A few years ago, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the agency responsible for state park and state forest lands throughout Pennsylvania, published maps on their website showing which state forest lands had been leased for the purpose of unconventional oil and gas exploration and development. Not only has that page been taken down, but the data are also not among the hundreds of Pennsylvania-specific datasets available on the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA), to which DCNR is a key contributor.
This data does still exist though, and it was provided to the FracTracker Alliance from DCNR upon request, along with data showing areas of the state forest where unconventional oil and gas rights are owned by the state, which is not always the case. However, this fulfillment of our data request came with some strings attached:
I understand that the accuracy of this data set and its boundaries cannot be guaranteed and should not be considered precise.
I will not distribute raw data to other entities outside the scope of this request.
I will annually provide the Bureau of Forestry with a status update of the project activities and findings. If the project is abandoned, I will provide the Bureau of Forestry copies of the available information from the project.
I will provide the Bureau of Forestry with copies of draft reports, articles, publications and so forth that result from this analysis.
If requested, I agree to supply the Bureau of Forestry with copies of data analysis.
I understand that the Bureau of Forestry or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not relinquishing any rights or interests with this agreement.
Obviously, this ties our hands with regards to making the data available for download, either through the download section of our site, or through ArcGIS Online, but we feel as if the scope of our request was worded in such a way as to allow us to produce a map of these layers, and make that available for public viewing. Readers interested in obtaining similar data will have to contact DCNR directly, until the agency decides to release the data regarding Pennsylvania’s public lands without conditions.
We have combined this data with drilling data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, so that we can finally take a closer look at drilling on public lands in Pennsylvania, including an approximation of which wells are drilled on lands have been leased by the state, and which by third parties. So with all appropriate disclaimers, here is that map:
Drilled unconventional wells in Pennsylvania and control of mineral rights on state forest land. To access full controls, such as legends, layer controls, and layer descriptions, please click the expanding arrows in the top-right corner of the map.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/severed-and-leased.png5671082Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-10-09 12:42:362020-07-21 10:41:34Leases and Severed Rights in PA’s State Forests
Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threats Analysis (PRETA) Air: Hazardous Air Pollutants
Although now we are an independent non-profit, FracTracker.org actually started as a project of CHEC at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. At that time, Matt, Kyle, and I worked with researchers such as Drew Michanowicz and Jim Fabisiak of Pitt, as well as Jill Kriesky now of the Southwest PA Environmental Health Project, on a data mapping and analysis project called PRETA. The Pittsburgh Regional Environmental Threats Analysis (PRETA) is intended to inform stakeholders about Southwest Pennsylvania’s major environmental health risks and provide ways to manage them. CHEC worked with key decision makers and other academics to identify, prioritize, and assess these risks. The top three risks identified were ozone, particulate matter (PM), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Due to the extensive time that research like this takes, the final report about hazardous air pollutants was just recently released.
Relevant to our oil and gas readers, the HAPs report included a piece about the proposed ethane cracker slated to be built in Beaver County, PA. Below is an excerpt of PRETA HAPs that discusses how the air quality in our region may change as a result of the removal of the present zinc smelter on that site, in place of the new cracker facility.
Future Trends: New Sources of HAPs in Western Pennsylvania?
All of the previous risk analyses and data discussed [earlier in the report] were drawn using historical data collected in previous years. There is considerable delay around emissions inventory collection, air monitoring data collection, atmospheric modeling, and the calculated risk estimates’ being made public. Hence, these analyses speak best toward past and present trends. They often are less useful in predicting future risks, especially when sources and technologies are constantly changing. For example, better pollution mitigation and retrofitting processes should curtail future emissions from present levels. In addition, changing the profile of various industries within a region also will alter atmospheric chemistry and subsequent risks in future scenarios.
In recent years, there has been an unprecedented expansion of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia driven in part by the recent feasibility of hydraulic fracturing, which is part of a drilling procedure that allows for the tapping of the vast methane deposits contained in the Marcellus and Utica shales beneath Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Primarily, drillers are seeking to extract methane (CH4), the primary component of natural gas. However, a portion of the natural gas present in our area is considered “wet gas,” which includes heavier hydrocarbons like ethane, propane, and butane that are typically dissolved in a liquid phase or condensate. These compounds are separated from the methane to be marketed as such products as liquid propane or used as feedstock in numerous other chemical processes. Therefore, a high demand remains for wet gas deposits regardless of fluctuating natural gas (methane) market prices. Thus, a large-scale expansion in other industries (e.g., chemical manufacturing) is anticipated to follow UNGD; new industrial facilities are needed to support the refining of wet gas condensates. For example, an ethane cracker converts or “cracks” ethane, a by-product of natural gas, into ethylene so that it can be used in the production of plastics.
