Radar Imagery Shows Possible Slick From Oil Platform Off Peru’s Coast

Traditional sail powered fishing craft below Oil Platform 10 on the Peruvian north coast.

Last month we learned of an oil slick that had been sighted off the north coast of Peru in proximity to a number of offshore platforms. The slick was first observed by local fishermen in January and was reported in the pressAt the time SAVIA Perú, which operates platforms in the area, stated that they had inspected their facilities and were not responsible for the leak.

We’ve now had a look at Sentinel-1 satellite radar imagery of the area over the past few months. This imagery, provided by the European Space Agency, does show a possible oil slick extending about 14 miles from one offshore platform on February 3rd. Imagery from the weeks before and after the reported slick may also show some evidence of chronic leaks in the area. 

While initial reports in the press named Platform 10 in the area as the likely source, the imagery shows a possible slick extending from a different platform, Peña Negra TT (PNGR TT), also operated by SAVIA as part of lot Z-2B. A dive support vessel Urubamba is also seen alongside another platform further south (PNGR BB) indicating there may be ongoing maintenance on oil infrastructure in the region.

Sentinel-1 imagery from Feb 3, 2017 showing a possible oil slick extending from a platform on the Cabo Blanco area of Peru’s north coast. Image courtesy of European Space Agency.

Two additional Sentinel-1 images are below, from March 11, 2017 and April 16, 2017.  On March 11th we again see a possible oil slick extending south 1.8 miles from platform PNGR TT. However other larger dark patches also appear on this image making it difficult to interpret. These patches are areas of relatively flat water which could result from a sheen of oil on the water’s surface but could also be from other causes such as blooms of phytoplankton or even an area of heavy rainfall. Recent imagery from April 16th shows no indication of any oil slicks in the area.

Sentinel-1 imagery from March 11, 2017 again showing a possible slick extending south from well PNGR TT. Large dark patches to the west indicate areas of still water. Image of courtesy European Space Agency.

Sentinel-1 imagery from April 16, 2017 shows no indication of possible oil slicks in the area. Image courtesy of European Space Agency.

Along with extensive oil infrastructure, this area has the highest marine biodiversity on Peru’s coast and for that reason has been proposed as part of a new marine protected area. Under proposed legislation oil companies operating in the area could continue provided they complied with environmental regulations. We can’t be certain who was responsible for the oil washing ashore a few months ago but as this imagery shows there is reason for concern regarding this particular platform (PNGR TT) and continued monitoring of oil platforms in this area will be essential if this unique environment is going to be protected.




Imágenes de radar muestran posible derrame de petróleo proveniente de una plataforma de la costa norte del Perú

29 de abril 2017 / por Bjorn Bergman

Tradicionales embarcaciones pesqueras con velas pasan por debajo de la plataforma petrolera 10 en la costa norte de Perú.

El mes pasado nos enteramos de un derrame de petróleo que fue visto en la área de Cabo Blanco en la costa norte de Perú en proximidad a unas plataformas petroleras. El derrame fue observado por primera vez por unos pescadores locales en enero y se informó a la prensa. A el momento SAVIA Perú, que opera plataformas en el área, declaró que habían inspeccionado sus instalaciones y no eran responsables por la fuga.

Ahora hemos examinado imágenes del radar satelital Sentinel-1 durante los últimos meses. La imágen del 3 de febrero, proporcionada por la Agencia Espacial Europea, muestra un posible derrame de petróleo que se extiende a unos 22 kilómetros de una plataforma petrolera. Las imágenes de las semanas anteriores y posteriores a esta fecha también pueden mostrar alguna evidencia de fugas crónicas en el área.

Mientras que los reportes iniciales en la prensa nombraron una Plataforma 10 como la fuente probable, estas imágenes muestran un posible derrame que se extiende desde una plataforma diferente, Peña Negra TT (PNGR TT) también operada por SAVIA como parte del lote Z-2B. También se observó un buque de apoyo de buceo, DSV Urubamba,  junto a otra plataforma más al sur (PNGR BB) lo que podría indicar que se realiza  mantenimiento en la infraestructura petrolera de la región.

