 Okay. Well, this slide shows you the drilling of shale gas wells in this tri-state area, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and it cycles through starting with 2004-2005 up till today. And the rate that this happened, I think is really what brought us all to the room. I think the rate is a big piece of what has ensued. In our conversations with this round table, we haven't focused just on drilling or just on completion. We're also thinking about the whole life cycle. And so this is another piece of the story here. These are pipelines, this map is a little bit dated, but these are pipelines that are being put out. And this is also impacting and being commented on by the public. And so that's a piece of the story as well. So just to make sure we're all in the same place, what are the unconventional resources we're talking about? Shale oil, shale gas, in reservoirs where the porosity and permeability is so low that they have to be fractured to get it out. And typically, they also are horizontally drilled. So it's the combination of horizontal drilling and high pressure, high volume hydraulic fracturing that we together refer to as unconventional resources. Tuesday I was at a talk where Jeremy Weber from the Shale Governments Center and University of Pittsburgh was talking about the economic benefit of this to Pennsylvanians. And he pulled out a number of like $3 billion in terms of royalties and then all the sort of other ancillary economic impacts that have accrued to Pennsylvania residents through 2018. And much of this is going to rural residents. And so this impact is really important. And then we've already seen from the video that this has also made it so now that we can be an exporter of natural gas and reduced oil import. I feel like I'm blocking some people. Okay. So at the same time, the public has become aware of some impacts on our environments and there has been a lot of pushback. And again, I think it's related to the rate of this development and some of the issues that happened. And one of the things I'm going to try to impress upon you is that many of the issues that people still talk about were more prevalent early on in the development of the play. And we've worked some of those issues out. And yet once the public fears something, sometimes it's hard to walk it back. So pictures like this where water was impacted. And I'll talk about many other issues as the talk goes along. And so the question really is how can we mitigate the potential for environmental impacts over this whole life cycle? I thought I'd start with this. This is not a beautiful slide, but it's data from the Environment Information Agency. This is total net electricity generation in Pennsylvania from the 1990s to 2016. This is that which was generated by coal. But you can see coal is dipping down. And that which was generated by natural gas, which is going up. And people know that this is happening. But this itself has a big impact. This is SO2 emissions. And the colors have changed here. Sorry about that. But just look at the green, which is this is the SO2 emissions to the air has been decreasing over this time period. So the point that I'm trying to make here is we can look at environmental impacts of shale gas development and they are real. But we also have to think about sort of these ancillary effects that are also happening. We can we can track the SO2 emissions by, you know, sulfate in our in our rivers and impacts in our in our river. So what are we talking about? This is just a generic image of drilling. So vertical borehole with a horizontal borehole in the target shale. This is kilometers of depth. And hydro the fracturing is happening down here where high pressure high vines of water is pumped down with a little bit of sand. The water has a lot of chemicals in it. And that'll be something that'll be talked about more specifically by Radisov in the afternoon and pumped at high pressure to fracture the rock. So I think one of the key parts here is the fact that the water resources that we're drinking that we rely on are up here, maybe in the upper 1000 feet, and then it's thousands of feet down to the fracking. And this distance here is very important in terms of keeping our waters safe. The other point I want to make is we're not producing just natural gas. Water comes back, but the water that was down here in his high contents of salt, it has other organic compounds in it, and it has very radioactive elements in it as well. And those are in flowback waters and produce waters, which again Radisov will talk more about in the afternoon. So the depths, the distance between the hydraulic fracturing and the water is very important. The greatest recorded fracture propagation upwards. So as this fracturing occurs, the fractures actually go go upward has been reported in this paper here is up to 500 meters above the Marcellus, and the shallowest depth that we've been able to see in the Marcellus in Pennsylvania is one kilometer where there was fracturing. So everything else is much deeper than that. The public early on was very worried about the pumping down of chemicals, some of which are toxic, and whether it would get back up into the water resources, which is why I was emphasizing the distance between them. But early on, it was also very hard to find out what was in the compounds. And in 2011, Pennsylvania began requiring the disclosure of chemicals in the fluid in frack focus. And there's no national requirement for this, but many states across the country are starting to do this also. So this is an example where our regulations changed and allowed the public to learn and allowed us to know more about what's happening. So in terms of impacts on water in Pennsylvania, the most common contaminant that's been reported is natural gas into the waters. And this has caused a lot of the public interest. And and for good reason, there's been some cases of explosions that are related to methane being released into into contained spaces. There were also early scientific papers, which my social science colleagues refer to as signaling events that that created a lot of interest early on. This is a paper Osborn et al 2011, methane concentration in homeowner wells as a function of distance to the nearest bore vertical borehole of a shale gas well. Here's the action level for hazard mitigation. And they made the point that for this set of data, which I think is about 100 data points, the closer you were to a shale gas well, the higher the methane. This paper came out really