-
How many wells are Permitted? Drilled? Producing?
Version Permitted Drilled Producing Permit Expired Unknown Stage Total Wells 2022 Q4 200 1,983 11,973 9,021 561 23,738 2022 Q3 209 2,133 11,686 9,016 444 23,448 2022 Q2 251 2,014 11,649 8,990 536 23,440 2022 Q1 289 2,044 11,431 8,969 477 23,210 2021 Q4 258 1,967 11,398 8,938 575 23,136 2021 Q3 311 2,065 11,145 8,896 457 22,874 2021 Q2 287 2,009 11,090 8,871 530 22,787 2021 Q1 339 2,057 10,926 8,823 452 22,597 2020 Q4 382 2,002 10,844 8,769 600 22,597 2020 Q3 433 2,048 10,699 8,689 556 22,425 2020 Q2 481 2,084 10,552 8,605 689 22,407 2020 Q1 568 2,133 10,388 8,515 468 22,072 2019 Q4 688 2,100 10,276 8,389 544 21,997 2019 Q3 764 2,219 10,037 8,256 482 21,758 2019 Q2 798 2,241 9,878 8,173 525 21,615 2019 Q1 788 2,296 9,646 8,107 570 21,407 2018 Q4 879 2,184 9,561 7,937 638 21,199 2018 Q3 1,070 2,178 9,366 7,699 833 21,146 2018 Q2 1,156 2,291 9,083 7,546 598 20,674 2018 Q1 1,268 2,339 8,822 7,450 736 20,615 2017 Q4 1,009 2,234 8,731 7,426 1,213 20,613 2017 Q3 746 2,422 8,342 7,373 854 19,737 2017 Q2 622 2,270 8,287 7,344 1,094 19,617 2017 Q1 560 2,266 8,077 7,280 816 18,999 2016 Q4 714 2,174 7,985 7,126 725 18,724* 2016 Q3 832 2,260 7,723 6,954 466 18,235* 2016 Q2 969 2,149 7,688 6,783 484 18,073* 2016 Q1 1,131 2,372 7,392 6,542 414 17,851* 2015 Q4 1,186 2,343 7,314 6,301 641 17,785* 2015 Q3 1,208 2,564 6,937 6,070 509 17,288* 2015 Q2 1,407 2,445 6,837 5,769 604 17,062* 2015 Q1 1,522 2,709 6,383 5,521 457 16,592* 2014 Q4 1,572 2,572 6,300 5,311 622 16,388* 2014 Q3 1,713 2,900 5,620 5,102 471 15,806* 2014 Q2 1,807 2,515 5,620 4,878 751 15,571* 2014 Q1 1,713 2,700 5,101 4,639 645 14,798* * This total does not include wells without geographic coordinates because these wells were not included in the geodatabase feature class prior to 2017. For more information on the number of wells that are missing location information, see question two below. Note: Prior to 2015, production reports were released twice a year (for January-June and July-December), so the number of producing wells only changed in Q2 and Q4 updates. Starting in 2015, production was reported monthly, 45 days after the end of the month. Therefore, Q1 and Q3 versions of the data include all wells that produced gas up to the end of January and July, respectively. Data versions from Q2 and Q4 include all wells that produced gas up to the end of June and December, respectively.
-
How many wells have discrepancies or errors associated with them? What do the discrepancies or errors mean?
Version Permit
ErrorsSPUD
ErrorsUnconventional Status
ErrorsLocation
ErrorsTotal
Errors2022 Q4 572 47 23,177 525 24,368 2022 Q3 455 46 178 525 1,204 2022 Q2 547 47 177 519 1,290 2022 Q1 477 47 160 471 1,155 2021 Q4 575 47 160 459 1,241 2021 Q3 457 47 160 447 1,111 2021 Q2 530 47 160 419 1,156 2021 Q1 452 47 160 278 937 2020 Q4 600 47 161 293 1,101 2020 Q3 556 47 161 257 1,021 2020 Q2 685 47 161 273 1,166 2020 Q1 468 47 162 236 913 2019 Q4 549 47 163 278 1,037 2019 Q3 482 47 167 268 964 2019 Q2 525 47 171 249 992 2019 Q1 570 47 170 209 996 2018 Q4 638 46 160 345 1,189 2018 Q3 833 48 160 251 1,292 2018 Q2 598 47 158 205 1,008 2018 Q1 736 47 178 221 1,182 2017 Q4 1,213 48 159 364 1,784 2017 Q3 854 44 156 189 1,243 2017 Q2 1,094 44 157 189 1,484 2017 Q1 816 42 158 192 1,208 2016 Q4 725 46 163 48* 978 2016 Q3 466 42 159 45* 707 2016 Q2 484 42 160 38* 724 2016 Q1 414 40 152 38* 643 2015 Q4 641 38 152 8* 839 2015 Q3 509 37 150 30* 722 2015 Q2 604 37 149 22* 792 2015 Q1 457 37 148 7* 649 2014 Q4 633 49 149 23* 854 2014 Q3 471 47 148 20* 686 2014 Q2 751 57 149 32* 989 2014 Q1 667 38 154 23* 855 * Location error only includes wells without geographic coordinates. Prior to 2017, this error was determined using a different algorithm and may not be accurate. Because not every data source includes records for every unique well, discrepancies are inherent. It is recommended that every effort be made by users to investigate and/or disregard records that may skew one’s research or analysis.