Imagen del Sentinel-1 de 3 de febrero 2017 mostrando un posible derrame que se extiende de una plataforma en la área de Cabo Blanco en la costa norte del Perú. Imagen cortesía de la Agencia Espacial Europea.

Dos adicionales imagenes Sentinel-1 están por debajo, del 11 de marzo y del 16 de abril de 2017. En el 11 de marzo volvemos a ver un posible derrame que se extiende 3 kilómetros de la plataforma PNGR TT pero debido a la presencia de unas manchas oscuras más grandes al oeste se torna difícil interpretar lo que aparece en la imagen. Estas manchas oscuras son áreas de agua relativamente plana que podría ser el resultado de la presencia de petróleo en la superficie del agua, pero tambien podria ser de otras causas, como las floraciones de fitoplancton o incluso lluvias fuertes. Un imagen reciente del 16 de abril no indica ningún posible derrame de petróleo en la zona.

Imagen del Sentinel-1 del 11 de marzo de 2017 que otra vez muestra un posible derrame de petróleo que se extiende al sur de la plataforma PNGR TT. Las grandes manchas oscuras al oeste indican áreas de agua mas calmada. Imagen cortesía de la Agencia Espacial Europea.

Imagen de Sentinel-1 de 16 de abril de 2017 que no muestra indicaciones de petróleo en la agua. Imagen cortesía de la Agencia Espacial Europea.

Junto con una extensa infraestructura petrolera, esta área tiene la mayor biodiversidad marina en la costa peruana y por eso se ha propuesto como parte de una nueva área marina protegida. Según la legislación propuesta, las compañías petroleras que operan en la zona podrían continuar siempre que cumplieran con las regulaciones ambientales. No podemos estar seguros de quién fue responsable por el petróleo que llegó a la playa de Cabo Blanco hace unos meses, pero con estas imágenes se puede mostrar que hay motivo de preocupación por una plataforma en particular (PNGR TT) y que el monitoreo continuo de plataformas de petróleo en esta área sería esencial si este ambiente único va a estar protegido.

More Offshore Drilling to Come?

Once again, the federal government is proposing that we expand offshore drilling to new areas in US waters.  Today, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of the Interior, which manages our public lands and waters, to review the Obama administration rule that deferred oil and gas leasing along the Atlantic coast and in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska.  People who could be affected by new drilling in those areas should consider that it’s not just the risk of the occasional major disaster they would be facing; it’s the chronic, day-to-day pollution accompanying offshore oil development that is systematically under-reported by industry and the government, the “death by 1,000 cuts” that is so easy to ignore.

Case in point: check out last night’s slick at the site of the chronic Taylor Energy oil spill in the Gulf:

Sentinel-1 radar satellite image showing oil slick caused by a chronic leak of oil from the seafloor at the Taylor Energy site, where an oil platform was destroyed by a hurricane in 2004.  Image acquired 4/27/2017 at about 7pm local time.

This Sentinel-1 image taken on April 27, 2017 shows an oil slick covering an area of 45.5 square kilometers (km2). Our calculations assume that oil slicks observable on satellite imagery have an average thickness of at least 1 micron (one millionth of a meter), so each km2 contains at least 264 gallons of oil. Multiply that by the area of 45.5 km2 and the Taylor slick shown in this image contains at least 12,012 gallons of oil.

This site has been leaking oil continuously into the Gulf since Hurricane Ivan came through and knocked over the Taylor Energy oil platform in September.  That’s September, 2004.  You can review the history of this site and see the hundreds of spill reports received and tracked on our Taylor Chronology page here. Until something is done to stop this leak, we’ll continue to monitor the site and keep you informed.