Located in Monaca, Pa. (Beaver County), about 12 miles east of the West Virginia border, is an aging zinc smelter owned by the Horsehead Corporation. The present Horsehead facility is currently the largest zinc refining site in the United States, producing metallic zinc and zinc oxide from recycled material and steelmaking waste. The plant opened in the 1920s to take advantage of the by-products of steel manufacturing and has expanded and modernized over time. It employed about 600 workers until recently, when the company announced its relocation to a new state-of-the-art facility in North Carolina in the near future. The scope of this metal-refining operation was such that it was a significant source of metals and criteria air pollutants.
Recently, Shell Chemical, U.S. subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, announced plans to build an ethane cracker in the northeast to take advantage of UNGD. Lured by substantial tax benefits and other economic incentives, Shell chose the former zinc smelting site in Monaca as its proposed new location for such a facility and, in March 2012, received the approval from Pennsylvania officials to build this petrochemical complex. The cracker, according to industry representatives, will be a multibillion-dollar structure and provide thousands of jobs for Pennsylvanians 43, 44. However, many of these jobs depend on the influx of concurrent industries and technologies, which are projected to follow in the wake of sufficient petrochemical refining facilities like the ethane cracker. Thus, it is not likely to be the sole source of pollutants in the area once constructed. Though plant construction remains years away, regional air pollutant composition and chemistry are poised to change as well. Adding to the issue is the fact that the zinc smelter, ranked as one of the worst air polluters in the country in 2002 45, will be decommissioned and have its operations moved to North Carolina.
Here, we will attempt to compare the pollutant profiles of the old and new air pollution sources in order to deduce potential air pollutant changes to existing air quality in the region. Previous emission inventories are available for the Horsehead zinc smelter (EPA Toxic Release Inventory for 2008) 46. Although the proposed cracker facility’s engineering specifics are not available yet, using the records of a similar existing wet gas processing plant, we can approximate the proposed cracker’s yearly emissions. In this case, we have chosen the similarly sized Williams Olefins Cracker Facility currently operating in Geismar, La., whose emissions profiles for 2008 also were available 46. This plant, owned by Williams Partners, L.P., processes approximately 37,000 barrels of ethane and 3,000 barrels of propane per day and annually produces 1.35 billion pounds of ethylene.
In assessing the emission inventories at the two sites, we first sought to compare those pollutants that were common to both facilities. Table 5 (above) compares the annual release of criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist. These include ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), lead, and carbon monoxide, for which health-based regulatory standards exist for their concentration in ambient air1. Not surprisingly, the zinc smelter released large amounts of lead into the air (five tons per year). The proposed ethane cracker, on the other hand, would release only trace amounts of lead into the air and about 0.1 percent of the sulfur dioxide, 3 percent of the carbon monoxide, and 50 percent of the nitrogen oxides of the zinc smelter. Overall, release of PM would be of a similar order of magnitude at the two sites. Thus, the representative cracker facility by itself emits less NAAQS criteria pollutants than the smelter facility.
Similarly, Table 6 (above) examines similarly reported HAPs released from both of the facilities in question. A comparison of available emissions inventories of HAPs reveals a list of common pollutants, including acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Note the projected increase in release of acrolein and VOCs by the proposed ethane cracker. The latter are a rather broad class of organic chemicals that have high vapor pressure (low boiling point), allowing appreciable concentrations in the air as a gaseous phase 47, 48. Examples of VOCs include formaldehyde, d-limonene, toluene, acetone, ethanol (ethyl alcohol), 2-propanol (isopropyl alcohol), and hexanal, among others. They are common components of paints, paint strippers, and other solvents; wood preservatives; aerosol sprays; cleansers and disinfectants; moth repellents and air fresheners; stored fuels and automotive products; hobby supplies; and dry-cleaned clothing. They also possess a diverse range of health effects, including, but not limited to, eye and throat irritation, nausea, headaches, nosebleeds, and skin rashes at low doses, and kidney, liver, and central nervous system damage at high doses. Some are known or suspected carcinogens. These chemicals are more often known for their role in indoor air pollution and have been linked to allergies and asthma 49. Recall that acrolein is already the primary driver of noncancer respiratory risk in the PRETA area, and releases from the proposed cracker would theoretically add to that burden.
Table 7 shows a compiled list of HAPs that were released from the Geismar plant in 2008 but not from the zinc smelter, highlighting the potential change in the pollutant mixture. For comparison, the pollutants highlighted in yellow represent those that are several orders of magnitude greater than those emitted by the Clairton Coke Works in 2008. Note the rather large emissions of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde that were discussed above as the number one and number five existing cancer drivers in the area.