early on kind of set the stage and created a lot of controversy. Subsequent papers. This is one that we published, but Don Siegel has published in papers. Same plot methane concentration in water wells versus distance to an unconventional well. And in this case, once we had a lot more data, you stopped seeing the correlation that was observed in that previous plot. There's a lot of argument as to why it showed in that earlier data. I personally think that it was related to an area in Pennsylvania where there were some issues and so that you saw it in that smaller data set. And we've actually worked hard to try to show this that the size of the data set impacts whether you see those kinds of correlation. Why do we see natural gas getting into water that's related to this shale gas development in this area? Because in some of the other shale gas plays, we don't see it. A large piece of it is that if you look in the mid depths in Pennsylvania, this is an example from Bradford County. Here's the Marcellus. Here's up around Wyall-Lucing in Bradford. And there are depths in between at the intermediate depths where there is also natural gas. And those are shown by these little yellow areas. So in other words, gas is not just in the production shale, but in the intermediate depths. And so that has created some problems. Another change in regulations that has improved over time is that early on in the regulations in Pennsylvania, casing had to be used at the top. The steel casing that was mentioned in the video had to be cemented and cased through the top. There had to be cementing and casing down in the production. But at intermediate depths, there was not a requirement for intermediate depth casing and cement. And so sometimes this gas in the intermediate depths got into faults and moved two or three kilometers. And now those intermediate depth casings and cementing is what's required in Pennsylvania. So this is a complicated plot, but I try to emphasize a little bit about some of the issues that have changed over time. Here's the number per year versus time from 2006 to 2014. Here's the number of sputted wells. I divided it by 100 just to get it on the plot. And then this is new producing wells here. So you can see that there was a kind of a maximum back here in the 2011-2012. And then the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the state regulators, they were getting complaints about groundwater problems. They were looking at the complaints. They were categorizing them as cases. And the number of cases also peaked early on in the development of the play. So it's actually kind of difficult to look at these data and to parse it out. I sort of put it all through here on this slide. I don't know if I have to go through it. But between 2008 and 2012, there was like a thousand complaints about groundwater. Almost 20% were deemed related to oil and gas, but only half of those were unconventional. They categorized them as cases. And there was 83 cases. But a given case can include more than one shale gas well. And that's part of the complexity is trying to figure out what's going on. And one of the observations the DEP made early on was that when there were cases related to conventional wells, usually one conventional well would contaminate one water well. But what was happening, or at least early on was happening, was sometimes a natural gas well might contaminate up to 18 water wells. And so it just became that much more complex to parse it out. As I said, the most common contamination was natural gas. And when you look at the data and try to figure out the number of wells that had well integrity problems, the percent of wells seemed very low that were releasing methane into groundwater. All right. So that was that's methane. I'm not going to go through the different kinds of environmental impacts. I'm going to try to go a little bit faster. I'm now going to talk about other constituents and drilling fluids. Hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater brine. Again, one of the things that was allowed early on that was that's important to remember this is before 2011. Some of these flowbacks and production waters could be discharged through publicly owned treatment works into rivers. And those treatment plants were not capable of pulling out all the salts in these waters. And so there was a salt load that was going into some of our rivers. And some of our rivers are used then for drinking water. So in earlier in that period, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority started seeing that there was brominated disinfection products, which can be problematic for humans in the water. And this was picked up by the EPA and it was studied. This is just bromide concentration in the Allegheny River. And so that was also discontinued as of 2011. The most common mechanism for the contaminants and the flowback and production waters to get into drinking water is from spills and leaks. And this just shows the plot. All the green squares are where the DEP has given notice of violations for spills and leaks. And then we went through and into the best of our ability tried to find the biggest ones. The red stars are spills and leaks that are bigger than 400 gallons. And again, if you put this on the plot of number per year versus time, the large spills, you can see also peaked in this this period in here of a lot of the problems, a lot of the public pushback. But there are still spills that that are still occurring even today. You can also see what the spills were reported diesel, hydrostatic test waters, nine frag fluids or components, 13 drilling fluids or sediments, and then production waters and Brine's 16. Most of these spills, even when they're quite large, are going into rivers or if they get to the rivers, they're diluted very quickly. This is a very wet climate in case you didn't notice that today's a perfect example. And so they are, if they get to the rivers, are are diluted quickly. So given the fact that there aren't a large number of these spills, given the fact that there's 12,000 shale gas wells in Pennsylvania, I feel like there's sort of two approaches and we've been following this in our group. One is to try to look at the overall frequency of problems and then and try to find what the frequency of impacts are on ground waters or surface waters. And the other is to work on case studies. And I think the case studies are super important even if they're, you know, infrequent problems, because that's how we're going to learn to do things