PA Shale Viewer

PA Shale Viewer.

A Public Wiki Shines Light on North America’s 4 Million Oil & Gas Wells | InsideClimate News

A Public Wiki Shines Light on North America’s 4 Million Oil & Gas Wells | InsideClimate News.

New Utica Assessment USGS vs Selleck maps.pdf

New Utica Assessment USGS vs Selleck maps.pdf.

An Interactive Air-Pollution Map – Angel Hsu and Alisa Zomer – The Atlantic

An Interactive Air-Pollution Map – Angel Hsu and Alisa Zomer – The Atlantic.

Brine spreading on NY roads

Riverkeeper obtained from NYS DEC records from 2011-2013 documenting brine-spreading on NYS’s roads. FracTracker has now mapped that information.http://maps.fractracker.org/latest/?appid=eb1904df42c848ed967a48c52e873c91
Inline image 1
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Mary Menapace <msmenapace@gmail.com> wrote:

The person I spoke with answered the phone so likely knew not much.
The HEADQUARTERS of env products and svcs are in Syracuse – they are a big outfit.  They have facilities in PA, and from what I was told there are no storage facilities nor transport of PA waste from their outfit from PA to NY – they store it there in PA.  Just opened another facility near Pittsburgh.  the space they have here in syracuse is not large.
warrants more looking into but their facilities in PA are huge so I do not doubt they are not bringing it to store here anyway.  needs a looksee on how they have to report disposal…and where.  likely is coming to NY but I sorta doubt Syracuse.
Mary
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:34 PM, William Huston <williamahuston@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks very much for calling, Mary.

That’s troubling. The person you spoke with either was mis-informed,
… or worse.

I used 2 Fractracker maps to begin my inquiry:
This map shows Syracuse received “Fracing Fluid Waste” = 37.96 BBLs
http://www.fractracker.org/2012/03/where-does-the-waste-from-pas-marcellus-wells-go/

This map makes a connection to the waste facility and particular wells:
http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8bd41c4a84e446269b8e4b136aa5b633
Wells are: HEPLER D 235 2H, 7H, 3H, 5H

From this I was able to grab the PA Waste data for 2013:
https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/DataExports/DataExports.aspx

And sorted on facility Zip Code.

Sure enough, it’s all there. (see attached).
Each well contributed 9.49 BBLs x4 = 37.96 BBLs.

37.96 BBLs * 43 gal/BBL = ~1632.3 gal.
The big tanker trucks which haul brine are various sizes.
A: 4,600 gal (106 BBLs) This triaxle vaccum trucks are extremely common around Susquehanna County
B: 5,600 gal (130 BBLs) These trucks haul landfil leachate from Waterloo to Endicott
C: 9,300 gal (216 BBLs) Larger trucks, like those that haul gasoline, also Waterloo to Endicott

So, ~38 BBLs is a relatively small amount of fluid,
one of the smaller vacuum trucks ~1/3 full. 
The largest 1,100 gal “water buffalos” in PA are ~26 BBLs.
Still, interesting they didn’t give you the straight story…BH

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Mary Menapace <msmenapace@gmail.com> wrote:
As for Syracuse –
Vermont Env Products and Services headquarters are in Syracuse.  On PA DEP site they are listed as taking “used frack fluid for storage and ultimate disposal.”
I called their HQ here in Syracuse and was told no PA wastes are coming to Syracuse – they have a couple of large ‘storage’ facilities in PA, one east and one west I believe – where they store the “used frack fluid.”  was assured none is coming to  Onondaga county, who  just passed a county wide waste ban.
I asked about definition of used FF – the person did not know – and I asked about radioactivity, keeping workers and equipment safe etc. – and she said that Env. Products and Svcs are not licensed for two types of waste – explosive or radioactive so what they deal with in PA cannot be radioactive “or they would have to tell us.”  yeah.
Response to where “ultimately disposed of”  – vague.  Response to where “Reused?” – to frack.”
So I wrote the company rep on the website and asked about same – composition of used FF, disposal, reuse destinations, radioactivity – never got an answer.  Have not had time to circle back yet.
Mary
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Bernhard <mikebernhard@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Have you asked the woman in New Hartford to check with her highway dept?
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:23 PM
Subject: [nygrass] Qs about PA drilling wastes coming into NY
I have 5 specific questions which I hope you can help answer. 
1) Have PA drilling wastes been received at Watertown NY? (landfill or POTW)2) Have PA drilling wastes been received at Auburn NY? (landfill or POTW)

These claims were made here, but I’ve never seen this mentioned anywhere else:
http://www.bluemtpreservation.org/editorspagenew61.html

3) Are PA drilling wastes being being spread on NY roads?

