13.2.1 Real Estate

The value of real estate nearby industrial activities has been of concern to residents who may be proximal to a well pad with a drilling rig or hydraulic fracture operations. The amount of time to drill and complete one unconventional oil or gas well is shown below.

13.2.2 Operational Timing

The drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and setting up of the production facilities are temporary activities that give way to oil or gas production (Table 13.1). Gas production is typically quiet, except near compressor stations, which are frequently enclosed in soundproofed buildings. Operators may service gas wells once every month or so. Well pads are designed to minimize surface disturbance. Well pads with dozens of horizontal wells could take years to complete the drilling and hydraulic fracture operations.

13.2.3 Split Estate

In many countries, the subsurface rights, including the mineral resources, generally belong to the government. At a time when agricultural production was a primary employer and a major force in the national economy, thoughts of great wealth from subsurface resources were not even considered. Driven by historic agricultural land development in the United States and without much consideration of the potential mineral wealth below the surface, in some states the federal government land grants gave the title to the subsurface rights to the owner of the surface rights. Later, in some states across the West, the federal government granted homestead status to ranchers and farmers but retained subsurface mineral rights. Over time, when some landowners sold their ranches and farms, they kept the mineral rights.

Eventually, those mineral rights were sold to mining or oil companies, creating a split estate, wherein the property rights to the surface and the property rights to underground resources are divided between two parties. A split estate is created when the original property owner owning both surface and subsurface rights sells or loses ownership of the subsurface, also called the mineral estate. Many of the economic issues associated with the development of unconventional oil and gas resources on property owned by those who do not enjoy the financial benefits of the subsurface rights can be traced to the severance of the surface and mineral estates. Although federal and state laws give subsurface rights owners the right to the reasonable use of the surface to extract the minerals, which include oil, gas, and coalbed methane, the act of drilling and oil and gas production can create disruption and nuisance conditions for the surface rights owner and conflicts can arise due to the split estate (Bell and Bell 2017).

13.2.4 Landowner Royalty Payments

For those landowners in rural areas with sizeable acreage, owning both surface and mineral rights can provide significant income. For a farmer in Washington County in southwest Pennsylvania, Marcellus Shale gas wells have been lucrative. A simple annual royalty payment (ARP) calculation using data from Table 13.2 can be made:

where

• RR = royalty rate (%)
• DP = daily production (Mcf)
• AWP = average wellhead price ($ per Mcf)
• Mcf = 1000 ft³ of natural gas
• MMcf = million cubic feet of natural gas
• AO = acres owned (acres)
• TA = total acres in well production unit (acres)
• ARP = annual royalty payment ($)

The initial decline as measured in a decrease in gas production over the 12 months of operation of a Marcellus Shale well is key in estimating the potential for future production. First‐year gas production decline rates in Pennsylvania range from 60 to 80% (Figure 13.1). Unconventional production declines sharply, within the first few years, and then the gas production will level off or decline steadily but continue to produce for decades. Typical Marcellus Shale gas wells have an estimated lifetime of 20–30 years of production (Ladlee 2017).

13.2.5 Future Use

High‐volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) operations are an industrial process and may preclude or limit certain surface uses nearby by the surface rights owner. Examples of land use limitations might include residential, child day care, hospital, retirement homes, or other facilities where exposure to noise, windblown dust, or methane leakage can create a health risk. Once production is established and drilling and HVHF operations have been completed, surface use restrictions should be reevaluated by properly trained professionals.

13.2.6 Oil and Gas Production 2000–2015

The US Energy Information Administration (2016) has documented oil production in the United States. The new oil production has mainly been produced from black shales and other tight rocks in the Eagle Ford formation of south and east Texas, the Permian Basin of west Texas, and the Bakken and Three Forks formations of the Williston Basin in North Dakota and Montana. The increase in producing unconventional oil wells is mirrored in the number of producing unconventional gas wells with main production from black shales and other tight rocks in the following basins: 1) Marcellus and Utica formations of the Appalachian Basin, 2) the Bakken Formation in Williston Basin in North Dakota and Montana, 3) the Eagle Ford formation in east and south Texas, and 4) the stacked Permian Basin formations in Texas and New Mexico (US EIA 2016). There are 1.7 million active oil and gas wells that have been drilled since August 2015 in the United States (Kelso 2015). In the United States, as of 2013, more than 15.3 million people in 11 states live within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the hundreds of thousands of unconventional oil and gas wells drilled since 2000. Diagrams showing total crude oil production (Figure 13.2) and total natural gas production (Figure 13.3) from 2000 to 2015 show that in 2015, unconventional production methods represent 51 and 67% of the total production, respectively. Combined production figures from the same time period are summarized in Table 13.3.