A Closeup Look at Leasing and Drilling: Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Up to this point, Allegheny County in southwestern Pennsylvania has been mostly spared from much of the fracking boom spanning that state. This may change however, as oil and gas companies have been systematically leasing property around the county for potential drilling.  Usually it’s hard to get a handle on the magnitude of this threat, since leases on private property are generally difficult to discover.  Fortunately for the public (us included), our friends at FracTracker Alliance built the Allegheny Lease Mapping Project: an interactive online map showing land parcels leased or contracted to oil and gas companies.  Individual parcels of land that have been tied to oil and gas records can be selected to pull up a variety of information about that parcel.  Users can explore the map to see where a parcel of leased land is located relative to homes, schools, bodies of water, parks, and other sites of interest. This tool is meant to help citizens, communities and policymakers make informed decisions about zoning, land use, and future oil and gas development in the region. 

We thought it would be useful for folks to see where all the oil and gas leases are in the county, relative to the Marcellus Shale gas drilling and fracking that has already happened.  FracTracker graciously provided their dataset, and we filtered it to only show parcels tied to an “active” lease.  Here is the result.  Properties with an active lease are displayed in green. Those that have experienced some drilling activity since the Marcellus boom began a decade ago, are shown in red:

Active leases (green) in Allegheny County, PA. Active leases that have experienced some drilling activity since 2005 shown in red. Click to enlarge.

Though much of Pennsylvania that overlies the Marcellus Shale has seen extensive fracking development, most of Allegheny County hasn’t yet had any of this modern drilling with hydraulic fracturing. But the large area under lease should give residents throughout Allegheny County some concern:  a significant amount of drilling could be in their future, and drilling sites could be built uncomfortably close to where people live and work. The average size of a well pad is 3-5 acres, potentially bigger than a football field or even the deck of an aircraft carrier. In this illustration, hypothetical well pads and access roads (shown in yellow) are placed over existing leases in the northeastern portion of Allegheny County that have not yet been drilled (orange). Many of the leases come close to, or overlap with, existing residential areas:

A portion of northeastern Allegheny County showing active oil and gas leases in orange that have not yet been drilled, in an area of mixed residential, forest, and agricultural land use. Hypothetical drilling sites (“well pads”) and access roads are shown in yellow. Click to enlarge.


Detail from above, showing potential proximity of large industrial drilling sites to homes and a school. Click to enlarge.

In the close up above, we see that a potential well pad of typical size dwarfs the high school and football field only 1200 ft away. During drilling the neighborhoods nearby would have to cope with health, safety and lifestyle impacts associated with round-the-clock noise, heavy truck traffic, and degraded air quality, in addition to the longer-term potential for surface and ground water contamination caused by accidental leaks and spills.

It’s our hope that by making this hard-to-access leasing data easily available, folks in Allegheny County will be enabled and inspired to take action to protect their communities.  A big tip ‘o the hat to FracTracker for building and sharing the lease dataset.

Fracking: Coming to a Backyard Near You?

Last summer one of our interns, Jerrilyn Goldberg, put together an interactive story map detailing the impact hydraulic fracturing is having on the state of Pennsylvania. The map goes describes the fracking process and its associated risks, and how the growing industry is impacting local communities and the environment. She examines the proposition that switching to a natural gas dominated energy system would mitigate global warming, an important thing to consider when discussing future energy development. You can check out the story map by clicking the image below:

When thinking about fracking and its potential costs and benefits to society, it’s important to remember the impact it will have on the people living near it, not just the country as a whole. The industry touts the amount of potential energy that can be gained from a fracking well relative to its “small” footprint as a major advantage of the process over conventional gas wells and coal extraction. Wells can be permitted and drilled quickly, and with horizontal drilling a single well has access to a large area of potential gas reserves. This also means that wells can pop up at an alarming rate and fit into places that are uncomfortably close to where people live and work. Often times, these wells and their associated infrastructure are within sight and earshot of people’s homes, or even schools, hospitals, and other sensitive areas where people’s health can be put at risk by the 24/7 noise, lighting, diesel fumes, dust, and volatile chemicals emanating from typical drilling sites:

Here in western Pennsylvania we see how close fracking operations can come to people’s homes; the people living in the cluster of houses on the left have to live with the commotion around the well pads a stone’s throw away on a daily basis, and the massive fluid retainment ponds in blue could pose a threat to their health. Click on the image for a fullscreen version.