Other VOCs of note include ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, methyl-tert-butyl ether and propionaldehyde. While all these pollutants may have toxic effects on their own, one of the primary concerns, especially in outdoor air, should be their ability to form secondary pollutants. For example, we have noted previously that both acetaldehyde and formaldehyde can be formed via photo-oxidation reactions of other hydrocarbons and VOCs. Thus, the direct emissions reported in the table are likely to be significant underestimations of the true burden of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde in the area near the cracker. It also should be mentioned that a complex nonlinear sensitivity exists among VOCs, NOX, and the production rate of ozone (O3). Most urban areas are considered NOX saturated or VOC sensitive and therefore have low VOC/NOX ratios. In these environments, ozone actually decreases with increasing NOX and increases with increasing VOCs—a potentially likely situation within the urban areas of Southwestern Pennsylvania.
In conclusion, it would appear that the replacement of the existing zinc smelter with the proposed ethane cracker has the potential to significantly transform the current pollutant mixture in the region. The elimination of lead and other heavy metal emissions would be replaced by increases in formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. In addition, it does not appear that the proposed ethane cracker alone would increase any of the NAAQS criteria air pollutants, with the possible exception of ozone. On the other hand, the rather large releases of several known cancer drivers, such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, from the proposed cracker could increase cancer risk in the immediate proximity. In addition, the large influx of VOCs and fugitive emissions from these operations warrants further predictive analysis, especially with regard to current pollution-mitigating strategies that may not be anticipating a transforming pollutant mix.
Authors and Credits
University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health Center for Healthy Environments and Communities
Pittsburgh, PA | August 2013
Authors
Drew Michanowicz, MPH, CPH
Kyle Ferrar, MPH
Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH
Matt Kelso, BA
Jill Kriesky, PhD
James P. Fabisiak, PhD
Technical Support
Department of Communications Services
Marygrace Reder, BA
Alison Butler, BA
43. Detrow , S. (2012). What’s an ethane cracker? StateImpact – Pennsylvania. Accessed 12-18-12: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/tag/ethane-cracker.
44. Kelso, M. (2012). Jobs impact of cracker facility likely exaggerated. FracTracker Alliance. Accessed 12-18-12: www.fractracker.org/2012/06/jobs-impact-of-cracker-facility-likely-exaggerated.
45. SCORECARD: The Pollution Information Site. (2002). Environmental Release Report: Zinc Corp. of America Monaca Smelter. Accessed 12-18-12: http://scorecard.goodguide.com/envreleases/facility.tcl?tri_id=15061ZNCCR300FR#major_chemical_releases.
46. U.S. EPA. (2008). Technology Transfer Network, Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors The National Emissions Inventory. The National Emissions Inventory. Accessed 1-25-13: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html.
47. U.S. EPA. (2012). An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). Volatile Organic Compounds. Accessed 12-18-12: www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html.
49. Nielsen, G.D., S.T. Larsen, O. Olsen, M. Lovik , L.K. Poulsen, C. Glue , and P. Wolkoff. (2007). Do indoor chemicals promote development of airway allergy? Indoor Air 17: pp. 236–255.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) releases unconventional oil and gas production and waste data twice a year. It is important to note that both datasets are self-reported from the industry, and there are usually a few operators who miss the reporting deadline. For that reason, FracTracker usually waits a week or so to capture the results of the fashionably late. However, after looking at the data, it is likely that there are still operators that have not yet reported.
Production
Production is perhaps the most important metric of the oil and gas industry. After all, if there were no production, there would be no point in drilling in the first place. Royalty payments for property owners are based on production values from the wells. More than that though, it can be an indication of hot spots, and to some degree, which operators are better at getting the product out of the ground than the rest of the field.
Location
Unconventional formations–especially the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale–underlie about two-thirds of Pennsylvania. However, that does not mean that if an operator drilling a hole in Clarion County can expect the same result as well in Sullivan County, for example. Production is unevenly distributed throughout the state:
Unconventional gas production in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Counties with above average production per well are highlighted in orange.
With 1.4 trillion cubic feet of gas production in half a year from unconventional wells, Pennsylvania has become a major leader in production. For a quick comparison to other regions of the country, see the Energy Information Administration, (although the EIA has apparently not felt inspired to update their data in a while).
It should be noted that there is also oil and condensate production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania, although that really amounts to a drop in the barrel, so to speak. Unlike the Bakken, where gas is seen as a byproduct that is routinely flared because there is no infrastructure ready to accept it, the Marcellus and Utica in Pennsylvania are really all about the gas. Some of the gas from the western part of the state is considered wet, with heavier hydrocarbons like ethane and propane mixed with the methane, but in terms of this report, there is no distinction between wet gas and dry gas, or pure methane. Eight out of 17 wells producing oil and 430 out of 505 wells producing condensate are located in Washington County.
Operators
The reason that production values are more telling for geographies than for operators is that most operators in Pennsylvania are limited to select portions of the state, where their leasing strategies were focused. Therefore, certain companies occupy the regions that yield higher production, while others are left trying to extract from less productive areas. So looking at production by operator does not necessarily reflect their skill at extraction, but it does does give a general impression of how much one of their wells is likely to produce, which could be useful for people trying to negotiate leases, among other considerations.
