state.
Select Results
Yuengling Brewery: 38 Miles from the nearest permitted well, 40 miles from the nearest drilled well.
Iron City Brewing Company: 12 miles from the nearest permitted well, 11.7 miles from the nearest drilled well. Both well sites are upstream from the brewery.
Nimble Hill Brewing Company: 0.5 miles from nearest drilled and permitted well
Use the measure tool on the fullscreen map to explore more about PA brewing and its proximity to drilling.
Things to Consider
The Grist article that we referred to earlier did a great job at outlining some of the risks of drilling and caveats to supporting your favorite brewery. Simply being located near a drilling site does not necessarily mean that the area’s water and air are polluted, but it is a risk. In addition to the points that Grist made, keep in mind that fracking can have other, more indirect effects on the beer industry; well pads are not the only places where effects on the environment can be seen. Spills and traffic involving the transportation of drilling resources, products, and waste pose very serious risks through the areas that these items are transported. This intense industrial activity can also give off localized air pollution. The map above only begins to highlight all of the potential beer-scare scenarios, unfortunately.
If you do feel that your favorite beer is being affected by nearby drilling activity, there are very easy things that you can do, as the Grist article explains. In the mean time, we at FracTracker will happily taste test each PA brewery’s product should the need arise!
If there are other maps that you would like to see made showing where drilling is located near you, just let us know.
The FracTracker Alliance periodically takes a deeper look into the unconventional oil and gas data in Pennsylvania, in order to provide updates for some frequently requested statistics on the industry. Here we provide updated PA data and trends as of December 4, 2014. Since unconventional drilling began in the Commonwealth permits have been issued to drill 15,573 unconventional wells, according to data from the Pennsylvania DEP. Many – 8,696 (56%) – of those permits have actually been drilled. In terms of violations, there have been 5,983 entries on the statewide Compliance Report for unconventional wells throughout the state, which are attributed to 1,790 distinct wells.
Pennsylvania Shale Viewer Map
Please click here for the full screen version, with additional map tools and controls.
Additional Stats
The number of permits, wells, and violations vary significantly from month to month, but each category is well off of its peak. The largest number of unconventional permits issued in a single month was 402, which was in December 2010, more than twice as many as were issued last month. In that year, there were six months with 300 or more permits issued, whereas there has only been one such month to date in 2014.
PA unconventional O&G activity per month from Jan. 2009 to Nov. 2014. Source: PADEP
The 210 wells spudded (drilled) in August 2011 represents the high water mark, and is more than two times the amount of wells drilled last month. In the 28 months between March 2010 and June 2012, the industry failed to spud 100 wells only once, reaching 98 in April 2011. In the first 11 months of 2014, that plateau was missed three times, with a low of 58 spuds in February.
There was a significant spike in violations appearing on the compliance report from December 2009 through August 2011. More than 100 violations were issued in 17 out of 21 months, including 196 in March 2010. The number of violations issued has slowed down considerably since then, with November 2014 being the 34th straight month with fewer than 100 violations. Only 14 violations were issued in June 2014.
Violations per Well (VpW)
Unconventional violations per well by county in PA, showing the 10 counties with the largest number of violations. Counties with an above average Violations per Well (VpW) score are highlighted in red.
We often ask whether drilling is more problematic in some areas than others. Since the number of wells varies depending upon the location, we must approach this question by looking at the number of violations issued per well drilled (VpW). However, there is an important caveat to consider. Put simply, what is a violation? The Pennsylvania DEP publishes a Compliance Report for unconventional wells, which has 5,983 incidents listed from 2000 through December 4, 2014. However, it used to be common for the DEP to lump several incidents into the same Violation ID number, although this is not the case for more recent infractions. When the DEP counts violations issued, they look at the total number of unique Violation ID numbers that have been issued, not the total number of incidents on the report. Here, we include the more inclusive list of items on the compliance report.
Of the 10 counties with the largest number of violations issued, only 3 counties have a violations per well mark below the statewide average. Notably, each of those three counties are located in Southwestern Pennsylvania. It is unclear from these numbers what is going on in Potter County, but clearly there is a significant problem in that location – with almost three violations issued per well drilled, Potter County has a VpW score 4.3 times the statewide average.
Operator Trends
Before we look at the operators with the most violations, there is an additional caveat to consider: It is relatively common for wells to change hands over their operational lifetimes. This characteristic could be due to one company buying another out, or simply transferring some of their assets. Still, wells changing from one operator to another is a normal aspect of the oil and gas industry. Such a fact matters for this analysis because while violations issued always stick with the responsible party in the DEP data, the name of the operator changes on the Spud Report to the current operator.
Unconventional violations per well by operator in PA, showing the 10 operators with the largest number of violations. Operators with an above average Violations per Well (VpW) score are highlighted in red.