I have heard the above as rumors, however I have found no authoritative source.
This article 
suggests it, but offers no proof. A woman from New Hartford (Oneida Co.)
just contacted me reporting a orange-brown fluid spread on her roads.
Do you have direct knowledge of this? Published source?

Where we know the wastes are going:

The existing research I’ve seen lists the following sites as having accepted
drilling wastes from PA:

  • Chemung Co. Landfill, Lowman (source: Fractracker, etc)
  • C & D Hakes Landfill, Painted Post (souce: Fractracker, etc)
  • Cuylerville desalinization plant (source: Livingston County News)
  • Hyland Landfill, Angelica NY (Mantius, Fractracker)
  • Seneca Meadows Landfill, Waterloo (Fractracker)
  • Allied Landfill, Niagara Falls, NY (Fractracker)
  • EPS of Vermont, Syracuse (Fractracker) 

4) Do you know of other sites directly taking PA drilling wastes? 

Here are places taking PA drilling wastes indirectly, via landfill leachate from direct sources:

  • Huron Campus/EIT (now i3 Electronics), Endicott (from Seneca Meadows, DEC and other sources)

5) Do you know of other INDIRECT sites receiving landfill leachate from direct sources? 

Thanks!

 

Toxics Targeting has archive of DEC approvals for spreading brine on roads:  http://www.toxicstargeting.  com/MarcellusShale/documents/2011/07/21/wastewater-spreading  These were not included in the Riverkeeper FOIA request results.

Orphaned NY Oil and Gas Wells

Orphaned NY Oil and Gas Wells.

by Ron Bishop

Jan, 2012

History of Oil and Gas Well Abandonment in New York Ronald E. Bishop, Ph.D., C.H.O.Chemistry & Biochemistry Department SUNY College at OneontaSustainable Otsego, January 8, 2012Summary:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the

success of New York State’s

regulatoryprogram for the oil and gas industry with respect to post‐production plugging andreclamation. Annual reports from the Division of Mineral Resources, New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation over the last twenty‐five years portray an oiland gas industry which has consistently neglected to plug most (89%) of its depleted wells.In this regard, the most recent record has been the worst: Plugging percentage ratesranged from 3.5 to 7.1% t

hroughout the 2000’s.

Further, there is no program, existing or proposed, to periodically monitor and repair plugged and abandoned wells which have begun to leak. Therefore, new plugging and reclamation guidelines presented in the revised draft Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (rdSGEIS Section 5.17 ) , and proposed new regulations for plugging and abandoning depleted oil and gas wells (

6 NYCRR Section555.5 ) are inadequate. Moreover, they are mere academic exercises: Unless the State of New York State does something to dramatically alter the long‐standing culture of neglect,we can reasonably expect oil and gas industry operators to ignore any new standards just as they systematically ignore existing standards today

Map of oil and gas spills in Colorado flood area | Amy Mall’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

Map of oil and gas spills in Colorado flood area | Amy Mall’s Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC.

SNL: Data Dispatch: Shale boom, proposed LNG export terminals driving pipeline development | SNL

SNL: Data Dispatch: Shale boom, proposed LNG export terminals driving pipeline development | SNL.

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

Registered Water Withdrawals in New York State

– JULY 14, 2013POSTED IN: ARTICLESDATA AND ANALYSIS

By Karen Edelstein, NY Program Coordinator, FracTracker Alliance

As of April 1, 2013, new regulations 6 NYCRR Parts 601 and 621 in New York State have been in effect that require users of large quantities of water to apply for withdrawal permits. The largest users of water—those with withdrawals of more than 100 million gallons per day—are the first group required to apply. The permit system then adds users on a yearly basis, targeting systems with decreasingly need. In 2014, the target group is users of 10-100 million gallons/day; in 2015, it is 2-10 million gallons/day, and so on. The full schedule is in Table 1, below. There are no fees associated with this permitting process.