Unconventional gas production by operator in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. All production values are in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf). Operators with above average production are highlighted in orange.
Note that eight operators on the list have no data. Presumably, there are the operators that have not yet reported their data to the DEP, although it is possible that some of them could be defunct. Obviously, any missing data here would also be missing from the county totals. Alpha Shale is the clear leader in terms of production per well, with about 1.2 million Mcf per well. Citrus, Rice, and Chief occupy the next teir, with each exceeding an average of 700,000 Mcf. All four are relatively minor operators, however, with fewer than 100 wells reporting production. In terms of total production, Chesapeake blows the competition out of the water, with roughly the same production as the next two producers (Cabot and Range) combined.
Waste
Along with all of the profitable gas being produced in Pennsylvania comes all of the various waste products that are created in the process. Before jumping into the numbers, I’d like to point out that it is likely that operators who have not reported production also have not reported their contribution to the waste. In its current form, the waste report has 12,604 lines of data from 4,991 different unconventional wells. Here is a summary of the waste produced by type from unconventional formations in Pennsylvania:
Waste reported from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from January to June 2013. Note that one barrel equals 42 US gallons.
Some interesting things are revealed when sorting the waste type data by operator, although the resulting table is a little unweildy, even for me. But here are a few highlights:
Anadarko reported 99.5 percent of basic sediment production
Southwestern Energy produced more than twice as much drill cuttings (128,000 tons) as the next highest operator (Cabot: 50,000 tons)
Range Resources led the pack with 172,000 barrels of drilling fluid, with Chevron Appalachia (168,000 barrels) close behind
PA Gen Energy had the most flowback fracturing sand reported, with over 8,600 tons, despite having fewer than 100 producing wells.
Chevron Appalachia produced the most fracing fluid waste (934,000 barrels), with Range Resources coming in at number two (773,000 barrels). This is what Pennsylvania calls the flowback fluid; this is not the straight chemical additives that used in the hydraulic fracturing process, but those additives are included in this fluid
The most produced fluid, or formation brine, came from Range Resources wells (1.6 million barrels), followed by Chesapeake (1.4 million barrels)
82 percent of the servicing fluid reported was from Cabot (1,741 barrels)
100 percent of the spent lubricant was reported by SWEPI (19 barrels)
Amazingly, despite their overwhelming lead in gas production in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia did not have the most of any of the eight different waste types, and in some cases, were not even close:
Waste produced by Chesapeake Appalachia and the industry leader in each category from unconventional wells in PA between January and June 2013
The Pennsylvania waste data is also notable for including the disposal method of the waste:
Disposal method for unconventional waste from PA between January and June 2013
And for those who can handle one last table, Pennsylvania also tells us where the waste is disposed:
Destination of unconventional oil and gas waste in PA between January and June 2013, by state
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/chesapeake-waste1.png183562Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-08-20 14:47:362020-07-21 10:41:19PA Releases Unconventional Production and Waste Data
A couple of months ago, Laura Legere of the Scranton Times-Tribune published an article showing her research into determination letters sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in response to people who claimed that their groundwater had been impacted by oil and gas activity in the state. Of the 973 complaints represented on this dataset, the PADEP has determined a causality between the oil and gas activity and the water complaint in 162 instances. Note that not all of these complaints are necessarily as a result of the hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) stage of operations.
The FracTracker Alliance assisted in the project by creating an interactive map of the instances throughout the state. As the Scranton Times-Tribune has now made digital scans of each of the 973 records available on their servers, we have been able to link to them on the map.
In this screen capture, the popup box for the first of eleven complaints mapped at this location is shown. In order to access the determination letter, the user must simply click on the PDF logo.
Names, addresses, and other personal information about the complainants have been removed from this dataset in order to protect their privacy. And because the locations are drawn at the center-point of the municipality in which they live, we can get a general sense for the distribution of the events without being able to zoom in one the affected parties’ houses.
To get an idea of what the determination letters look like, here is one example in which the PADEP indicates that someone’s water supply has been impacted by gas drilling:
A portion of one of the determination letters sent by PADEP to a landowner in response to a complaint about groundwater. Click the image to access the full PDF file.
Here is the dynamic version of the map of the complaints:
Please click on the Fullscreen icon to load our full suite of controls.
This updated data has also been added to the US Map of Suspected Well Water Impact project:
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) publishes unconventional oil and gas production data twice a year. In its raw form, the data show the production values per well for a given six month period, either January to June or July to December. The FracTracker Alliance has aggregated the five most recent unconventional production reports in Pennsylvania, and organized the data by well.
PA Production data from July 2010 through December 2012. To learn more about the map and access additional tools, please click the Fullscreen icon. To access well production data, please zoom in to 1:750,000 (about the size of a county), then click any well icon.