Because of how these datasets are maintained, we see that East Resources has 261 violations for zero wells, which is of course an impossibly large ratio. That is because East sold off its stake in the Marcellus to Royal Dutch Shell, which does business as SWEPI in Pennsylvania. SWEPI, by the way, is 13th on the list of violations in its own right, with 154 violations for 675 wells, resulting in a 0.23 VpW. If the legacy violations for the old East wells were included, the result would be a 0.61 ViW score, which is almost three times as high, but still below the statewide average. FracTracker doesn’t do the analysis that way, both because it is unfair to the new operator to charge them with violations that they had nothing to do with, as well as being nearly impossible to keep track of the various transactions that result in wells changing hands over the years.
Cover image by Pete Stern, 2013.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/PA-Stern-Feature.jpg400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2014-12-08 10:51:402020-07-21 10:34:09Updated PA Data and Trends
By Samantha Malone – Manager of Education, Communications, & Partnerships
FracTracker Alliance and the CREATE Lab at CMU recently launched a pilot project to track the transportation of volatile crude oil as it passes through Pennsylvania and specifically the Pittsburgh region.
For a bit of background, we were specifically interested in how many cars marked with either a 1075 or 1267 placard (shown below). 1075 placards designate cars that are carrying or recently carried (not yet cleaned out) butane, LPG, propane, or a flammable gas. Alternatively, 1267 placards are warning signs for cars carrying petroleum crude oil or some sort of flammable liquid.
DOT Placard 1075 Butane, LPG, Propane, Flammable Gas, Class 2
DOT Placard 1267 Petroleum Crude Oil, Flammable Liquid, Class 3
Oil Train Counts
Over 11 hours we counted 28 trains, 10 of which contained at least one car with the 1075 or 1267 placard. Most of these trains were quite long, with 28 trains hauling 2,874 cars.
The largest inbound train with the 1267 placard that we identified and estimated to be full was hauling 97 crude tankers. If they were indeed full, this train carried between 2.5 and 3.4 million gallons of crude oil. As a point of reference, the Lac-Mégantic derailment that occurred in 2013 in Quebec and killed 47 people was only carrying 74 Bakken crude cars.
Of the 2,874 cars that we counted, 360 were carrying some sort of oil product. Of those oil cars, approximately 70% were of the 1267 variety (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Ratio of oil cars to total documented by volunteers in Pittsburgh, PA over 11 hours
Speed Matters
The fastest oil train that we observed was going approximately 50 MPH. This train was likely full, based on load estimates and the direction it was traveling. This speed violates a voluntary compliance that crude trains run <40 MPH through high-threat areas. A train that derailed in Lynchburg, VA in April was traveling just 24 mph. Our counting location would likely qualify as a high-threat area, as we were near Neville Island, relatively close to ALCOSAN and the City of Pittsburgh, and just a few yards from the Ohio River and residential homes.
While Pittsburgh certainly has its share of oil trains, concern over the dangers that these trains pose to towns along its tracks extends far beyond the Pittsburgh area. Groups as far as California have gathered together to monitor train traffic. We hope that by tracking and monitoring the number of oil trains over time, we can begin to understand the risks that these trains pose should an incident occur.
The Data Collection Process
Here is how we collected the above data: On October 21st our staff, interns, and generous volunteers spent designated shifts observing the passing of trains and the contents of their cars between about 7:30 AM and 6:30 PM. Under the cover of a pop-up shelter, teams of at least three participants videotaped trains as they passed in either direction, counted and recorded the number of cars that they carried, and most importantly identified and counted specific placards that labeled individual cars as oil-carrying.
Many thanks to the groups who helped with this pilot count: volunteer citizens, Group Against Smog and Pollution, Three Rivers Waterkeeper, Women for a Healthy Environment, our interns from Pitt and Duquesne, and CMU staff.
The CREATE Lab then reviewed and analyzed the collected information and video feed. You can take a look at some of the high-resolution video feed they were able to collect with their BreatheCam. If you have specific questions about the train counting protocol or would like to set up one of your own, please contact us.
About Us
FracTracker Alliance is a non-profit with an office in the Pittsburgh area whose mission is to share maps, data, and analyses to communicate impacts of the global oil and gas industry and to inform actions that positively shape our energy future. www.fractracker.org
The Community Robotics, Education and Technology Empowerment Lab (CREATE Lab) explores socially meaningful innovation and deployment of robotic technologies and is based out of Carnegie Mellon University. www.cmucreatelab.org
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/OilTrains-Feature.png400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-12-02 17:45:302021-04-20 14:17:04Oil Trains Passing Through Pittsburgh
One of the potentially troubling aspects of oil and gas development is that there are usually people who live in the vicinity of the wells. Pennsylvania now has over 8,000 active unconventional wells; there are any number of issues that can occur with these modern, industrial-scale sites, including road degradation, contaminated water, and health impacts, among others. In addition, there are over 93,000 of the smaller, conventional wells in operation throughout the Commonwealth. While these garner far less attention than their unconventional counterparts, they are also prone to producing similar impacts, not to mention that since many of them are older wells, they not only have potentially been subject to deterioration and occasional neglect, but were constructed during a period with less stringent requirements than are currently expected.
Petroleum engineers are now capable of drilling horizontally for tens of thousands of feet. For the most part, however, this technology is employed to maximize production, rather than to ameliorate impacts on people who live near the product. But who are these people? To help to answer this question, the FracTracker Alliance calculated the number of people living in a half-mile radius around active wells in the state.