The story in West Virginia is very similar. Here a fracking well pad is less than a football field away from someone’s home. Click on the image for a fullscreen version.

Often times, many of the people that will be affected by a new fracking operation have little to no say in the matter. People are typically powerless to stop construction of a drilling site on a neighboring property, and don’t have any say in where and how the site and associated roads and utilities get built, even though they will still have to deal with the increased noise, light, and traffic, as well as decreased air quality. Health concerns are a major issue because fumes and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) originating from well pads and fluid retainment ponds have been linked to respiratory and skin illnesses. Fracking operations have also been known to contaminate people’s drinking water by causing methane migration, posing an explosion hazard, and fracking fluids that have made it into the water table can render water unsafe for drinking, bathing, and even laundry. Accidents like fluid spills and well blowouts are an ever-present threat, with the potential to send thousands of gallons of fracking fluid spewing into the air and onto the surrounding landscape, as happened to a well in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania in 2010 that resulted in more than 35,000 gallons of fracturing fluid contaminating the environment. Local campers had to be evacuated from the area. 

Hydraulic fracturing has really taken off in the last decade thanks to horizontal drilling technology. Here, in this section of southwestern Pennsylvania, we can see how rapidly fracking operations have expanded near the Pittsburgh area. The colored dots show the locations of new drilling sites similar to the ones shown in the images above, identified with help from our FrackFinder volunteers.

Because of its location over a particularly rich part of the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania has been one of the states most heavily impacted by the fracking boom, but fracking has begun to take off in other states as well. These include Ohio and West Virginia, where along with Pennsylvania you’ve helped us investigate and map drilling activity through our FrackFinder project to quantify the growing impact of fracking in each state, and make the data available to the public and to researchers investigating the impact of fracking on public health and the environment.

Ohio sits partially atop the Utica shale. This map shows the locations of well pads built between 2010 and 2013 in a small part of the eastern portion of the state, and the access roads that were carved out to support them. Click on the image for a fullscreen version.


Fracking is relatively new to West Virginia, and the topography is rugged (as shown by this shaded-relief map), so well pads aren’t yet spaced as densely as they are in states like Pennsylvania. The red polygons represent well pad construction, and the dark blue represent retainment ponds. Click on the image for a fullscreen version.

If you’d like to learn more about fracking and how it impacts people and the environment, be sure to check out Jerrilyn’s story map for an in-depth look!


Drops in the Bucket: Oil and Gas Lease Sales Near Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Approximately 20 miles from Chaco Culture National Historical Park lie 4 parcels of public land. These parcels have a combined size of 843 acres, and on January 21st, 2017 the oil and gas drilling rights to these parcels were auctioned off to drilling companies by the US Bureau of Land Management for $2.93 million. New Mexico has a total land area of 77,816,960 acres. These 843 acres correspond to a whopping 0.00108 % of the state’s total area, just a small drop in the bucket.

The Bureau of Land Management provides data on all the leases of fluid mineral rights (oil and gas) which have been issued since 1929. At the time of sale, the most recent data from the BLM was listed as last updated on December 1st, 2016 (you can access the data here, it has since been updated). At that time the BLM database showed that 4,498,543 had been leased. The sale of these 4 parcels brought the total to 4,499,386 acres. That is 5.782% of New Mexico’s total land area.

Looks like those small drops add up…

The ruins of Pueblo Bonito. Image credit: National Park Service.

The impact of drilling — the 24/7 noise, lighting, dust, diesel fumes, air pollution, heavy truck traffic, and the risk of spills and other accidents that can pollute surface and ground water — goes well beyond the boundaries of the lease parcels. So the location of these leases matters. Chaco Canyon is a place of deep cultural and historical significance, anchored by the ruins of the massive Pueblo Bonito housing and ceremonial complex dating to the mid-800’s CE. The Navajo Nation recently joined with multiple tribes represented by the All Pueblo Council of Governors to call for a halt to leasing in the region.

Let’s take a virtual tour of the oil and gas leasing near this uniquely special place. Is it too close for comfort?