In order to assess the geographic impacts of these varying uses, attorney Rachel Treichler submitted a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. FracTracker Alliance assisted her in this effort by visualizing the data. Treichler believes that the new regulations make it virtually impossible for DEC to balance competing needs between large and small users.

In this interactive map, larger dots signify larger withdrawal. Click on each dot in the map to get more information.

Yellow: 0.0001-0.5 million gal/day
Light green: 0.5001-2 million gal/day
Dark green: 2.001-10 million gal/day
Medium blue: 10.001-100 million gal/day
Dark blue: >100 million gal/day

Until the adoption of these permitting requirements, water withdrawals in New York were governed by riparian rights determined by case law. Riparian rights are correlative–they fluctuate depending on the needs of other users and the amount of water available. Although the new regulations affirm that riparian rights will not be affected by the granting of permits, there is concern that users granted permits for stated amounts of water usage may be reluctant to adjust to the needs of other users in times of water scarcity. In New York State, both the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) have strong regulatory authority over withdrawals, and the new New York regulations provide that withdrawals subject to permitting by these commissions are exempt from the permitting requirements of the regulations. Comparable commissions with authority to regulate water withdrawals do not exist in the Great Lakes watershed, which includes the Finger Lakes Region, or in the other watersheds in the state, and in these watersheds, the permitting requirements of the regulations are the only generally-applicable water permitting requirements.

Currently, New York State has an abundance of water—there is certainly enough to go around to meet domestic and commercial uses. However, with climate change, continued population growth, and the potential for an uptick in hydrofracking throughout the Marcellus and Utica Shale region, the possibility for New York State being asked to sell or export our water increases considerably.

Under the current system, even by 2017, withdrawal permits will not be required for daily use under 100,000 gallons. While cumbersome, it would not be difficult for a typical hydrofracked site to sidestep any withdrawal permitting process if the water were removed over the course of several days by several different private haulers, particularly if the water were hauled any distance. It is conceivable that the gas drilling industry could readily exploit this loophole in the regulations.

Table 1. Dates by which Application for Initial Permit Must Be Completed

June 1, 2013 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume of 100 million gallons per day (mgd) or more
Feb. 15, 2014 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 10 mgd but less than 100 mgd
Feb. 15, 2015 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 2 mgd but less than 10 mgd
Feb. 15, 2016 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.5 mgd but less than 2 mgd
Feb. 15, 2017 Systems that withdraw or are designed to withdraw a volume equal to or greater than 0.1 but less than 0.5 mgd

Shale Gas Impacts on Northeastern PA

~GEA867.kmz – Google Maps.

Map of Well pads, pipelines, chemical spills, compressor stations….et.al. in Northeastern PA

You can zoom in and click on the symbols
and get an idea what the various symbols are for.

Here is a legend:
  • https://i0.wp.com/maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/pushpin/ylw-pushpin.png
    Yellow pushpins = permitted pads;
  • https://i2.wp.com/maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/shapes/gas_stations.png
    Yellow gas stations = fracked or producing wells;
  • https://i0.wp.com/maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/pushpin/red-pushpin.png
    Red pushpins  = compressor stations
  • https://i1.wp.com/www.totalsonic.net/meganmedia/image/BrownPushpinPNG.png
    Brown pushpins  = pipeline impact areas
    (only areas requiring permits – road or stream xing, wetlands, etc.)
  • https://i2.wp.com/us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/jojobob/jojobob0910/jojobob091000011/5727362-a-four-coloured-brown-bulls-eye-target.jpg
    Brown circles = permitted hydrostatic testing discharge points;
  • https://i1.wp.com/maps.google.com/mapfiles/ms/micons/blue-dot.png
    Blue drops = alternate waste management pits for fracked water
  • https://i2.wp.com/www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20080301/Black-Push-Pin-638286.jpg
    Black pushpins = administrative violations, spill, contamination
  • https://i2.wp.com/maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/shapes/water.png
    Wavy water = water withdrawal point

I will try to add this legend to the map itself.

BH