Marcellus Shale Development and Impacts to Surface Water Quality: preliminary results and planned research from the Acad

2. Marcellus Shale Development and Impacts to Surface Water Quality: preliminary results and planned research from the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University

3. Global energy mix

4. Many take the fossil fuel era and the wealth it has generated for granted. Ephemeral nature of fossil fuel era. What guided us into the era? Why did this take place when and how it did? What will guide us out of the fossil fuel era?Many take the fossil fuel era and the wealth it has generated for granted. Ephemeral nature of fossil fuel era. What guided us into the era? Why did this take place when and how it did? What will guide us out of the fossil fuel era?

8. Impacts to Pennsylvania Ecosystems Surface Disturbance and Land Use Aquatic Resources and Development Summary of the Pilot Study Description of 2011 Surface Water Impact Study at ANS

11. April 2011 – approaching 3000 wells Barnet peaked at 200 rigs, smaller geographical area Development depends on leases – lease size can deturmine if greater spacing is an optionApril 2011 – approaching 3000 wells Barnet peaked at 200 rigs, smaller geographical area Development depends on leases – lease size can deturmine if greater spacing is an option

12. modeling approach known as maximum entropy (Maxent 3.3.3a, Princeton University). Maximum entropy was used to find relationships between 1,461 existing and permitted well pad locations and variables that might be relevant to a company’s decision to drill a Marcellus well. Such variables were chosen based on data availability and included Marcellus Shale depth, thickness and thermal maturity as well as percent slope, distance to pipelines, and distance to roads. The model produces a raster surface that represents the probability of an area to potentially support future gas well development. An additional 487 existing and permitted wells were used to test the validity of the model’s probability surface and the model was found to be 80% accurate in predicting existing and permitted wells from randomly sampled undeveloped areas.modeling approach known as maximum entropy (Maxent 3.3.3a, Princeton University). Maximum entropy was used to find relationships between 1,461 existing and permitted well pad locations and variables that might be relevant to a company’s decision to drill a Marcellus well. Such variables were chosen based on data availability and included Marcellus Shale depth, thickness and thermal maturity as well as percent slope, distance to pipelines, and distance to roads. The model produces a raster surface that represents the probability of an area to potentially support future gas well development. An additional 487 existing and permitted wells were used to test the validity of the model’s probability surface and the model was found to be 80% accurate in predicting existing and permitted wells from randomly sampled undeveloped areas.

13. 71% DCNR lands in Marcellus Fairway 71% DCNR lands in Marcellus Fairway

15. 1. Modeled well pads were not relocated if they occurred in old fields or agricultural fields. 2. Modeled well pads that occurred in forest or edge habitat were moved but well pads were placed in the same general areas as the modeled well pad; 3. Attempts were made to avoid placing relocated well pads any closer that the minimum distance between pads, as specified by the medium scenario (1260 m ) 4. Agriculture, cleared land (e.g., former strip mines), or otherwise opened land cover was favored over forest or edges for relocating well pads; 5. If the well pad could not be placed in an open area, forest edges were favored over deep interior forest; 6. Residential areas were avoided. Relocated well pads were placed at least 500 feet (150 m) from homes; 7. Wetlands, water, steep slopes, cliffs, rock outcrops, creeks and rivers, buildings and manicured lawns were avoided; 8. Relocated well pads were only placed in areas with similar to those that supported modeled pads. 9. Relocated well pads often were connected to roads using existing trails, paths and openings whenever detectable on aerial photo imagery (used Bing Maps and 2005-2006 PA Map imagery); 10. The same number of relocated well pads were placed on state lands and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy lands as they were in the modeled output; 11. When the modeled well pad occurred within a forest patch with no nearby alternative locations (due to proximity of other wells or environmental constraints), the projected well pad was not relocated 1. Modeled well pads were not relocated if they occurred in old fields or agricultural fields. 2. Modeled well pads that occurred in forest or edge habitat were moved but well pads were placed in the same general areas as the modeled well pad; 3. Attempts were made to avoid placing relocated well pads any closer that the minimum distance between pads, as specified by the medium scenario (1260 m ) 4. Agriculture, cleared land (e.g., former strip mines), or otherwise opened land cover was favored over forest or edges for relocating well pads; 5. If the well pad could not be placed in an open area, forest edges were favored over deep interior forest; 6. Residential areas were avoided. Relocated well pads were placed at least 500 feet (150 m) from homes; 7. Wetlands, water, steep slopes, cliffs, rock outcrops, creeks and rivers, buildings and manicured lawns were avoided; 8. Relocated well pads were only placed in areas with similar to those that supported modeled pads. 9. Relocated well pads often were connected to roads using existing trails, paths and openings whenever detectable on aerial photo imagery (used Bing Maps and 2005-2006 PA Map imagery); 10. The same number of relocated well pads were placed on state lands and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy lands as they were in the modeled output; 11. When the modeled well pad occurred within a forest patch with no nearby alternative locations (due to proximity of other wells or environmental constraints), the projected well pad was not relocated