This video is a simulated Flyover of Chaco Culture National Historical Park and a set of nearby Oil and Gas leases which were auctioned off in January of 2017. The park is displayed in green, the auctioned leases in red. The video also denotes the location of several existing oil and gas wellpads using red arrows, and closes by showing the extent of existing oil and gas leases in the state of New Mexico.

For a “real” flyover tour of the park and the drilling around it, check out this video from our friends at EcoFlight.

Fracking, Mountaintop Mining, and More…My Summer at SkyTruth

 Hi, my name is Jerrilyn Goldberg.  Over the course of  two months last summer I worked as an intern at SkyTruth. In September I started my junior year at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, majoring in environmental studies and physics. Over the course of my internship I contributed to SkyTruth’s Mountaintop Removal (MTR) research by creating a mask to block out rivers, roads, and urban areas that could be confused with mining activity by our analytical model. I also helped classify many of the ~1.1 million control points that allow us assess the accuracy of our MTR results.

To analyze the accuracy of the MTR results we obtained through our Earth Engine analysis, we dropped 5,000 randomly distributed points at each of 10 sample areas for each year between 1984 and 2016. These points were manually classified as being `mine` (if it overlapped a user IDed mine location) or `non-mine` (if it overlapped anything other than a mine). A subset of those manually classified points were then used to assess the accuracy of the output from our Earth Engine analysis

In addition to the MTR project, I created a story map illustrating the development of Marcellus Shale gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Pennsylvania, and discussing the environmental and public health consequences fracking is having on some rural Pennsylvania communities. Check it out here. Through my research for the story map, I learned about the hydraulic fracturing process. I also learned about many of the political and social complexities surrounding the fracking industry in Pennsylvania, including conflicts between economic and community interests. Our goal with this story map is to present an accessible and accurate narrative about the fracking industry in Pennsylvania, which begins with understanding what’s actually going on now.

Click the image above to visit Jerrilyn’s interactive story map.

I started by learning about SkyTruth’s FrackFinder Pennsylvania data and methodology from the 2013 project. I read through our GitHub repository and figured out why the FrackFinder team chose their methodology and what the results represented. (While I was familiar with the general concept of the project, I did not know much about the specifics beforehand.) With this in mind, I set out to update the dataset with well pads built after 2013.


I quickly realized that this task presented many questions such as, which of the many state oil and gas datasets actually contained the information I sought. I selected the Spud Data, which contains all of the individual locations where operators have reported a drilling start-date for a permitted well. I filtered to include only unconventional horizontal wells drilling for natural gas and excluded those reported as ‘not drilled.’ To account for some missing drilling locations which I noticed while reviewing the latest Google base map imagery, I also download the Well Inventory Dataset which includes all permitted oil and gas wells along with their status. From here I filtered out all the spuds and wells not listed as drilled in 2014, 2015, or 2016 and joined the files. After joining the layers, I formed a well pad dataset by creating a 150 meter buffer around the wells, dissolving overlapping areas, then locating the centers of each buffer. This step effectively says ‘create a 150 m radius circle around each point, but when these overlap, clump them into one circle, then find the center of that new circle.’ Finally, I found all the buffers that overlapped with FrackFinder drilling locations from 2013 and earlier, and eliminated all of those centroids.

A quick note about the imagery: USDA collects high resolution aerial imagery as part of the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), which at the time of my project was last collected for Pennsylvania in 2015. While I worked hard to eliminate inaccurate points, I was unable to verify all of these with the existing NAIP imagery. That said, I found that the other points accurately represented the general well pad locations and thus chose to include the points for the first half of 2016, even though I obviously couldn’t verify the existence of those recent drilling locations on the mid-summer 2015 NAIP imagery.


At the same time I found The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC’s) 2010 Energy Impact Analysis, which looked at the predicted development of wind, shale gas, and wood fuel usage in Pennsylvania. Part of TNC’s study identified three construction scenarios for how many wells and well pads could be built in Pennsylvania by 2030. With an assumption that 60,000 new wells would be drilled between 2010 and 2030, the study predicted between 6000 and 15000 new well pads would be built to host those wells. Each scenario featured a different distance between pads and a different number of wells per pad (because that number stays constant at 60,000 new wells). I found some data from TNC’s study hidden on an old SkyTruth backup with help from Christian and David. With the FrackFinder data, my update, and the ‘informed scenarios’ in hand, I started trying to figure out an appropriate way to synthesize the three datasets, to identify which TNC drilling scenario best fits what is actually happening..