13.2.7 Value of Residential Real Estate

In general, residential property in close proximity to industrial activities is less valued than similar properties without those nearby uses. However, area‐wide increases in real estate value may relate to a shortage of housing supplies as well as the improving health of the local economy, greater local employment opportunities, and higher local and state revenues from operators and vendors. The sales comparison approach is the best method to determine residential real estate value (ILAC 2016). Income capitalization is often used for commercial property in conjunction with the sales comparison approach. The impacts of unconventional oil and gas production, if any, on residential real estate values should be determined by real estate experts in an unbiased and professional manner to objectively use the established appraisal valuation practices described in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (Bell and Bell 2017). Real estate values relate to site‐specific conditions, and a licensed real estate appraiser should be contacted for detailed information.

13.2.8 Perceptions

In the popular press, in non‐peer‐reviewed articles about real estate prices in areas of unconventional oil and gas production, photos featuring flaming gases burning at the nozzle end of the kitchen faucet are common. Although the gas is likely methane, the sources for methane in water are numerous. Methane can be of biogenic origin, related to anaerobic decay of organic matter. Methane can also be naturally occurring in groundwater aquifers sourced from deeper coal seams or black shale units. Unconventional oil and gas production activities can also be a possible source of methane in tap water. In order to accurately confirm the source of methane in tap water, isotope geochemistry can be used to identify the origin of the dissolved methane. Nonetheless, photos of gas flames in tap water and thousands of articles, videos, and documentary films have created negative perceptions for real estate near unconventional drilling operations, regardless of the source of the methane.

Real estate values have a lot to do with perceived risks, and in one real estate study (Muehlenbachs et al. 2015a), the authors estimate home value declines in Pennsylvania from April 2011 to April 2012 in areas undergoing unconventional shale gas drilling and production. In the study, the authors noted that groundwater‐dependent homes may have large and negative local impacts on house prices in areas with unconventional oil and gas development. They argue that groundwater contamination can cause severe financial impacts to homeowners without the access to a piped water system. The number of homes with groundwater wells impacted by unconventional oil and gas production in the study area or nationally was not reported. At present, many of the unconventional oil and gas production areas tend to be rural. Rural houses next to or near gasoline stations, dry cleaners, cement plants, or other industrial facilities likewise may have similar potential risks of contaminated groundwater or industrial activities. The importance of the study (Muehlenbachs et al. 2015a) is that the perception by home buyers of the risk of possible contamination from unconventional oil and gas drilling and production, not the actual damages, impacts the home values (Table 13.4).

Rents in in economically booming Marcellus Shale gas area of Pennsylvania, as compared to New York which has a drilling moratorium (control area) vary dramatically over the spread of unobservable factors; the large effects were confined only to the higher rental market segments (Muehlenbachs et al. 2015b).

13.2.9 Property Value Survey

In a 2013 telephone survey of 550 homeowners in the Houston, Texas, area and the Alabama–Florida panhandle conducted by business researchers at the University of Denver (Throupe et al. 2013), a majority said they would decline to buy a home near a drilling site. The study also showed that homeowners bidding on similar homes near active unconventional oil and gas drilling and production locations reduced their hypothetical offers by 5–25%. Those surveyed were instructed to consider that they were going to be offered to bid on a home near unconventional oil and gas activities, including drilling, hydraulic fracture operations, and production. The authors described horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing methods, and production activities, as well as the potential risks of surface and subsurface impacts. Case studies of contamination claims were also discussed. Those surveyed by telephone were also provided a summary of federal and state disclosure regulations and management requirements for the oil and gas field operators.

The surveyed Texans, generally more comfortable with the oil and gas industry, discounted their real estate bids by about 6%. From the panhandle of Florida to southern Alabama, where the oil and gas industry is not as popular as in Texas, the real estate bids were reduced by 2.5 times the Texan amount, to about 15%. The importance of the study (Throupe et al. 2013) is that it shows the variations in comfort level of homeowners with the oil and gas industry operations, which reflects the perceptions of the risks of hydraulic fracturing operations in two different populations.

13.2.10 Home Prices near Well Sites

A 2010 real estate study (IRR 2010) was conducted using four criteria in the town of Flower Mound, Denton County, Texas. The study area lies within the Barnett Shale area where unconventional drilling and production of natural gas has been ongoing and is located in the Lewisville–Flower Mound real estate submarket, northwest of the Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, about 28 miles (45 km) northeast of Dallas and 25 miles (40 km) northeast of Fort Worth, Texas (IRR 2010). Home prices near well sites in the Lewisville–Flower Mound real estate submarket are summarized in Table 13.5.

