Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) using Spatial Analysis, Bradford County, Pennsylvania

Authors

  • James McClain  Department of Environmental & Occupational Health; School of Public Health Indiana University Bloomington

Keywords:

Pennsylvania, Hydraulic Fracturing, Spatial Analysis, Geostatistical Analysis, Kriging, Hotspot Analysis, Moran’s Index

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing (HF) posed an environmental risk to surface water and groundwater quality. Population relies on the quality of water for basic needs. The objective of the study is to use cluster spatial and slope analysis to determine the HF impact in Bradford County, Pennsylvania environments. Spatial cluster produces an array of fundamental public health questions relating to the impact of HF on the environment. The slope analyzes the elevation of HF to surface water and groundwater. Base on the elevation of HF activities, the surface water, and groundwater is polluted from spill, leakage, and intrusion of fracking fluid. The geospatial information data for the study were collected from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), and the National Bureau of Census. The methods used to analyze the data to determine the spatial cluster in the environment are spatial autocorrelation (Moran’s Index), Hotspot analysis (G statistic), Cluster and Outlier analysis (Anselin’s Local Moran’s Index) and the Empirical Bayesian Kriging. The results were interpreted from high or low G statistic, Moran’s Index value, Z-score, and p-value. Pennsylvania Moran’s Index 0.29, and Z-score, p-value (37.9, 0.0001) indicate a tendency toward clustering a statistically significant. A positive G statistic & large Z-score indicate a more intense clustering of areas of high values – hotspot and a significantly smaller negative G statistic & Z-score indicates more extreme low values – cold spot. Therefore, Albany, Wilmot, Overton, Terry, and Monroe municipalities have high positive G-statistic and statistically significant (p < 0.05) Z-values indicating hot spot of hydraulic fracturing operation in the county.

References

  1. Gallegos, T.J. and B.A. Varela, Data Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing Distributions and Treatment Fluids, Additives, Proppants, and Water VolumesTreatment Fluids, Additives, Proppants, and Water Volumes Applied to Wells Drilled in the United States from 1947 through 2010. 2015, USGS: Virginia.
  2. Carlton, A.G., et al., The Data Gap: Can a Lack of Monitors Obscure Loss of Clean Air Act Benefits in Fracking Areas? Environmental Science & Technology, 2014. 48(2): p. 893-894.
  3. Benavides, P.T. and U. Diwekar, Optimal design of adsorbents for NORM removal from produced water in natural gas fracking. Part 1: Group contribution method for adsorption. Chemical Engineering Science, 2015. 137: p. 964-976.
  4. Sovacool, B.K., Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014. 37: p. 249-264.
  5. McDivitt, H., Hydraulic Fracturing: What it is used; Why all the fuss? Is it used in Indiana. 2013.
  6. Helms, L., Horizontal Drilling: North Dakota Survey. 2008. 35(1): p. 1-3.
  7. FracFocus, Chemical use in Hydraulic Fracturing. 2013.
  8. Batley, G.E. and R.S. Kookana, Environmental issues associated with coal seam gas recovery: managing the fracking boom. Environmental Chemistry, 2012. 9(5): p. 425-428.
  9. Montgomery, C.T. and M.B. Smith, Hydraulic Fracturing history of an eduring technology. Journal of Petroleum, 2010: p. 26-41.
  10. Zuppann, C.W. and J.C. Steinmetz, Hydraulic Fracturing: sn Indiana Assessment. 2015: p. 35-45.
  11. Wu, K.Q., et al., Transition to sustainability with natural gas from fracking. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2016. 14: p. 26-34.
  12. Fisher, K., Data confirm safety of well fracturing: The Americal Oil & Gas. 2010.
  13. Burton, G.A., et al., Hydraulic "Fracking": Are Surface Water Impacts An Ecological Concern? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2014. 33(8): p. 1679-1689.
  14. Altaee, A. and N. Hilal, Dual-stage forward osmosis/pressure retarded osmosis process for hypersaline solutions and fracking wastewater treatment. Desalination, 2014. 350: p. 79-85.
  15. Torjesen, I., Fracking poses little risk to public health, but evidence is limited. Bmj-British Medical Journal, 2013. 347.
  16. Boudet, H., et al., "Fracking" controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 2014. 65: p. 57-67.
  17. Tuller, D., As Fracking Booms, Dearth Of Health Risk Data Remains. Health Affairs, 2015. 34(6): p. 903-906.
  18. Smith, M.F. and D.P. Ferguson, "Fracking democracy": Issue management and locus of policy decision-making in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling debate. Public Relations Review, 2013. 39(4): p. 377-386.
  19. EIA, U.S., Pennsylvania State Energy Profile. 2016, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
  20. Chesapeake, Operation Reports, Pennsylvania. 2016, Chesapeake Energy.
  21. Samsonova, V.P., Y.N. Blagoveshchenskii, and Y.L. Meshalkina, Use of Empirical Bayesian Kriging for Revealing Heterogeneities in the Distribution of Organic Carbon on Agricultural Lands. Eurasian Soil Science, 2017. 50(3): p. 305-311.
  22. Chandler, R.E., et al., Current Safety Concerns with Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: A Cluster Analysis of Reports in VigiBase (R). Drug Safety, 2017. 40(1): p. 81-90.
  23. Fazio, C., et al., Analysing the Conceptions on Modelling of Engineering Undergraduate Students: A Case Study Using Cluster Analysis. Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning, 2017. 190: p. 79-94.
  24. Al-Maini, M., et al., A Hot Spot for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, but Not for Psoriatic Arthritis, Identified by Spatial Analysis Suggests an Interaction Between Ethnicity and Place of Residence. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 2013. 65(6): p. 1579-1585.
  25. Garcia-Palomares, J.C., J. Gutierrez, and C. Minguez, Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: A comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS. Applied Geography, 2015. 63: p. 408-417.
  26. Ding, L., et al., Spatial-Temporal Hotspot Pattern Analysis of Provincial Environmental Pollution Incidents and Related Regional Sustainable Management in China in the Period 1995-2012. Sustainability, 2015. 7(10): p. 14385-14407.
  27. Blair, B., T. Heikkila, and C.M. Weible, National Media Coverage of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States: Evaluation Using Human and Automated Coding Techniques. Risk Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 2016. 7(3): p. 114-128.
  28. EPA, U.S., Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States. 2016, U.S. EPA: Washington DC.
  29. Brownlow, J.W., S.C. James, and J.C. Yelderman, Influence of Hydraulic Fracturing on Overlying Aquifers in the Presence of Leaky Abandoned Wells. Groundwater, 2016. 54(6): p. 781-792.

Downloads

Published

2018-04-30

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
James McClain, " Environmental Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) using Spatial Analysis, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Volume 4, Issue 5, pp.1211-1223, March-April-2018.