One roadblock in conducting a thorough analysis and comparison was that TNC’s research makes a quantitative prediction about the possible volume of infrastructure development instead of a more tangible spatial prediction. The study distributes the predicted numbers of new well pads across the counties of Pennsylvania, which overlay the region of Marcellus Shale with ideal conditions for hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. All of the included counties now contain at least one well pad. I did notice that since 2010, about 1/3 of the well pads estimated by the low impact scenario (6000 well pads) have already been constructed. If the rate of development between 2010 and 2016 remains constant, Pennsylvania will surpass TNC’s low impact scenario.

An example of The Nature Conservancy’s “low” impact scenario for fracking well construction across a section of Pennsylvania.

The Nature Conservancy’s medium impact scenario for future fracking well construction across a section of Pennsylvania.

The Nature Conservancy’s high impact scenario for future fracking well construction over a section of Pennsylvania.


Fracking Pennsylvania” uses maps and other media to create a narrative of hydraulic fracturing and its consequences. While originally intended for the community members we work with in southern Pennsylvania, I hope this story map becomes a useful tool for many different communities grappling with fracking.


While I have my time in the Watchdog spotlight, I want to publicly thank everyone here for welcoming me into the awesome world of SkyTruth. I’m so grateful for the learning opportunities I had last summer and for all of the support I received. Special thanks to Christian for introducing me to SkyTruth and to John for helping me improve my Story Map even though he is definitely one of the busiest people in the office. I look forward to sharing my experience through the Carleton Internship Ambassador program this year.  

FrackFinding Success in Three States

Since the launch of FrackFinder, we’ve found great success in our efforts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia enlisting the public to help us analyze aerial imagery across the Marcellus and Utica shale gas-drilling regions. The results have been unique datasets that are being used, or can be used, by researchers to study the impact fracking has on public health and the environment. What we’ve learned is helping us refine our tools and methods for future rounds of FrackFinder. Here we’ll give a rundown of the results of our efforts and what we’ve done with them, as well as links to the data we’ve made available free for public use.

Pennsylvania Fracking Sites Map

Our motivation behind the FrackFinder project was to fill gaps in publicly available information related to where fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale were taking place. Seeing an opportunity to make this info available to the public, but lacking state data, we began mapping fracking sites ourselves. The locations of drilling sites, also known as “well pads,” were hard to come by, but state permits for drilling individual oil and gas wells were easily accessible. Unfortunately drilling permits aren’t very useful on their own. The permits are just approvals to drill: they don’t say if the site is active, when drilling and fracking began or ended, or if development of the drill site ever happened at all. Luckily, each permit provides the exact location where the operator is authorized to drill their well. By pairing the location information from the permits with available high-resolution aerial survey photography from multiple years, it is possible for us to learn where active well pads are and narrow down when they were built to within a span of a couple of years.

Of course, analyzing multiple years’ worth of imagery for thousands of permit locations is a monumental task.  To get the job done, we looked to crowdsourcing to speed up the process. Crowdsourcing also gives us the opportunity to reach the public, get people interested in citizen science, and provide them the opportunity to see the impact of fracking for themselves. It’s important for people to understand the large footprint fracking has compared to historical oil and gas drilling in the region, and seeing just how close many well pads are to farms and homes can change some people’s perspective on the issue.

Timelapse image showing how close drilling is to homes, and how big modern fracking operations are.