Conclusions from the study (IRR 2010) can be made regarding home values relating to the proximity to well sites:

• Many study participants believe the proximity of unconventional gas wells negatively impact home values.
• The prices of upscale homes are affected more significantly by the proximity to well sites than lower priced homes.
• Homes with small lots such as patio homes or zero lot line properties are less likely to be impacted in price than homes on larger lots.
• The largest price impacts are to houses immediately adjacent to a well site.
• The only property subset to be negatively impacted were houses valued higher than $250 000:
  • The value of properties in this category were negatively impacted about −3 to −14% of total value.
  • The range of property value decline found in price–distance relationships was about −2 to −7%.
  • No statistically significant diminution in value was noted using statistical regression methods.
• Values of upscales homes adjacent to well sites or within 700 ft (213 m) of the wellhead were impacted.
• Visual and sound buffers such as vegetation, other houses, or sufficient distance greatly reduces impact on home values.
• Without buffers between the home and well site, the negative proximity effect disappears at around 1000 ft (305 m) distance.
• After the drill rig is removed, hydraulic fracture operations have ceased, and gas production is ongoing, the negative impacts on home prices decrease with time.
• Once wells or gas compressors with sound‐deadening containment structures are producing, no discernable difference in home values was noted.

Notes: No homes in the Flower Mound, Texas, study area were closer than 1000 ft (305 m) to soundproofed compressor stations.

The conclusions of the Texas study (IRR 2010) noted that in general, once the drill rigs and fluid tanks, the most obvious aspects of gas operations, are removed from the well pads, the negative impacts on home values are significantly reduced with no discernable differences in house prices between homes proximal to producing wells and those further away.

Differences in home values related to proximity to wellheads, compressor stations, pipelines, or other facilities may vary with region and home‐specific circumstances.

13.3.1 Domestic Water Well Costs

Although it is unlikely that large‐scale groundwater impacts will occur related to a particular well pad spill or specific hydraulic fracturing chemical injection at an unconventional oil or gas well, domestic water wells can certainly be impacted by industrial activities. Depending on the size of the spill or injection and the characteristics of the chemicals released into the environment, as well as the subsurface conditions and the effectiveness of the emergency responders, a release is likely to be limited to one or a few domestic wells near the well pad. Other large sources of potential leaks related to unconventional oil and gas activities, such as pipeline breaks or railcar spills, can also have a large radius of impact and can contaminate domestic water wells.

Poor groundwater quality in many rural areas is not necessarily related to unconventional oil and gas operations. Natural conditions in aquifers or conditions of domestic water wells change over time and should be tested and compared with water quality standards. If unconventional oil and gas activities are suspected of contributing to water quality degradation in a domestic well, geochemical studies using isotope analysis and chemical ratios among other tests can be used to confirm the sources of impacts.

The replacement of impacted domestic water wells can cost a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on market conditions in the area where the drilling is proposed, site‐specific access issues, target depth, well casing diameter, cost of supplies at the time of installation, variations in permit fees, and other variables. Well plugging of the impacted well should also be factored into the cost of well replacement. For new domestic water wells, the contractor should test the well for its well‐sustained water yield (gallons per minute or liters per minute) to estimate the quality of the well. The water depth or drawdown during the pump test should be recorded as well as the time it takes for the water level to recover back to pretest levels. The well should be sampled for water quality parameters and disinfected. A professional geologist or professional engineer with expertise in hydrogeology should design the water well to optimize well performance. A checklist for well installation and maintenance (see Table 13.6 , Appendix I) provides suggestions on inspections and maintenance for well owners. Domestic well installation costs are estimated based on depth and other factors (Table 13.7).

13.3.2 Public Water Supplies

Regardless of the source of degraded water quality, connecting into a city or other municipal water supply or public water system may be one way to mitigate impacted domestic wells. A public water system, as defined by the US Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), provides potable water for human consumption through a piping system. The system has to have (i) at least 15 service connections or (ii) serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. A public water supply can be a large production well with water treatment system, or other sources of water can be utilized. Both municipal and public water supplies have requirements for analytical testing and reporting. In areas where a municipal or a public water supply is available, general estimated connection costs are listed in Table 13.8.

13.3.3 Water Treatment Systems

Water sampling and analysis of the well water and tap water is necessary to identify whether water quality is acceptable or if water treatment is necessary. Small water treatment systems are available and should be properly sized based on water flow and contaminant load based on the laboratory analysis. The system should be designed to include enough treatment media to prevent contaminant breakthrough for a specific amount of time and flow. Water treatment systems require maintenance and cleaning or replacing consumable media filters. Regular laboratory analysis is recommended to monitor the contaminant load. Estimated costs for water treatment systems (Table 13.9) vary greatly.

13.4.1 Soundproofing Equipment Shed

Soundproofing of sheds containing industrial equipment reduces noise levels (Table 13.10).

13.4.2 Road Construction Projects

Unconventional oil and gas development requires building new roads to the well pads. Damage to roads is affected by many factors, including age of road, truck weight and type, traffic patterns, road construction material, road subbase, drainage, environmental conditions, and other factors.