More than 1.2 million Pennsylvanians live within the impact area.
Of the 93,754 wells that have been drilled in the state since 1950 that have not yet been plugged, the Pennsylvania DEP only has location data for 79,118 of them. All but one of the 14,636 missing locations are for wells that are categorized as Conventional. While one must presume that there is some overlap in coverage within the half-mile zone, the extent of this region – and therefore the population that lives within it – cannot be determined.
Fig. 1. PA Populations Near Oil and Gas Wells. Click here to access written description and additional map tools.
To maximize the reliability of our calculations, this map was created using a custom Albers equal-area projection centered on Pennsylvania. A half-mile buffer around each well type was created, and the resulting layer was clipped to Census tract data. The ratio of the smaller clipped area to the full Census tract area was calculated, and that ratio was then multiplied by the population totals from the 2010 Census to obtain our population estimates of the half-mile zone. The area in the study area is larger than six states, while the calculated population is larger than that of eight states.
Fig. 2. Number of people in PA near oil and gas wells (79,118 active wells for which location data are available). Note that some regions are with a half-mile of both conventional and unconventional wells.
The county most impacted, in terms of area, for unconventional wells is Bradford, with 353 square miles (See Figure 2). Washington County had the most people living in the zone, however, with 20,566. For conventional wells, the drilling landscape is the largest in Indiana County, affecting 761 square miles, while Erie County has the most people in the half-mile zone, with 212,900. When considering all wells together, the numbers are almost identical to conventional wells. Indiana County leads with 762 square miles, while the drill zone in Erie County represents 211,903 people, or 76% of the county’s population in 2010.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PA-Wells-Feature.png400900Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2014-10-30 11:23:432020-07-21 10:34:06Over 1.2 Million Pennsylvanians Within 1/2 Mile of a Well
Seeing is believing, as the saying goes. Without physically observing the amount of waste generated from hydraulic fracturing of unconventional oil and gas wells, it is difficult to comprehend the volume and scope of the waste produced.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) makes a considerable amount of waste production data publicly available, speaking to the quantities of fluids and solids produced by 25 oil and gas operators across 25 counties. This figure, however, is only about 40% of all of the operators according to StateImpactPA. Also, complete data is not available for the 25 companies that are included, but let’s dig into some waste data simply as an exercise.
Dig Into Basic Cabot Waste Statistics
In order to gain a sense for industry trends we decided to look at data pertaining to Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, specifically, whose entire 2013 inventory of oil and gas wells were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region. The first and second halves of 2013 contain fairly complete records for Cabot – such as well location, waste facility location, waste type, waste quantity, and disposal method. It is interesting to note that in the comments section, all but a few of the well permit sites read “Entire water fraction of waste stream recycled at a centralized treatment plant for reuse by Cabot,” even for drill cuttings that were taken to a landfill.
The following analysis focuses on the waste generated by 264 Cabot wells during this period. All of Cabot’s unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania during 2013 were in Susquehanna County and the surrounding region.
Waste Produced
In the first 6 months of 2013 (Period 1), liquid waste – consisting of produced fluid, servicing fluid, hydraulic fracturing fluid (frac fluid) waste, and drilling fluid waste – totaled 745,898 barrels (Bbl) or over 30,000,000 gallons. Solid waste – or drill cuttings – totaled 51,981 tons.1 To put this into perspective, 745,898 Bbls is equivalent to the water usage requirements of about 4 wells in West Virginia.2 The 51,981 tons of drill cuttings weighs about the same as the average amount of garbage produced by 65,029 Americans per year, or 1.5 times the population of Susquehanna County. The fluid waste is also enough to fill approximately 48 Olympic swimming pools.
Period 2 (July through December) of 2013, consisting of 319 reporting wells, experienced a 77% increase in liquid waste, climbing past the 1 million Bbl mark to 1,340,143 Bbl. This figure is the equivalent of filling almost 85 Olympic swimming pools. Similarly, drill cuttings increased to 96,165 tons, almost double the amount generated in Period 1. The total amount of waste generated by Cabot for the entire year yields more than 2 million Bbl of liquid waste and nearly 150,000 tons of solid waste from drill cuttings1 – more than 130 Olympic swimming pools worth of water and a weight of solid waste equivalent to the average waste generated by more than 120,000 American per year- over 2.8 times the population pf Susquehanna County (see infographic below).
Waste Composition
According to Cabot’s waste data, most of the liquid waste is made up of produced fluid,1 which is the saline water that returns to the surface as a byproduct of the drilling process. This fluid can be up to 10 times saltier than ocean water and can also be radioactive.3 Frac fluid waste3 contributed to the next largest amount of waste, followed by drilling fluid waste and servicing fluid. Produced fluid tripled from Period 1 to Period 2, while frac fluid waste remained fairly steady, and drilling fluid waste decreased slightly. However, the amount of servicing fluid waste generated between the first and second half of 2013 increased more than 12 times.1 Overall, the following increases were seen between Period 1 and Period 2 in 2013:
Fluid waste from hydraulic fracturing rose by nearly 80%
Solid waste rose by 85%
The number of unconventional oil and gas reporting wells only increased by about 20%, from 264 to 319.