In the thirty months represented in this data, unconventional wells in Pennsylvania produced almost 3.4 trillion cubic feet of gas, about 490,000 barrels of oil, and 2.8 million barrels of condensate. In terms of geographic distribution, there are thirty-three different counties producing gas, seven counties producing oil, and nine counties producing condensate.
Gas production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP
Over two trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or sixty-one percent of gas production, came from Bradford, Greene, Lycoming, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Washington counties during this period.
Oil production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP
Over 97 percent of oil production from Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells during the two and a half year period was from Washington County.
Condensate production by PA county from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP
In addition to providing most of the oil, almost 92 percent of the condensate from Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells came from Washington County as well. Greene County reported 0.01 barrels of condensate production through the thirty month period, but the values here have been rounded to the nearest integer.
We can also look at the production data sorted by operator:
Gas production in Bcf by operator from July 2010 to December 2012. Source: PADEP
And finally, we can use this data to compare operators in terms of production per well. Below are the normalized production values for the state’s top 20 unconventional gas producers:
Production per well in thousands of cubic feet (Mcf) by Pennsylvania unconventional operator from July 2010 to December 2012. Note that the well count includes wells reporting production, not the total number of wells on the report.
The aggregated production data can be obtained from our Downloads page.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/gas-operator.png4491069Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-06-13 14:21:422020-07-21 10:41:14PA Unconventional Production Data Aggregated
Get trained to work with our new mapping platform: FracMapper
Mountain Watershed Association (MWA) and the FracTracker Alliance are offering free, hands-on training sessions for citizens who would like to utilize the new mapping capacities available through www.FracTracker.org, a web-based tool for tracking and visualizing data related to shale gas extraction operations.
Unconventional natural gas extraction has increased in this region over the last few years. The associated environmental and public health concerns have created a desire to track where drilling is occurring near vulnerable populations and areas. These trainings will show people how to find where drilling operations are located and learn more about them. The tool is already being used by citizen water monitoring volunteers and community advocates with the MWA’s Marcellus Citizen Stewardship Project.
WHO: Training by Mountain Watershed Association (MWA) and the FracTracker Alliance
WHAT: Free, hands-on training sessions for citizens to track and visualize data related to shale gas extraction operations through www.FracTracker.org.
WHEN: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
WHERE: Locations for each date are listed below. Please bring your own laptop unless the event is marked with an asterisk (*). This symbol indicates that the training space is in a computer lab, so won’t need to bring your own computer.
Training Dates and Locations
Date
Location
February 26, 2103
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh, Washington, PA
March 26, 2013*
Slippery Rock University, Slippery Rock, PA
June 3, 2103
Murrysville Community Library, Murrysville, PA
June 18, 2103*
Fayette County Career and Technical Institute, 175 Georges Fairchance Rd., Uniontown, PA 15401
June 26, 2013*
St. Vincent College, The Sis and Herman Dupré Science Pavilion, West Building, Room WG02, 300 Fraser Purchase Rd, Latrobe, PA, 15650
July 30, 2103*
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (Oakland), PC Center, 4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213
October 7, 2103
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Keith 232, Indiana, PA
Register
For more information and to register for an upcoming training, please contact Kathryn Hilton: kathryn@mtwatershed.com, 724-455-4200 Ext 4.
These training sessions are made possible through the support of the Heinz Endowments.
# # #
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/FracMapperSidebarIcon-e1366034758423.jpg212278FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2013-06-13 09:00:332020-07-21 10:41:14Upcoming Trainings for Mapping Shale Gas Drilling via FracTracker.org
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) publishes data on unconventional oil and gas permits, drilled wells, and violations. The FracTracker Alliance has taken this data, and summarized it by month:
Permits issued, wells drilled, and violations issued for unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania from January 2005 through May 2013.
There are numerous ways to interpret the raw data, to the point where it is easy to get bogged down in the specifics. Still, a certain amount of discussion is merited to understand that answers to questions like, “How many unconventional oil and gas violations are there in Pennsylvania?” are fundamentally interpretive in nature, based on the available data. For example, there are often multiple actions for a single well API number that appear in the permits report, and likewise multiple actions for a single violation ID number that has been issued. In this analysis, we have counted only the first action for each of these.
Here are some more summary details about the data:
This table shows a summary of unconventional oil and gas data in PA by month.
The top section shows summaries of monthly counts of permits, drilled wells, and violations, while the second section shows the frequency of the monthly totals reaching specified targets, and the third section shows the total numbers that were used for the analysis. For example, we can see in the top section that the maximum number of violations issued in a month is 160, so there are zero instances where the monthly total of violations reached the target of being greater than 200. And while there have been four months since January 2005 where there have been no unconventional permits issued in the state (the most recent being in September 2005, incidentally), this has happened 21 times on the violations report.