Our first phase of FrackFinder took place in Pennsylvania.  For this project we had 3,000 locations to examine on three different years of imagery, and we asked 10 volunteers to look at every site: a grand total of  90,000 image analysis tasks. Participants were presented with an image of a location corresponding to a drilling permit and were asked to determine if the site was active or inactive on the basis of visible infrastructure.  All the tasks were knocked out in three weeks, thanks in part  to a Washington Post article mentioning the project published around the time of our FrackFinder launch. In the quality assurance phase, we found that if seven of the ten participants for a given task agreed there was active drilling then our experienced in-house analysts agreed with the crowd, so we established 70% crowd consensus as an acceptable threshold to confirm if there was indeed drilling at a location.  This first project went so well that we quickly supplemented it with another year of imagery.  The final map we produced shows the location of active well pads in imagery from 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2013, and we intend to update it with 2015 imagery in the near future.

Marcellus Shale fracking sites in Pennsylvania in 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2013. Click on this image to link to the full interactive map.

Pennsylvania Impoundments Map

Not long after publishing the data on well pad locations from the first phase, we were approached by researchers from Johns Hopkins University who were interested in our data. They wanted to study the public health impacts of living near a modern fracking site, and the state couldn’t provide anything comparable to what we had at the time. They were specifically interested in how volatile chemicals coming off drilling-related fluid impoundments would affect people living nearby. While we had locations for the wells from our first FrackFinder project, we didn’t have information on the size, location and timing of the impoundments that may contain drilling and fracking fluids.

Hydraulic fracturing-related fluid impoundments in Pennsylvania. Click on the image to link to the full interactive map.

Using the same imagery we had prepared for the first round of FrackFinder, we launched another round of crowd-assisted image analysis using the same methods to determine the presence of impoundments. After the public identified water bodies that were likely related to drilling, our analysts verified that they were impoundments and delivered the data to the researchers. The Pennsylvania FrackFinder project was the first time we used crowdsourcing to create a high-quality data set for use in actual research.  And it has paid off in improving the public’s understanding of the health risks posed by living near modern drilling and fracking activity. The Johns Hopkins researchers have published the following peer-reviewed studies based in part on our work:

Ohio Well Pads Map

Ohio was the first state outside of Pennsylvania to have its own FrackFinder spinoff. Instead of launching a public crowdsourcing project we enlisted the help of students at Walsh University in Ohio who were interested in studying the impact of fracking on the environment and looking to get experience with GIS image analysis. We asked students to delineate all terrain that was modified to accommodate the drilling activity, including forest clearcutting around actual fracking infrastructure. This not only provided an educational opportunity for the students, but it allowed us to build and experiment with tools we plan on using in the future to let the public delineate fracking sites and create complex polygons, rather than simply confirming the presence or absence of a well pad at a specific point. This work hasn’t been used for research yet, but it still produced a high-quality data set that is available to anyone who would wish to use it in the future to quantify the ecological footprint of fracking-related land use, and explore the habitat and ecosystem impacts of modern drilling and fracking.

Utica Shale fracking well pads in Ohio. Click on the image to link to the full interactive map so you can zoom in and see the outlines of fracking sites delineated by students at Walsh University.

West Virginia Well Pad and Impoundment Map

Due to time constraints, we conducted the first round of West Virginia FrackFinder internally, and now have a multiyear map and dataset showing the locations of Marcellus and Utica Shale drilling sites statewide. We plan on launching a new public FrackFinder round this summer using the same area delineation technique that was demonstrated in Ohio. In West Virginia, we delineated the footprints of well pads and fluid impoundments, but not the broader area of clearcutting and landscape modification surrounding the drilling sites as was done in Ohio. When we launch our next public FrackFinder round we will ask the public to delineate this “impact halo” around well pads to help determine the ecological footprint of fracking in the state.

Marcellus and Utica Shale fracking sites in West Virginia in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Click on the image to link to the full interactive map.


Fracking-related fluid impoundments in West Virginia for the same years as the map above. Click to go to the full interactive map.

The data we produce for West Virginia is being used by researchers at UC Berkeley and at Downstream Strategies. They will perform a geospatial proximity analysis to see how fracking activity near sensitive populations in schools, hospitals, homes, and rehabilitation centers, paired with different chemicals used in fracking, affects public health. The results of their research will be detailed in a comprehensive white paper that will be published with policy makers in mind.