better. So in terms of the case studies, we've been collecting data and plotting or publishing it online. You can see the number of data points. This is supposed to be the number of data points versus time in a database that we've published online. You can see all the points where waters have come from. And another example of sort of a change in regulations is in 2012, the setback distance, the distance over which the oil and gas companies are presumed responsible, went from 1,000 feet to 2,500 feet for unconventionals. And these, so now, although it's not a regulatory requirement to collect waters over 2,500 feet when they drill, most of the companies go out, maybe all of the companies go out, collect water, get it analyzed, commercial laboratories. And then that data is given to the DEP and they've been giving it to Penn State and we've been trying to publish it so people can really look at these data sets, the big data sets that are available. So one of the things we've looked at, again, this is trying to look at it sort of statistically, we've been looking at groundwater chemistry across the state with this pre-drilled data that's been released to us. And we published a paper not long ago about groundwater chemistry in Bradford where there's a high density of shale gas wells per square kilometer. And when we found a data set from the 1980s that we could compare it to, we actually saw a statistically significant but very, very small evidence that the groundwater sort of overall in Bradford County had improved. And I think that probably has to do with the lessening of acid rain in the state. So it has to do with things that aren't related to the shale gas. We've got a paper that is submitted now over here in the northwest part of Mercer County, a much lower density of shale gas wells. But we actually see statistically significant decrease in the quality of the water, very, very slight again. And to the best of our ability, we don't think it's the shale gas development. It's probably because there's more roads in Mercer County, so there's more de-icing. There has been in the past usage of brines for dust abatement on roads, brines from conventional. I don't think that is allowed anymore, but it has been in use in northwest. And then there's many older oil and gas wells. And so just kind of examples of using big data sets to try to see sort of regional trends. We also like looking at case studies, and this is just an example of that. Of the 45 largest spills in the league, one was reported to be air foam. This was used in drilling. And this is a picture of it. And actually the valley wall of Pine Creek, which is a beautiful creek in central Pennsylvania. And we worked on a case study over in Bradford County. This is not the same study, but where we actually saw two butethnol, which is shown down here, in domestic water wells that was related, we think, to drilling that might have been happening a couple kilometers away. Another thing that's changed every time that I haven't seen a case study about, but I think maybe it's out there, and we need to know more about is pits and impoundments. Early on, the rules for using pits and impoundments were different than they are now. And I think early on there was issues around this, especially around this area in the southwest. So there's something like 439 violations that were related to pits and impoundments. But now as of 2017, pits for storage of residual waste cannot be kept at well sites in Pennsylvania. It is possible to have centralized wastewater impoundments, but the rules and regulations for those pits and impoundments have been improved. All right. So then let's quickly go through the other kinds of environmental impact sediments and erosion is very important in this tri-state area, especially because of the relief of a lot of the landscape. This is a picture from Range Resources, and this is a picture that I think it was the original 2004 well, which does not look as well lined and as well regulated and cared for as the more modern well. So there's been a lot of improvement in terms of what the companies are doing to decrease erosion and sediment loss on their site. Pat Drohan at Penn State has looked a lot at the erosion and sediment issues, and there's some published papers you can see up here through the estimates of disturbed landscape per well pad. And then they've actually calculated out what the potential disturbance could be, and you can see it's up at 180,000 hectares. This is actually up there with the footprint of abandoned strip mines in Pennsylvania, and so this is something that is an ongoing concern in terms of the impacts, but again the companies are working with it as best they can and keeping the well pads better lined than they had been in the past. Okay, I'll quickly just mention earthquakes. Over two years there were about 1,700 earthquakes detected in the Pennsylvania seismic network. 99% of them were mining blasts from coal mines, and red here are the events that were picked up by the seismic network, and the surface mines and underground mines are shown, and you can sort of see how they correlate. So this is just an example where we got out there, we started making the measurements, and we saw things that had been there for a long time that are not related to shale gas. On the other hand, there has been some induced seismicity. There has been one earthquake in Pennsylvania that was associated with hydraulic fracturing up in Lawrence County. There's been a handful of them in Ohio, and then there has also been induced seismicity in Ohio related to injection. And interestingly enough, if you look at this is a depth plot, and this is the location of the earthquakes, here's the borehole and the horizontal, you can see that these tend to be seismic events that are in the basement rocks in the subsurface. Ecological impacts, noise and light pollution during well pad and placement is probably local and temporary impacts. New and expanded roads have longer term impacts, and this is particularly important because of habitat fragmentation, which impacts biodiversity, species composition, and then also spread of invasive species. And this is just one specific example showing that the ecologists are seeing that species are changing, species compositions are changing in the forests in Pennsylvania, as birds that are sort of human associated go up, and birds that are not as human associated, their abundance goes down. Emissions to the atmosphere, of course, as methane leaks and goes into the atmosphere, it's