17. Impacts Associated with Forest Development Reduction in ecosystem services water filtration and nutrient removal erosion carbon storage air quality tourism and recreation Fragmentation increased edge, invasives, deep forest sensitive species, migratory paths, biodiversity The large numbers of trucks using small access roads will add to air and noise pollution and edge effects Green salamander rareGreen salamander rare

18. Surface Water Impacts

19. Water Quality… So Far Focus on extreme events Much anecdotal information Largely human health, groundwater Unclear whether these are usual, unusual or rare Methane in groundwater Not usually shale deposits, but from shallower deposits Well casings to blame for some cases Large Volume Spills and Fish Kills Dunkard Creek SWPA: Mine waste + Marcellus imputs Stevens Creek, Dimock, Susquehanna County Brush Run, Hopewell, Washington County Low Volume spills / non-news release 7.7% of wells shown to pollute surface waters (ANS) Probability of spills is unknown

21. Frac Water and Water Quality Flowback approximately 10-20% of input; some recycled- reduces volume, increases concentrations. Most is either exported or treated and released in waterways Fate and Transport: Spills and leaks, probability uncertain Well pad, blowouts, equipment failure Leaks from retention ponds, tanks, and well heads Lost in transport or illegally dumped Questions about long term stability of closed wells Treatment facilities accepting frac water are shown emitting high levels of pollutants in effluent water (see Volz C.D. 2011)

22. How common are surface spills? Violation Data sheds some light

23. Inspections and Violations PA data currently on website ANS Analyzed violation database, Jan. 2, 2007- Sept. 30, 2010; later data available Summarized by type of violation Pennsylvania Conservation Trust analyzed violation data Shorter period (Jan. 1, 2008-Aug. 20, 2010) Somewhat different breakdown of violation catagories Similar results

24. Summary of Violations

25. Frac Water Impacts Toxicity Salts/ TDS Exceed tolerances Favor invasives (golden algae) Ba, Sr, Br Organics Radioactivity (NORM) Naturally-occurring radioactive material Toxicity uncertain Sensitive habitats/species Marcellus overlaps brook trout habitat

26. Total number of wells inspected not available until 2011 2011 (Jan 1 to March 25) 1800 inspections of 1063 Marcellus wells Reported 281 violations and 31 enforcements Don’t know numbers of wells/violations at different stages (drilling, fracking, production) Environmental impact of violations not always well described Possible under-reporting, violations between inspections, etc. Many violations may have been corrected Numbers reflect cumulative total, not current number in violation

36. Correlations

37. 2011 Study at Patrick CenterProject Goals: Determine if the density of wells in a watershed influences stream ecosystem health and water quality (following a similar approach as the pilot study) Determine the relationships among well density, stream size, stream ecosystem health, and water quality Evaluate other metrics of natural gas development intensity (algorithms relating violations, density, distance from streams, operational history, etc. Spatially model impacts across the study area

38. Study Design Whole basin assessment of stream reaches (120 meter long reach) Study 52 stream reaches with a gradient of well density, but little variation in watershed conditions. One half of the study in heavily forested areas, other half in 50% forested areas. Assess multiple indicators of water quality including diatoms and metal ions (Ba, Sr, Br – frac fingerprints) Relate well/well pad density to indices of stream community health

39. Field Work and Analysis

40. Main project target

45. Conclusions/Summary No comprehensive data on surface water impacts Research happing rapidly Many effects depend on occurrences that wouldn’t happen (e.g., headwater disturbance, flowback water addition) Difficult to predict Violation data provide mixed view of compliance/completeness Some effects inevitable in some form, but can be reduced Land use Frac water containment and disposal Potential for major environmental benefits!

46. Thank You