Examining the data from FracFocus that is available for these reporting wells,4 it is interesting to note that the average true vertical depth of the wells decreased by about 100 feet between the two periods. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the amount of drill cuttings increased by 85% in Period 2. Why is there such a large increase in both solid and liquid waste between these two periods when there was only a 20% increase in the number of wells? There are various theories that could result in such a dramatic increase in period 2 compared to the 6 months prior, including but not limited to:
The use of more liquids for the construction or drilling processes,
Longer lateral distances per horizontal well,
More lax operating procedures,
More detailed reporting by Cabot, and/or
Stricter reporting/enforcement by the PADEP.
Waste Impoundment – Photo by Pete Stern 2013
Waste Produced Means Waste Transported
Although Cabot is responsible for producing large amounts of waste, they also are recycling their liquid waste (as is listed for every site in the Period 2 data). To do so, the company transports their waste to a centralized treatment plant. There, the water is filtered so that it can be mixed with more freshwater and chemicals and be reused at another well site. However, hauling so much fluid to the centralized treatment plant requires numerous trips by tanker trucks, as well as dump trucks and trailer trucks taking drill cuttings to landfills. Some treatment facilities for PA waste are located as far away as Ohio, West Virginia, and New York. Cabot trucks travelled approximately 114,000 miles5 in Period 1 of 2013, and over 1,122,000 miles were travelled in Period 2 of 2013. The total miles travelled to transport Cabot’s waste is equivalent to almost 50 times around the earth – for one company in one state, operating in only two counties.1
Additional Considerations
Further analysis should examine the air pollution and carbon footprint generated from such extensive traffic. The miles make a difference, considering that a highly efficient tractor trailor only gets ~10 miles per gallon.
While reusing the majority of liquid waste in an effort to reduce the amount of fresh water needed for hydraulic fracturing is a positive step, transporting recycling water by truck still results in fuel used, pollutants emitted, and traffic impacts.
Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. was the second largest unconventional shale gas producer in PA behind Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, which had more than 809 reporting wells in Period 2 of 2013. With a total of 62 companies operating in PA at this time,6 the cumulative effects of waste transportation undoubtedly add up. Serious efforts should be made on the part of all oil and gas companies to reduce their waste and provide accurate and timely waste reports.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Waste-Data-Feature.png400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-10-22 12:26:262020-07-21 10:42:47Digging into Waste Data
FracTracker Alliance and the CREATE Lab at CMU are seeking volunteers to track oil trains on October 21st near Pittsburgh, PA for 2-hour segments from 7:00am – 7:00pm.
Sign up to participate (Link Deactivated, Archived Event)
Approximately 400,000 barrels of oil are transported daily from the west, following tracks from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale Play, which typically run through populated urban areas such as Pittsburgh. These trains have been known to derail and cause immense damage. The most recent of cases occurred in Québec in July of 2013, when a derailed train and the subsequent explosions resulted in the deaths of 47 people. The transportation of volatile crude oil from western states to major cities up and down the Eastern seaboard poses a major risk to any town or city through which these trains pass. FracTracker and affiliated groups want to understand the true risk that these volatile train cars pose to our region.
FracTracker and CREATE Lab will use the data collected during this project to analyze the frequency and risk of crude oil freight trains passing through the Pittsburgh area, but we need your help.
We are looking for volunteers that can commit to a two-hour shift throughout the day on October 21st. Volunteers will be equipped with a video camera, tripod, and of course coffee and snacks in order to record the passing of trains in either direction throughout a two-hour shift. The video footage will allow us to identify a plaque that is required to be displayed on cars carrying oil, as well as whether the cars are empty or full.
If you are interested in volunteering with FracTracker and this freight train project, follow the link above to sign up for a shift. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns at (412) 802-0273 or Malone@FracTracker.org. We hope to see you there!
About Us
FracTracker Alliance is a non-profit with an office in the Pittsburgh area whose mission is to share maps, data, and analyses to communicate impacts of the global oil and gas industry and to inform actions that positively shape our energy future. www.fractracker.org
The Community Robotics, Education and Technology Empowerment Lab (CREATE Lab) explores socially meaningful innovation and deployment of robotic technologies and is based out of Carnegie Mellon University. www.cmucreatelab.org
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Train-Image.jpg400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-10-15 15:21:272020-07-21 10:42:47Help Us to Track Oil Trains in Pittsburgh and Beyond
We recently received a request for unconventional (fracking) drilling data in Southwestern Pennsylvania counties and municipalities. Specifically, the resident wanted to know the following information:
Number of drilled wells in Southwestern PA counties, and in each municipality,
How many wells are producing natural gas in each municipality, and
The number of well violations reported there.
The following counties in Southwestern PA were studied (based on available electronic data): Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Cambria, Fayette, Greene, Indiana, Somerset, Washington, and Westmoreland.