From PennEnvironment comes a great resource for those who are trying to keep up with the ever-changing political environment in Pennsylvania: a list of PA gas legislation related to unconventional natural gas extraction. Many thanks to Kristen Tobin, Erika Staaf, and colleagues for making this information easily accessible to the public.
The listed will be updated periodically when new information becomes available. If you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please contact Erika. This list is organized alphabetically by the bill name/number. Last updated: June 3, 2013
An Act amending Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for subjects of local taxation and for valuation of property. Legislation Providing for a County Assessment on Oil and Gas.
Jan. 9, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for requirements for natural gas suppliers and for requirements for electric generation suppliers. Legislation to Prohibit Certain Fees by Electric Generation Suppliers and Natural Gas Suppliers.
Jan. 10, 2013 – Referred to House Committee of Consumer Affairs
An Act amending the act of July 11, 2006 (P.L.1134, No.115), known as the Dormant Oil and Gas Act, further providing for purpose, for definitions and for creation of trust for unknown owners.
Jan. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of July 11, 2006 (P.L.1134, No.115), known as the Dormant Oil and Gas Act, providing for oil and gas estate abandonment and for preservation of interests in oil and gas.
Jan. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for distribution of fee and for Statewide initiatives; providing for the PA Sunshine Solar Program; and making a related repeal.
Feb. 13, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas fleet vehicle tax credit; and imposing penalties.
Apr. 24, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Finance
An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas corridor tax credit; and imposing penalties.
An Act imposing duties on lessees of oil and natural gas leases; and providing for the recording of releases from oil and natural gas leases and of affidavits of termination or cancellation.
Jan. 29, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of May 17, 1929 (P.L.1798, No.591), referred to as the Forest Reserves Municipal Financial Relief Law, providing for distribution of timber, wood products and gas and oil ground rentals and royalties.
Jan. 30, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act providing for the erosion and sedimentation program to be administered by delegation agreements between the Department of Environmental Protection and conservation districts. Co-sponsorship of Legislation – Provides for Erosion & Sedimentation Agreements Between DEP and County Conservation Districts.
Feb. 4, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L.177, No.175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, in powers and duties of Department of General Services and its departmental administrative and advisory boards and commissions, further providing for State heating system to be fueled by coal or natural gas. State heating system to be fueled by coal or natural gas
Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on State Government
An Act providing for a moratorium on leasing lands owned and managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the purposes of oil and natural gas development.
Mar. 11, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, further providing for well permits, for general gas storage reservoir operations and for regulations.
Mar. 14, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of March 4, 1971 (P.L.6, No.2), known as the Tax Reform Code of 1971, providing for a natural gas farm equipment conversion tax credit. Natural Gas Farm Equipment Conversion Tax Credit.
Mar. 18, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Finance
An Act amending Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for sliding scale of rates and adjustments and for duties of natural gas distribution companies. Co-sponsorship – Representative Payne – amend Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act.
Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.183, No.60), entitled “An act regulating the terms and conditions of certain leases regarding natural gas and oil,” further providing for validity of leases and guaranteeing a royalty; adding definitions; providing for apportionment; further providing for commencement of guaranteed royalty; providing for payment information to interest owners and for accumulation of proceeds from production; and making editorial changes. Transparency of Deductions from Royalty Checks.
May 16, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energyy
A Resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States to repeal the provision in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act that exempts oil and gas industries from restrictions on hydraulic fracturing operations located near drinking water sources, and to require oil and gas industries to disclose all hydraulic fracturing chemicals and chemical constituents in the event of a medical emergency.
Feb. 25, 2013 – Referred to Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
A Resolution supporting continued and increased development and delivery of oil derived from North American oil reserves to American refineries and urging the President and Congress of the United States to support the continued and increased production and use of American natural gas. Resolution re: Gas Prices and Domestic Oil Drilling.
Apr. 16, 2013 – Referred to House Committee on State Government
An Act amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in arson, criminal mischief and other property destruction, providing for the offense of interfering with agricultural operations.
An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in development, providing for gas mineral rights lease agreement disclosure and indemnification.
Jan. 15, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act transferring funds from the Oil and Gas Lease Fund to the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority Fund for investments in Pennsylvania-related companies that promote the development of next-generation infrastructure technologies or technology-related investments to support development of life science, information technology or green energy industries.
Feb. 1, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of July 9, 2008 (1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1873, No.1), known as the Alternative Energy Investment Act, further providing for alternative and clean energy supply chain initiatives. Solar & Natural Gas Supply Chain Initiative.