Wells are analyzed for errors based on the following criteria:
- Permit Error – Identifies wells that have a SPUD record and/or a production record indicating production greater than 0 Mcf but are missing permit information.
- This error is concerned with drilling and production and the lack of a permit. Production and SPUD records indicate with more confidence that a particular well exists and is operating. If no permit records exist, then data is incomplete for that particular well.
- To query for wells without permits, use the PERMIT_COUNT field.
- SPUD Error – Identifies wells that show natural gas production but do not have a SPUD record.
- Wells producing gas should have a record of when drilling commenced. If no SPUD records exist, then data is incomplete for that particular well.
- Unconventional Status Error – Identifies wells that are inconsistently classified as unconventional wells across all datasets.
- Well records that are inconsistently classified as unconventional wells cannot be verified. Any analysis including these wells should have strong cause to include such wells. Although, such wells should not be ignored, as the wells can be reported to the PA DEP for clarification.
- Location Error – Identifies wells without geographic coordinates in any data source (indicated with the value ‘YES’ in the feature class) or wells with different geographic coordinates between data sources (indicated with ‘Coordinate Inconsistent, Mean Used: x° Max Error’.
- Without geographic coordinates, a well is not able to be mapped or used in spatial analyses and wells with differing geographic coordinates may not be accurately mapped.
- For most inconsistent records, this error is minimal, as an error of less than 0.00001° will be less than ~3 ft (1 m). However, a few records may include errors up to 1° or more, which is very significant at more than 50 mi (80 km) of error. If all datasets report the same geographic coordinates, no inconsistency is reported.
- Prior to 2017, records with location errors will not be present in GIS feature classes, while for versions published in 2017 and after will include wells without geographic locations, but contain a null point geometry.
- Permit Error – Identifies wells that have a SPUD record and/or a production record indicating production greater than 0 Mcf but are missing permit information.
-
How many unconventional wells have been reported to the PUC by the PA DEP? How many wells does the geodatabase classify as unconventional wells? Why is there a difference?
This is a tricky question! To answer this question, we need to concentrate on drilled and producing wells only, as this is what the PUC report is concerned with.
Version PUC PA Unconventional Wells
GeodatabaseDifference 2022 Q4 13,894 13,956 62 2022 Q3 13,758 13,819 61 2022 Q2 13,602 13,663 61 2022 Q1 13,426 13,475 49 2021 Q4 13,316 13,365 49 2021 Q3 13,161 13,210 49 2021 Q2 13,050 13,099 49 2021 Q1 12,934 12,983 49 2020 Q4 12,846 12,797 49 2020 Q3 12,698 12,747 49 2020 Q2 12,587 12,636 49 2020 Q1 12,471 12,521 50 2019 Q4 12,322 12,376 54 2019 Q3 12,201 12,256 55 2019 Q2 12,067 12,119 52 2019 Q1 11,891 11,942 51 2018 Q4 11,699 11,745 46 2018 Q3 11,498 11,544 46 2018 Q2 11,327 11,374 47 2018 Q1 11,112 11,161 49 2017 Q4 10,916 10,965 49 2017 Q3 10,719 10,764 45 2017 Q2 10,511 10,557 46 2017 Q1 10,294 10,343 49 2016 Q4 10,110 10,159 49 2016 Q3 9,937 9,983 46 2016 Q2 9,790 9,837 47 2016 Q1 9,722 9,764 42 2015 Q4 9,618 9,657 39 2015 Q3 9,462 9,501 39 2015 Q2 9,252 9,282 30 2015 Q1 9,051 9,092 41 2014 Q4 8,822 8,872 50 2014 Q3 8,480 8,520 40 2014 Q2 7,759 8,135 376 2014 Q1 7,759 7,801 42 The discrepancy in values lies in how unconventional wells are defined for the purposes of reporting them to the PUC, which is described in Act 13.
For the purpose of the Pennsylvania Unconventional Wells Geodatabase, an unconventional natural gas well is defined as any well classified as such in any of the eight PA DEP data sources used in the compilation of this dataset. Some records in the individual data sources may not be classified as unconventional. If this is the case, at least one other record in any of the eight data sources indicates the well as unconventional. This inclusive approach allows for questionable wells to be subject to further scrutiny and to allow for a greatest-number of wells scenario. It is recommended that every effort be made by users to investigate and/or disregard records that may skew one’s research or analysis.
-
How often is the Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells geodatabase updated?
The geodatabase is updated quarterly.
Quarter Data End Date PADEP Data
Download Date**UNCGDB
Release Date**Q1 March 31 April 7 April 15 Q2 June 30 August 22 August 31 Q3 September 30 October 7 October 15 Q4 December 31 February 22 February 28 **Date represents the week of the corresponding date. Actual download/release may occur earlier or later. -
Does the data contain fracking information, such as when the wells were hydraulically fractured?
