A detailed risk assessment of shale gas development on headwater streams in the Pennsylvania portion of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, U.S.A.

Maloney, Kelly O.; Young, John A.; Faulkner, Stephen P.; Hailegiorgis, Atesmachew; Slonecker, E. Terrence; Milheim, Lesley E.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.247

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the variables directly related to shale gas production used in constructing the sDII (SI Appendix, Tables S2 and S4 and ref. 7), the mass of drill cuttings, volumes of gas and water produced, and volumes of drilling fluid and fracturing fluid used had significant site-level relationships to community structure during the spring (Fig. 5B; ENVFIT, P < 0.05).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…S1 for the distribution of conventional and shale gas wells). After the first year of the study, a finer-scaled (1:24,000 catchments), more regionally focused standardized Disturbance Intensity Index (sDII) was published for the Pennsylvania portion of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin (PAUSRB) (7), which improved upon the Entrekin et al (6) 2015 index by including upstream drainage information on 17 measures of OG that incorporate all steps of the development process (infrastructure, gas and waste production, notice of violations [including spills], and water withdrawals) (refs. 7 and 53 and SI Appendix, Tables S2-S4).…”

Section: Study Design and Site Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 and 53 and SI Appendix, Tables S2-S4). For each catchment in the PAUSRB, each OG metric was assigned a rank based on the underlying distribution of the stressor in the study, which was then multiplied by a weighting score that ranged from one to three based on potential impact to a stream (7). The land use and OG parameter data for the watersheds in this study can be found in SI Appendix, Tables S2 and S3.…”

Section: Study Design and Site Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Pennsylvania, these increases in production have come with an increase in the number of horizontally drilled, hydraulically fractured wells, which have increased from 3 in 2006 to 7,977 in 2017 (1). Numerous activities associated with OG development and production, including unintentional releases of hydraulic fracturing fluid and waste water, erosion, and sedimentation due to the construction and operation of well pads, pipelines, and unpaved roads, as well as increased road use and releases in the course of waste disposal, can pose potential risks to surface water (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). A growing body of studies has investigated the ecological effects of OG production; however, no clear consensus has emerged, and the comparability of the studies is limited, due to variations in study design; the confounding effects of regional differences in land use, geology, and regulation; and a lack of long-term baseline data.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Shale gas development has limited effects on stream biology and geochemistry in a gradient-based, multiparameter study in Pennsylvania

Mumford

Maloney

Akob

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of horizontally drilled shale oil and gas wells in the United States has increased from nearly 28,000 in 2007 to nearly 127,000 in 2017, and research has suggested the potential for the development of shale resources to affect nearby stream ecosystems. However, the ability to generalize current studies is limited by the small geographic scope as well as limited breadth and integration of measured chemical and biological indicators parameters. This study tested the hypothesis that a quantifiable, significant relationship exists between the density of oil and gas (OG) development, increasing stream water concentrations of known geochemical tracers of OG extraction, and the composition of benthic macroinvertebrate and microbial communities. Twenty-five headwater streams that drain lands across a gradient of shale gas development intensity were sampled. Our strategy included comprehensive measurements across multiple seasons of sampling to account for temporal variability of geochemical parameters, including known shale OG geochemical tracers, and microbial and benthic macroinvertebrate communities. No significant relationships were found between the intensity of OG development, shale OG geochemical tracers, or benthic macroinvertebrate or microbial community composition, whereas significant seasonal differences in stream chemistry were observed. These results highlight the importance of considering spatial and temporal variability in stream chemistry and biota and not only the presence of anthropogenic activities in a watershed. This comprehensive, integrated study of geochemical and biological variability of headwater streams in watersheds undergoing OG development provides a robust framework for examining the effects of energy development at a regional scale.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Study Design and Site Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Design and Site Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Shale gas development has limited effects on stream biology and geochemistry in a gradient-based, multiparameter study in Pennsylvania

Mumford

Maloney

Akob

et al. 2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…including community impacts and water related issues, are provided in the literature [83][84][85][86][87][88].…”

Section: Regional and Local Context 221 Regional Water-energy Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disclosing water-energy-economics nexus in shale gas development

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shale gas has gained importance in the energy landscape in recent decades. However, its development has raised environmental concerns, especially, those associated with water management. Thus, the assessment of water management aspects which inevitably impact the economic aspects, is crucial in evaluating the merits of any project exploiting this energy source. This paper provides a review of the economic and environmental implications of shale gas development around the world. Furthermore, to demonstrate the interplay between the various technical, environmental and economic factors in concrete terms, we report on a specific set of case studies conducted using an integrated decisionsupport tool that has been implemented to model and optimize shale gas development projects. The case study results confirm that the gas breakeven price decreases with expansion in scale of the shale gas development, i.e. increasing the number of well-pads in the system. However, scale also increases the options for water re-use and recycle in drilling and fracturing operations, which can result in lower freshwater withdrawal intensity. Moreover, under water scarcity scenarios, the choice of well-pad designs that are 2 inherently less water intensive was found to be more cost-effective than water re-use or/and recycle strategies at reducing net freshwater demand. Similar trends were observed when the impact of wastewater quality, i.e. total dissolved solids concentration, on the optimal development strategy of shale gas plays was investigated. The results of these case studies reveal that greater efforts are needed at characterizing freshwater availability and wastewater quality for the evaluation of both the economic and environmental aspects of shale gas development.

show abstract

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero‐flow stream gage readings

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streamflow observations can be used to understand, predict, and contextualize hydrologic, ecological, and biogeochemical processes and conditions in streams. Stream gages are point measurements along rivers where streamflow is measured, and are often used to infer upstream watershed-scale processes.When stream gages read zero, this may indicate that the stream has dried at this location; however, zero-flow readings can also be caused by a wide range of other factors. Our ability to identify whether or not a zero-flow gage reading indicates a dry fluvial system has far reaching environmental implications. Incorrect identification and interpretation by the data user can lead to inaccurate hydrologic, ecological, and/or biogeochemical predictions from models and analyses. Here, we describe several causes of zero-flow gage readings: frozen surface water, flow reversals, instrument error, and natural or human-driven upstream source losses or bypass flow. For these examples, we discuss the implications of zero-flow interpretations. We also highlight additional methods for determining flow presence, including direct observations, statistical methods, and hydrologic models, which can be applied to interpret causes of zero-flow gage readings and implications for reach-and watershedscale dynamics. Such efforts are necessary to improve our ability to understand and predict surface flow activation, cessation, and connectivity across river networks. Developing this integrated understanding of the wide range of possible meanings of zero-flows will only attain greater importance in a more variable and changing hydrologic climate.

show abstract

A detailed risk assessment of shale gas development on headwater streams in the Pennsylvania portion of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, U.S.A.

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

Shale gas development has limited effects on stream biology and geochemistry in a gradient-based, multiparameter study in Pennsylvania

Shale gas development has limited effects on stream biology and geochemistry in a gradient-based, multiparameter study in Pennsylvania

Disclosing water-energy-economics nexus in shale gas development

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero‐flow stream gage readings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About