Feb. 4, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Community, Economic and Recreational Development
An Act amending Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in particular rights and immunities, providing for actions to quiet title involving subsurface rights. Abandonment of Mineral Rights
Jan. 17, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending the act of July 20, 1979 (P.L.183, No.60), entitled “An act regulating the terms and conditions of certain leases regarding natural gas and oil,” adding definitions; providing for payment information to interest owners for accumulation of proceeds from production; and making editorial changes. Division Order for Royalties
Feb. 5, 2013(50-0) [Senate] –Third consideration and final passage
An Act establishing a program for the purchase of certain types of environmental liability insurance and for subsidies for the costs of premiums; and providing for powers and duties of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Jan. 24, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, consolidating the Oil and Gas Conservation Law with modifications relating to definitions, standard unit order, process, administration, standard of review, hearings and appeals, establishment of units, integration of various interests, lease extension and scope; providing for gas and hazardous liquids pipelines; and making a related repeal.
Jan. 31, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 27 (Environmental Resources) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for definitions, for eligibility and project inventory, for landowner liability limitation and exceptions, for project liability limitation and exceptions and for exceptions. Use of Acid Mine Water for Hydraulic Fracturing and Industrial Applications.
Feb. 12, 2013 – First consideration
Mar. 13, 2013 -Laid on the table
An Act relating to safe drinking water; establishing the Emergency Drinking Water Support Fund; and providing for testing, for purchase of clean drinking water and for surcharge. Well Water Testing Fund
Feb. 8, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act providing for a moratorium on leasing State forest lands for the purposes of natural gas exploration, drilling or production; imposing duties on the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and providing for report contents and for Legislative Budget and Finance Committee study. Moratorium on Leasing State Forest Land for Natural Gas Drilling
Feb. 21, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act amending Title 58 (Oil and Gas) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, further providing for protection of water supplies. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP
Mar. 1, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act providing for distribution system extension and expansion plans to increase natural gas usage in this Commonwealth. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Expansion and Development Initiative. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP
May 7, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations
An Act amending the act of July 9, 2008 (1st Sp.Sess., P.L.1873, No.1), known as the Alternative Energy Investment Act, further providing for Commonwealth Financing Authority. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP
May 7, 2013 – Re-Referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations
An Act amending the act of June 28, 1995 (P.L.89, No.18), known as the Conservation and Natural Resources Act, further providing for forests. Legislation to Require A Public Hearing Before Leasing State Land. Co Sponsorship: Water Testing Results by DEP
May 15, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy
An Act enacting a moratorium on unconventional well natural gas drilling in the Commonwealth. The moratorium would prohibit the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) from issuing new unconventional well permits while a seven member commission studies the varied environmental impacts that the natural gas industry has on the Commonwealth. .
A Resolution directing the Center for Rural Pennsylvania to study the potential for increased residential, commercial and industrial natural gas distribution infrastructure by Pennsylvania’s public utilities to unserved and underserved areas of this Commonwealth.
A Resolution directing the Department of General Services to conduct a study to determine the associated costs and feasibility of converting and retrofitting State-owned vehicles with compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas engines for the purpose of modernizing the State fleet. State Fleet Natural Gas Vehicle Study.
Mar. 1, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on State Government
A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study of the establishment, implementation and administration of fees for the consumptive use and degradation of water. Consumptive Use of Water
Mar. 13, 2013 – Referred to Environmental Resources and Energy
A Resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct a study on the feasibility and effectiveness of converting the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority bus system to natural gas fuel. LBFC Natural Gas Fuel Study for SEPTA Buses. Consumptive Use of Water
Apr. 4, 2013 – Referred to Senate Committee on Transportation
As the forests beckon us to return to their paths now that winter has subsided (hopefully), let’s take a look at the reports we received over the winter for our Trail Logbook Project.
Impacts Summary
Reports came from several counties, but the majority of complaints focused on the impacts of drilling in Loyalsock State Forest.
Counties:
Clinton
Centre
Lycoming
Warren
Sullivan
Suspected Causes:
Existing gas line
Shallow gas wells
Truck traffic
Pipeline construction
Drilling/hydraulic fracturing
Impoundment
Seismic Testing
Main Trails Affected:
Loyalsock State Forest trails
Eddy Lick Trail Loop
Minister Creek Trail
Impacts Reported (in descending order according to frequency):
Unpleasant odors
Confrontation with gas company employees, contractors, security personnel
Noise impacts
Potential degradation/contamination of a stream, spring, lake, or pond, brine in the water at ANF pump
Visual impacts (degradation of scenery)
Logbook Quotes
Drilling has largely overtaken this tract of Loyalsock State Forest. I would say that drilling has completely eclipsed the recreational aspect of the tract. Indeed, the tract seems to have been transformed into an industrial forest. I came here for hiking and nature photography, but I felt as though I were a guest on Seneca-owned land, not a visitor to public land paid for by the citizens of Pennsylvania. I noticed no other visitors in the tract, too; everyone I saw was a Seneca employee. The scenic vista on Bodine Mountain Road (noted on the Loyalsock State Forest map) was less than scenic when I visited; many drilling pads (some near, some far) were seen. The noise from trucks and compressors also diminished the recreational aspect. I won’t return here until most of the drilling ends.