No. this information is not distributed by the PA DEP through Oil ad Gas Reports.
-
How should I cite the Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells geodatabase?
Whitacre, J. V., and Slyder, J.B. YYYY. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells Geodatabase (v.YYYY-Q#) [computer file]. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Available download: URL: https://maps.carnegiemnh.org/index.php/projects/unconventional-wells/. Accessed: Date of Download.
-
Who is citing the Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells geodatabase?
The list below is not exhaustive. If you have have cited the geodatabase and would like to include your article, please contact the Carnegie Museum of Natural History GIS Lab at GIS@CarnegieMNH.Org.
- Dennis LE, Richardson SJ, Miles N, Woda J, Brantley SL, Davis KJ. 2022. Measurements of Atmospheric Methane Emissions from Stray Gas Migration: A Case Study from the Marcellus Shale. American Chemical Society. doi:10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00312
- Denham A, Willis M, Zavez A, and Hill E. 2019. Unconventional natural gas development and hospitalizations: evidence from Pennsylvania, United States, 2003–2014. Public Health 168: 17-25. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2018.11.020
- Phan TT, Hakala JA, Lopano CL, and Sharma S. 2019. Rare earth elements and radiogenic strontium isotopes in carbonate minerals reveal diagenetic influence in shales and limestones in the Appalachian Basin. Chemical Geology. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2019.01.018
- Chalfant BA and Corrigan CC. 2018. Governing Unconventional Oil and Gas Extraction: The Case of Pennsylvania. Review of Policy Research 36: 75-98. doi:10.1111/ropr.12319
- Platt RV, Manthos D, and Amos J. 2018. Estimating the Creation and Removal Date of Fracking Ponds Using Trend Analysis of Landsat Imagery. Environmental Management 61: 310. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0983-4
- Hill E L, and Ma L. 2017. Does Shale Gas Development Impact Infant Health through Drinking Water?. working paper. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d29a/9be6077ffc5add2b4adbef86a36ca722668e.pdf
- Milt AW, Gagnolet T, and Armsworth PR. 2016. Synergies and tradeoffs among environmental impacts under conservation planning of shale gas surface infrastructure. Environmental management, 57(1), pp.21-30. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0592-z
- Phan TT, Capo RC, Stewart BW, Macpherson GL, Rowan EL, and Hammack RW. 2016. Factors controlling Li concentration and isotopic composition in formation waters and host rocks of Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin. Chemical Geology, 420, pp.162-179. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2015.11.003
- Dieterich M. 2015. Physicochemical Effects of Synthetic Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid on Core Samples Of The Middle Devonian Marcellus Shale and Underlying Huntersville Chert, Greene County, Pennsylvania, USA. Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Pittsburgh. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/24963
- Milt AW. 2015. Conservation Planning in a Changing World. PhD Dissertation, University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3514
- Phan TT, Capo RC, Stewart BW, Graney JR, Johnson JD, Sharma S, and Toro J. 2015. Trace metal distribution and mobility in drill cuttings and produced waters from Marcellus Shale gas extraction: Uranium, arsenic, barium. Applied Geochemistry, 60, pp.89-103. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2015.01.013
- Rahm BG, Vedachalam S, Bertoia LR, Mehta D, Vanka VS, and Riha SJ. 2015. Shale gas operator violations in the Marcellus and what they tell us about water resource risks. Energy Policy, 82, pp.1-11. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.033
- Gamper‐Rabindran S. 2014. Information Collection, Access, and Dissemination to Support Evidence‐Based Shale Gas Policies. Energy Technology 2: 977-987. doi:10.1002/ente.201402114
- Slyder J, Whitacre J, and Wenzel J. 2015. Painting a Clearer Picture of Shale Gas Development. ArcNews Vol. 37, No. 1: 20-21. https://www.esri.com/about/newsroom/arcnews/painting-a-clearer-picture-of-shale-gas-development/
- Mitchell AL. 2013. Analysis of health and environmental risks associated with Marcellus Shale development. figshare. Thesis. doi:10.1184/R1/6714752.v1
-
Why does the Carnegie Museum of Natural History produce the Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells geodatabase? How is it different from the PA DEP data or other data products?
The Carnegie Museum of Natural History produces the Pennsylvania Unconventional Natural Gas Wells geodatabase to be used primarily for research purposes and to have one dataset that many researchers can use to provide reliable comparisons between different studies. The project began in response to the need to unify the PA DEP data sources (i.e. Permit, Spud, and Production reports) and check for discrepancies between the reports. We found that researchers were using the different reports inappropriately in some studies and that very few were checking the different reports for congruency and reliability in regards to a well’s unconventional status. We found that among the different reports, some wells were classified as unconventional in one report, but not in another. Therefore, we set out to identify those wells to provide researchers with data that has been pre-analyzed for the discrepancies, thus providing an authoritative dataset.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of some Frequently Asked Questions. If you have a question not included on this list, please contact the Carnegie Museum of Natural History GIS Lab at GIS@CarnegieMNH.Org.