The well production data was compiled from a production report found on the Pennsylvania DEP Office of Oil and Gas website. This report detailed production values from unconventional gas wells statewide from January 2014 – June 2014. The well violation data was compiled using the Pennsylvania DEP Office of Oil and Gas’s interactive Oil and Gas Compliance report. From here, a compliance report was created using the following criteria: All PA regions, counties, and municipalities, all well operators, unconventional wells only, and wells inspected from 1/1/2000 – 9/9/2014.
Drilling Data Trends
Once all of the data was compiled, we created a spreadsheet that included a ratio of violations/wells for each municipality and county. Below are a few observations that stood out to us, followed by possible explanations for what has been reported.
Slightly less than 1/3 of all wells drilled in the 11 counties selected for this analysis have committed some sort of violation (.31).
The ratio of violations to wells drilled in Somerset County is 1.38, by far the largest ratio discovered. This means than more than one violation has been cited for every well drilled in that area, but that does not mean that every well carries with it a violation. The second largest ratio would be Cambria County at 1.00.
If you break down the numbers and look at municipality trends, the largest violation/wells ratio by municipality is found in Stewart Township, Fayette County (9.00). There have been 18 reported violations in association with the 2 wells drilled in the area.
Of the 60 municipalities that recorded no violations, South Buffalo Township in Armstrong County has the most wells drilled with 20.
Across the 11 counties studied, Allegheny County has the lowest ratio of violation/wells (.007).
Violations were reported in Somerset Township, Somerset County. No wells were drilled in this area, however.
Violations were reported in Wayne Township, Greene County, yet no wells were reported to be drilled in the municipality.
Explaining Some Data Caveats
Why is Allegheny County seeing such a low violation/well ratio?
Across the 11 counties studied, Allegheny County has the lowest ratio of violation/wells (.007).
Allegheny is the most populated county studied in Southwestern PA. Oil and gas drillers in the county, therefore, have the largest audience watching them. This may be encouraging the drillers to be more cautious or follow rules and regulations more strictly. Another possible explanation is that inspectors may be more lenient when reporting violations in in Allegheny County. Additionally, drillers operating primarily in Allegheny County may be are more likely to or are more capable of drilling according to the regulations. A final possibility is that Allegheny County is one of the last counties in this region to be heavily drilled, perhaps allowing for more best practices to be implemented on site compared to well pads established early on.
Violations With No Wells?
Violations were reported in Somerset Township, Somerset County. No wells were drilled in this area, however. These violations could have occurred when constructing the well pad. If construction has stopped at this site since the violation, there would not have been any wells drilled. Additionally, there may be an error in the dataset as to the actual location (e.g. county) of the well pad.
Violations were reported in Wayne Township, Greene County, yet no wells were reported to be drilled in the municipality. The PA DEP has informed FracTracker that these violations were actually reported for a well pad located in Center Township, Greene County. The entry for Wayne Township was a recording error on their part. Our data has been updated to reflect the proper number of violations reported in Center Township, as well as the removal of any activity in Wayne Township.
Download the Spreadsheet
The spreadsheet we supplied to this resident can be downloaded as a compliance report.
Updated PA Map
Explore our map of PA unconventional wells and violations by clicking on the map below:
Last updated: September 19, 2014
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SWPA-Map.png400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-09-22 16:06:592020-07-21 10:42:45Comparing Unconventional Drilling in Southwestern PA
Part of the FracTracker Truck Counts Project By Mary Ellen Cassidy, Community Outreach Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance
I was recently invited by a community member to visit his home. It sits in a valley that is surrounded by drilling pads, as well as compressors and processing stations. While walking down the road that passes directly in front of his home, several caravans of gas trucks roared past and continued far into the evening. Our discussion about the unexpected barrage of this new invasion of intense truck traffic was frequently interrupted by the noise of the diesel engines passing nearby. Along with the noise, truck headlights pierced through the windows of the home, and dust flew up from the nearby road onto his garden.
There are many stories like this about homes and families impacted by the increased truck traffic associated with fracking-related activities. FracTracker is currently working with some of these communities to document the intensity of gas and oil trucks travelling their roads. In response to these concerns we have a launched a pilot Truck Counts project to provide support, resources, and networking opportunities to communities struggling with high volume gas truck traffic.
Preliminary Results
Volunteers in PA, WV, OH and WI have already started to participate in the project, with some interesting results, photos, observations, and suggestions.
To-date, truck counts have varied significantly, as to be expected. Some of the sites where we chose to count passing trucks were very close to drilling activity, and some were more remote. While developing the counting protocol, we often included large equipment and tanker trucks, as well as gas company personnel vehicles (as indicated by white pickup trucks and company logos on the side). While the data vary, the spikes in truck counts do tell the story of a bigger and broader issue – the influx of heavy equipment during certain stages of drilling can be a significant burden on the local community. In total, we counted 676 trucks over 13 sites The average number of trucks that passed by per hour was 44, with a high of 116 an hour, and a low of 5.
About the Project
FracTracker Truck Counts partners with communities to: help identify issues of concern related to high volume gas truck traffic; collect data, photos, videos and narratives related to gas truck traffic; and analyze and share results through shared database and mapping options.