This stream, Minister Creek, is a “Safe” zone for Brook Trout. It now has areas of bubbles and a thin oil sheen on its surface in addition to the Brine taste at the pump.
While setting up campsite just off the Loyalsock Trail at the old CCC Camp on Sandstone Lane, I heard an approaching Crew Truck with a loudspeaker blasting radio conversation with supervisors. As the Lane had been damaged in recent storms, they tried to drive thru a meadow and right thru my Campsite. There was no opening in the trees wide enough to pass and I told them so. They went back to the lane and bored thru the rutted, flood-gouged lane past my camp…
Recommendations from Citizen Reports
Where roads are narrow, especially in forested areas, there are often checkpoints set up by the operators in order to control two-way traffic. Often signs are not sufficiently visible/present/clear, so motorists may not realize the new rules. In Loyalsock State Forest, this has been an issue. As such, below are recreationalists’ recommendations regarding ways to reduce or avoid the issues currently arising from gas operations in this and other public areas:
Seneca Resources Corp. and the DCNR should work together to better educate visitors on the need to stop at every checkpoint in this tract of Loyalsock State Forest (or in any forested area that is frequented by recreationalists).
At each of the two entrances (Hagerman Run Road and Grays Run Road) to the tract from Pennsylvania Route 14, post a large, prominent sign about the need to stop at every checkpoint for two-way traffic control;
Post clearly visible signs at every checkpoint; and
On the DCNR Web site in the Advisories section of the Loyalsock State Forest page, post information about roads affected by two-way traffic control and the need to stop at checkpoints. (Currently, information about such roads is posted on the Road Advisories page on the DCNR Web site, but accessing this page from the home page is challenging. Also, the Road Advisories page doesn’t mention that motorists need to stop at checkpoints.)
More Information
Visit the Trail Logbook Project landing page for more information about this initiative, our partners, and to submit your own report.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Logbook-FracTracker-Postcard-Front.jpg10001500FracTracker Alliancehttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngFracTracker Alliance2013-05-14 10:17:422020-07-21 10:40:59Winter Summary of the Trail Logbook Project
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently published its biannual reports for production and waste from unconventional wells throughout the state for the last half of 2012. FracTracker has learned the hard way not to be too eager in analyzing this data. In the previous cycle, this data was released without the contribution several operators, one of which happened to be the biggest player in the state, Chesapeake Appalachia. That incident prompted the inclusion of a data disclaimer from DEP, which includes the following text:
The Oil and Gas Act reporting is a self-reporting system, meaning that data is reported from producers to DEP as required by law. All production data is posted as it was received from the unconventional well operators. DEP does not independently verify the data before it is posted.
While the Oil and Gas Act requires accurate and on-time data reporting by producers, and the producers and DEP endeavor to correct any errors discovered after the data is posted, DEP makes no claims, promises or guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the operators’ data that DEP is required to post.
While considering content regarding production and waste in Pennsylvania, it is worth noting that the DEP considers the data to belong to the various operators. All data for this post was downloaded on February 25, 2013, and while it seems reasonably complete, it is important to note that there could be operators which have not posted their data to DEP in a timely fashion.
PA Production and Waste From Unconventional Wells: July 2012 to December 2012. Click on any map icon for more information, or click the “Fullscreen” button at the top right of the map to access more toolbars. To access data for individual wells, viewers must zoom in to 1:750,000, or an area equivalent to several counties.
The default map frame includes most of the activity for unconventional oil and gas production and waste from Pennsylvania, but if you zoom out, you can find a landfill in southwestern Idaho that accepted 11 tons of flowback fracturing sand for disposal. Unfortunately, the available data does not give any indication of why an operator might choose to ship waste over 2,000 miles away from its source.
Below are the six month statewide production and waste totals for Pennsylvania’s unconventional wells, including the number of wells that contributed to each total:
Production from unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from July to December 2012. Mcf represents 1,000 cubic feet, and barrels measure 42 US gallons.
The total gas produced was over 1.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) for the six month period, which was over 250 billion cubic feet (Bcf) higher than the previous total of 895 Bcf.
Waste produced by unconventional wells in Pennsylvania from June to December 2012.
And here is a look at the disposal method for each type of waste, in terms of percentage:
Disposal methods of Pennsylvania unconventional oil and gas waste products, in terms of percentage of the waste type. July – December 2012.
Note that while road spreading rounds down to 0%, 425 barrels of produced fluid were used in this effort.
https://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/waste_2012b.png204389Matt Kelso, BAhttps://www.fractracker.org/a5ej20sjfwe/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-FracTracker-logo-horizontal.pngMatt Kelso, BA2013-03-01 15:42:032020-07-21 10:40:56Six Months of Production and Waste From PA’s Unconventional Wells
Read Full Report (PDF)