a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It only has an impact that's stronger as a greenhouse gas for something like 25 years, but it still is an important greenhouse gas. And so people are looking at the greenhouse gas effects and looking at the methane emission effects, as well as emission of other volatile organic compounds. So this is a paper that was published, I think it was 2013, and they were looking at volatile organic compounds as well as methane from 1 to 10 carbon atoms. And what they observed here is methane plotted versus the number of unconventional natural gas wells. What they saw was higher methane concentration in the air near the unconventional natural, or in areas where there's more unconventional natural gas wells, same for propane, higher, where there's a higher density of unconventional wells, and the same for the C2 to C8 alkanes as well. And so this is more data like this are needed, and this is starting to be an area of interest and concern. There was also one paper where they looked at diesel range organic compounds, and plotted the concentration of those compounds versus, like cut it off, but I think this is distance from unconventional wells, and they argued that they actually saw deposition of some of these organic compounds into the ground waters, and that they were higher close to the gas wells as well. So this is these kinds of topics are not as advanced in terms of the research, and that's something that is under active investigation. Back to that greenhouse gas, the sort of how much greenhouse gas emission is there. The estimates are being pursued by doing bottom up, sort of walking around a site and measuring methane emissions, and from top down either flying over it or using cars and looking downwind at the plume. And the bottom up and top down estimates are starting to converge. One of the observations is the histograms, the sort of leak rate from well pads or plays is very skewed. So there's a very, very small number that have a very high emission rate, and then a large number that have a low emission rate. And that makes it very hard to do the national inventory. The EPA estimate is down here, and the growing consensus is that the national methane emission related to this is higher than the EPA estimate. But again, a lot of this comes down to how many of these big leakers are there. In terms of Pennsylvania, a paper was published in 2016, the release rate of methane normalized by the production rate of methane. So how much is going to the atmosphere versus how much is being produced at the well is like 11% for conventional natural gas wells that were looked at in this study versus 0.13% for the unconventional natural gas well. And so this is important in terms of thinking about choices that we make in terms of energy production. And then just to kind of bring us back to Pennsylvania and Ohio and some of these areas where we've had natural gas and oil production for a really long time, this paper by Amy Townsend in 2016, she recognized that the national estimates of methane emission were really not including abandoned oil and gas wells. And so she looked at four different states to try to estimate how much is being released, how much methane is being released from these abandoned wells. And she saw that 25% of the unplugged wells were releasing methane in her sample set. Only one of the methane releasing wells was a plugged well. So most of the problem is with unplugged wells. Again, there's a skewed distribution so you can go out and find a lot that are not releasing but a small number that are releasing. And she found a difference with how much methane was being released in the abandoned and unplugged eastern gas wells versus the abandoned and unplugged western gas wells. And she thinks that it's either because the wells here are older, obviously we go back to the 1800s here and and regulations were completely different. Or it could also be related to the higher precipitation in the east. And if you do include the abandoned orphan wells, it does increase the national inventory by a flight amount. So I just wanted to end with this because Pennsylvania, the DEP estimates there's something like 350,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled and maybe 100,000 of them are unknown. The colors here, the black are abandoned, the red are active and blue is inactive. And there's a lot of issues around these legacy wells. Just in the newspaper yesterday there was an issue related to a shale gas well that intersected with water from a coal mine. I showed a methane geyser earlier in the talk and that was shale gas well drilling that seemed to intersect with a well that had been there since 1930. The company knew it was there but there was some kind of connection that allowed methane to spurt out with water. So there's a lot of issues in terms of understanding the impacts of these both on air quality and on water quality. So my concluding remarks, I tried to show you and we started off with talking about some of the economic impacts which have been real for many residents, especially perhaps rural residents. I mentioned that there's a decrease in SO2 release. There's also a decrease in NOx release to the atmosphere regionally. I think this will impact both air quality and water quality. There have been impacts to water and they appear to be relatively rare compared to the number of shale gas wells but it's very difficult because so many data are not released to the public. I really believe we need more case studies because I think case studies feel congruent to the public. They know things have happened and they want to be able to read about them and know what happened. It also will allow us to determine how to do things better into the future and to do that data has to be released, to do case studies. I tried to show where practices have improved over time. I don't mean to imply that everything's perfect now but I do mean to give you a sort of a picture of the play in the Marcellus especially in Pennsylvania but up here in the Northeast where early on the practices were different than they are now and we've learned as we've gone along and perhaps we went pretty fast in the beginning. Finally, I think it's interesting to think of the Northeast as a test bed for understanding of the life cycle of these wells. We certainly have the oldest oil and gas wells. We have oil and gas wells that are almost every age and I think that more work needs to be done to understand how they are impacting the environment. Thank you.