What motivates volunteers to join us in our Truck Counts program? Community concerns include dust, diesel exhaust, spills, accidents, along with other health and safety issues, as well as the cost and inconvenience of deteriorating road conditions resulting from the increased weights and numbers of vehicles. So, what do we already know about the extent of the damages caused by heavy truck traffic?
Public Safety
Several studies have found that shale gas development is strongly linked to increased traffic accidents and that the increases cannot be attributed only to more trucks and people on the road.
Unlike gas truck traffic issues from past oil and gas booms, this recent shale gas boom impacts traffic and public safety in many different ways. The hydraulic fracturing process requires 2,300 to 4,000 truck trips per well, where older drilling techniques needed one-third to one-half as many trips. Another difference is the speed of development that often far outpaces the capacity of communities to build better roads, bridges, install more traffic signals or hire extra traffic officers. Some experts explain increased truck traffic related accidents by pointing to regulatory loopholes such as federal rules that govern how long truckers can stay on the road being less stringent for drivers in the oil and gas industry. Others note that out of state drivers in charge of large heavy duty loads are not always accustomed to the regional weather patterns or the winding, narrow and hilly country roads that they travel.
An Associated Press analysis of traffic deaths in six drilling states shows that in some counties, fatalities have more than quadrupled since 2004 when most other American roads have become much safer in that period (even with growing populations). Marvin Odum, who runs Royal Dutch Shell’s exploration operations in the Americas, said that deadly crashes are “recognized as one of the key risk areas of the business”. Along with the community, gas truck drivers themselves are at risk. According to a study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, vehicle crashes are the single biggest cause of fatalities to oil and gas workers. The AP study finds that:
In North Dakota drilling counties, the population has soared 43% over the last decade, while traffic fatalities increased 350%. Roads in those counties were nearly twice as deadly per mile driven than the rest of the state
From 2009-2013-
Traffic fatalities in West Virginia’s most heavily drilled counties…rose 42%. Traffic deaths in the rest of the state declined 8%.
In 21 Texas counties where drilling has recently expanded, deaths/100,000 people are up an average of 18 % while for the rest of Texas, they are down by 20%.
Traffic fatalities in Pennsylvania drilling counties rose 4%, while in the rest of the state they fell 19 %.
New Mexico’s traffic fatalities fell 29%, except in drilling counties, where they only fell 5%.
A separate analysis by Environment America using data from the Upper Great Plans Institute finds that – “While the expanding oil industry in North Dakota has produced many benefits, the expansion has also resulted in an increase in traffic, especially heavy truck traffic. This traffic has contributed to a number of crashes, some of which have resulted in serious injuries and fatalities.” In the Bakken Shale oil region of North Dakota, the number of highway crashes increased by 68% between 2006 and 2010, with the share of crashes involving heavy trucks also increasing over that period.”1
Truck accident and spill in WV. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.
Public health concerns do not end with traffic accidents and fatalities. An additional cost of heavy gas truck traffic is the strain it places on emergency service personnel. A 2011 survey by State Impact Pennsylvania in eight counties found that:
Emergency services in heavily drilled counties face a troubling paradox: Even though their population has fallen in recent years, 911 call activity has spiked — by as high as 46 percent, in one case.” Along with the demands placed on emergency responders from the number of increased calls, it also takes extra time to locate the accidents since many calls are coming from transient drivers who “don’t know which road or township they are in.
In Bradford County, a heavily drilled area, increased traffic has delayed the response times of emergency vehicles. According to an article in The Daily Review, firefighters and emergency response teams are delayed due to the increased number of accidents, gas trucks breaking down, and gas trucks running out of fuel (some companies only allow refueling once a night).
Road Deterioration and Regional Costs
Roadway degradation from truck traffic. Wetzel County Action Group photo, copyright of Ed Wade, Jr.
An additional cost often passed on to the impacted communities is infrastructure maintenance. In an article from Business Week, Lynne Irwin, director of Cornell University’s local roads program in Ithaca, New York, states, “Measures to ensure that roads are repaired don’t capture the full cost of damage, potentially leaving taxpayers with the bill.”
This Food and Water Watch Report calculated the financial burden imposed on rural counties by traffic accidents alone, estimating that if the heavy truck accident rate in fracked counties had matched those untouched by the boom, $28 million would have been saved.2
Garrett County is currently struggling with anticipating potential gas traffic and road costs. The Garrett County Shale Gas Advisory Committee uses recent studies from RESI ‘s New York and Pennsylvania data to project gas truck traffic for 6 wells/pad at 22,848 trips/pad and 91,392 total truck trips the first year with increasing numbers for the next 10 years. Like many counties, Garrett County also faces the issue that weights and road use are covered by State, not County code. There is a possibility, however, that the County could determine best “routes” for the trucks. (This is a prime example of the need and benefit for truck counts.)
Although truck companies and contractors pay permit fees, often they are either insufficient to cover costs or are not accessible to impacted counties. The Texas Tribune reports, “The Senate unanimously passed a joint resolution which would ask voters to approve spending $5.7 billion from the state’s Rainy Day Fund, including $2.9 billion for transportation debt. But little, if any, of that money is likely to go toward repairing roads in areas hit hardest by the drilling boom.”
Commenting on the argument that gas companies already pay their fair share for road damages they cause, George Neal posts calculations on the Damascus Citizens for Sustainability website that lead him to conclude that, although “the average truck pays around 27 times the fuel taxes an average car pays… according to the Texas Department of Transportation, they do 8,000 times the damage per mile driven and drive 8 times as far each year.”
The funds needed to fill the gap between the costs of road repairs and the amount actually paid by the oil and gas companies must come from somewhere. According to a draft report from the New York Department of Transportation looking at potential Marcellus Shale development costs, “The annual costs to undertake these transportation projects are estimated to range from $90 to $156 million for State roads and from $121-$222 million for local roads. There is no mechanism in place allowing State and local governments to absorb these additional transportation costs without major impacts to other programs and other municipalities in the State.”
Poor Air Quality
Caravan of trucks. Photo by Savanna Lenker, 2014.
Along with public safety and infrastructure costs, increased truck traffic associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction is found to be a major contributor to public health costs due to elevated ozone and particulate matter levels from increased emissions of heavy truck traffic and the refining and processing activities required.
In addition to ozone and particulate matter in the air, chemicals used for extraction and development also pose a serious risk. A recent study in the journal of Human and Ecological Health Assessment found that 37% of the chemicals used in drilling operations are volatile and could become airborne. Of those chemicals, more than 89% can cause damage to the eyes, skin, sensory, organs, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, or the liver, and 81% can cause harm to the brain and nervous system. Because these chemicals can vaporize, they can enter the body not only through inhalation, but also absorption through the skin.
The Union of Concerned Scientists note that air pollution from traffic may be worsened in North Dakota by the use of unpaved roads that incorporate gravel containing a fibrous mineral called erionite, which has properties similar to asbestos. Trucks driving over such gravel roads can release harmful dust plumes into the air, which could present health risks for workers and area residents
To address and solve these problems associated with heavy truck traffic, information is needed to assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the scope of the increased truck traffic and its impacts on communities. Collection and analysis of data, as well as community input, are needed to both understand the scope of the problem and to inform effective solutions.
Joining FracTracker’s Truck Counts
In response to community concerns about the impacts of increased truck traffic in their community, FracTracker has developed the Truck Count project to document the intensity of oil and gas traffic in your region, map heavy traffic locations, and offer networking opportunities for impacted communities.
Participation in FracTracker’s Truck Counts can provide grassroots organizations with a valuable opportunity to collect local data, engage volunteers, and educate stakeholders and the public. The data, pictures and narratives collected can be used to support concerned citizens’ efforts to reroute traffic from schools, playgrounds and other sensitive areas; to inform decision makers, public health researchers, and transportation agencies; to serve as a potential launching point for more detailed, targeted studies on public health and safety along with economic development analyses; to compare costs and benefits of oil and gas energy sources to the cost and benefits of energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.
Also, by sharing your community’s counts and stories on FracTracker.org, you serve other communities by increasing the awareness of the impacts of oil and gas truck traffic nationwide.
FracTracker’s Truck Counts provides the following resources to conduct the counts:
information and education on gas and oil truck identification,
data sheets for easy counting, and
tips for selecting safe and accessible counting locations in your community.
We look forward to working with you and supporting your community. If you are interested in working on this important crowdsourcing project with us, please contact:
In addition, a 2013 study from Resources for the Future found that shale gas development is linked to traffic accidents in Pennsylvania with a significant increase in the number of total accidents and accidents involving a heavy truck in counties with a relatively large degree of shale gas development as compared to counties with less (or no) development.
The 2013 Food and Water Watch Report finds similar correlations. Shale gas drilling was associated with higher incidents of traffic accidents in Pennsylvania. This trend was strongest in counties with the highest density of fracking wells. The decrease in the average annual number of total vehicle crashes was 39% larger in unfracked rural counties than in heavily fracked counties. (analysis based on data from US Census Bureau, PA DEP and PennDOT).
In a recent Karnes County, Texas analysis “Traffic accidents and fatalities have skyrocketed in the shale boom areas….with an increases of 1,000% in commercial motor vehicle accidents from 2008-2011.
According to a 2013 Texas Public Threat Safety Report, “In the three Eagle Ford Shale counties where drilling is most active, the number of crashes involving commercial vehicles rose 470 percent between 2009 and 2011. In the 17 counties that make up the Permian Basin, fatal car crashes involving commercial vehicles have nearly tripled from 14 in 2010 to 41 in 2012.
As a result of heavily using of publicly available infrastructure and services, fracking imposes both immediate and long-term costs on taxpayers. An Environment Texas study reveals that, “Trucks required to deliver water to a single fracking well cause as much damage to roads as 3.5 million car journeys, putting massive stress on roadways and bridges not constructed to handle such volumes of heavy traffic. Pennsylvania estimates that repairing roads affected by Marcellus Shale drilling would cost $265 million”.
Researchers from the RAND Corporation and Carnegie Mellon University looked at the design life and reconstruction cost of roadways in the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania. Their findings in Estimating the Consumptive Use Costs of Shale Natural Gas Extraction on Pennsylvania Roadways, note that local roads are generally designed to support passenger vehicles, not heavy trucks, and that “the useful life of a roadway is directly related to the frequency and weight of truck traffic using the roadway.” The study’s findings include:
“The estimated road-reconstruction costs associated with a single horizontal well range from $13,000 to $23,000. However, Pennsylvania often negotiates with drilling companies to rebuild smaller roads that are visibly damaged, so the researchers’ conservative estimate of uncompensated roadway damage is $5,000 and $10,000 per well.
While the per-well figure of $5,000-$10,000 appears small, the increasingly large number of wells being drilled means that substantial costs fall on the state: “Because there were more than 1,700 horizontal wells drilled [in Pennsylvania] in 2011, the statewide range of consumptive road costs for that year was between $8.5 and $39 million,” costs paid by state transportation authorities, and thus taxpayers.”
The feature photo at the top of the page was taken by Savanna Lenker, 2014.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/TruckCounts.png400900FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2014-09-11 15:18:072020-07-21 10:42:44Here They Come Again! The Impacts of Oil and Gas Truck Traffic
State Senator Joseph Scarnati III, from north-central Pennsylvania, has introduced a bill that would redefine the distinction between conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells throughout the state. In Section 1 of the bill, the sponsors try to establish the purpose of the legislation, making the case that:
Conventional oil and gas development has a benign impact on the Commonwealth
Many of the wells currently classified as conventional are developed by small businesses
Oil and gas regulations, “must permit the optimal development of oil and gas resources,” as well as protect the citizens and environment.
Previous legislation already does, and should, treat conventional and unconventional wells differently
This diagram shows geologic stata in Pennsylvania. The Elk Group is between the Huron and Rhinestreet shale deposits from the Upper Devonian period. Click on the image to see the full version. Source: DCNR
Certainly, robust debate surrounds each of these points, but they are introductory in nature, not the meat and potatoes of Senate Bill 1378. What this bill does is re-categorize some of the state’s unconventional wells to the less restrictive conventional category, including:
All oil wells
All natural gas wells not drilled in shale formations
All shale wells above (shallower than) the base of the Elk Group or equivalent
All shale wells below the Elk Group from a formation that can be economically drilled without the use of hydraulic fracturing or multi-lateral bore holes
All wells drilled into any formation where the purpose is not production, including waste disposal and other injection wells
The current distinction is in fact muddled, with one DEP source indicating that the difference is entirely due to whether or not the formation being drilled into is above or below the Elk Group, and another DEP source indicates that the difference is much more nuanced, and really depends on whether the volumes of hydraulic fracturing fluid required to profitably drill into a given formation are generally high or low.
This table shows the number of distinct wells in each producing formation in Pennsylvania that has both conventional and unconventional wells drilled into it. Data source: DEP, downloaded 7/9/2014.
As one might expect, this ambiguity is represented in the data. The chart at the left shows the number of distinct number of wells by formation, for each producing formation that has both conventional and unconventional wells in the dataset. Certainly, there could be some data entry errors involved, as the vast majority of Bradford wells are conventional, and almost all of the Marcellus wells are unconventional. But there seems to be some real confusion with regards to the Oriskany, for example, which is not only deeper than the Elk Group, but the Marcellus formation as well.
While an adjustment to the distinction of conventional and unconventional wells in Pennsylvania is called for, one wonders if the definitions proposed in SB 1378 is the right way to handle it. If the idea of separating the two is based on the relative impact of the drilling operation, then a much more straightforward metric might be useful, such as providing a cutoff in the amount of hydraulic fracturing fluid used to drill a well. Further, each of the five parts of the proposed definition serve to make the definition of unconventional wells less inclusive, meaning that additional wells would be subject to the less stringent regulations, and that the state would collect less money from the impact fees that were a part of Act 13 of 2012.
Instead, it is worth checking to see whether the definition of unconventional is inclusive enough. In May of this year, FracTracker posted a blog about conventional wells that were drilled horizontally in Pennsylvania.
Conventional, non-vertical wells in Pennsylvania. Please click the expanding arrows icon at the top-right corner to access the legend and other map controls. Please zoom in to access data for each location.
These wells require large amounts of hydraulic fracturing fluids, and are already being drilled at depths of only 3,000 feet, and could go as shallow as 1,000 feet. It’s pretty easy to argue that due to the shallow nature of the wells, and the close proximity to drinking water aquifers, these wells are deserving of even more rigorous scrutiny than those drilled into the Marcellus Shale, which generally ranges from 5,000 to 9,000 feet deep throughout the state.
A summary of the different regulations regarding conventional and unconventional wells can be found from PennFuture. In general, unconventional wells must be further away from water sources and structures than their conventional counterparts, and the radius of presumptive liability for the contamination of water supplies is 2,500 feet instead of 1,000.
SB 1378 has been re-referred to the Appropriations Committee.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/formations_ConUnc_07092014.png286347Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2014-07-09 15:04:362020-07-21 10:42:41What’s in PA Senate Bill 1378?