13.5.1 Orphan Well Survey

Orphan wells can be located using a variety of techniques. Estimated costs for locating one or two wells on one or two acres of accessible, vacant land in a relatively level rural area is summarized in Table 13.17.

13.5.2 Orphan Well Destruction

Protecting groundwater resources by sealing off surface or subsurface contamination of oil and gas activities, salt water, or poor quality water zones is the primary objective of proper well destruction. Orphan wells, which include permanently inactive oil, gas, water, and dewatering wells, are unplugged and abandoned and can create subsurface conduits for contaminants to migrate. Due to the potential of compromised well integrity, gases and fluids can be conveyed up or down orphan wells and impact drinking water sources. Variations in well destruction methods exist between different agencies. A general diagram for properly destroyed wells (Figure 13.4) shows the California Department of Water Resources approach toward destroying orphan wells (DWR 1981).

Pennsylvania has countless abandoned historic oil and gas wells, and the 1999 Environmental Good Samaritan Act protects landowners, groups, and individuals who volunteer to perform environmental restoration projects from civil and environmental liability. This law is intended to encourage landowners and others to plug and destroy orphan oil and gas wells and abate the associated water contamination. The act also covers volunteer actions caused by abandoned mining operations, including coal mines, which can cause acid mine drainage (PDEP 2017). Estimated costs for properly destroying orphan wells are summarized in Table 13.18.

The range of well destruction costs relate to many variables, including:

• Availability of drilling rigs.
• Depth to the bottom of the well.
• Well diameter.
• Well fluids (oil, gas, water, etc.).
• Obstructions in well.
• Weight and size of downhole pump, if present.
• Access to well site.
• Type of well construction.
• Regulatory agency requirements.
• Cost of permits.
• Area economics (expensive versus lower cost).
• Cost of professional oversight.

13.5.3 Subsurface Investigations

A Phase II Subsurface Investigation is used to collect soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples. If the investigation relates to surface leaks or spills, the investigation typically starts evaluating conditions at shallow depths. For larger releases, the study area might enlarge from the known contamination source area and move toward areas with possible exposure pathways, toward areas with lower surface topography, in the direction of shallow groundwater flow, or toward areas having subsurface utilities or other conduits.

The general costs listed below are for an initial one day of soil, soil vapor, or groundwater sampling with a direct push technology (DPT) or probe rig with a probe operator and geologist or engineer supervision (Table 13.19). Shallow groundwater monitoring well installation is usually performed using a hollow stem auger rig. Variations in costs exist for rig rates, professional service hourly rates, permit charges, laboratory fees, and other costs, depending on local conditions.

13.5.4 Hypothetical Case: Suspected Pipeline Spill Project

In a hypothetical case, a suspected Bakken crude oil pipeline spill was called in by an anonymous source to have occurred near Fort Madison, Iowa. An inspection by the pipeline operator revealed only spray paint graffiti and no obvious pipeline spill or release. Neighbors were concerned about the vandalism. To be safe, the insurance carrier for the pipeline operator contacted ACME Consulting Co. to inspect and sample the soil with a hand auger by collecting 10 samples in the vicinity of the pipeline in the area of the alleged incident. The insurance carrier asked for 10 discrete soil samples to be analyzed and to run for only total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Carol Rockhammer, a principal geologist at ACME Consulting, was assigned the project and made a scope of work to include:

1. Develop a site‐specific health and safety plan.
2. Prepare a brief written work plan of field activities, sampling and safety supplies, air or soil monitoring equipment, laboratory analysis, participating staff, schedule, etc.
3. Direct the staff geologist or engineer to inspect the site, make a map of area, take photos, interview the pipeline manager (if available), collect 10 soil samples at random depths, and prepare field notes and the laboratory chain of custody forms.
4. Authorize laboratory to analyze the samples for TPH by US EPA Method 8015M by gas chromatography–flame ionization detector (GC‐FID) and VOCs by US EPA Method 8260B by gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy (GC‐MS).
5. Prepare a report stamped by a licensed geologist or engineer with sampling maps, photos, laboratory reports, chain of custody form, and the findings.

13.6.1 Risk Management Strategies

The boom‐and‐bust economic cycle in the oil and gas business has created situations where a variety of owners or parties may end up as the responsible party in charge of environmental cleanups or maintenance and repair of aging facilities. Those potentially responsible parties may include operators working on environmental cleanup projects, lenders associated with a foreclosed property where production profits were less than the loan payments, or public agencies taking over remediation obligations from bankrupt companies. As the economics of the unconventional oil and gas fields decline, larger oil and gas companies will likely sell off marginally producing properties to smaller companies or even individuals with less financial resources. In bust cycles, the potential for facility abandonment into orphan sites becomes greater.

13.6.2 Lender Risk Reduction

Banks or private lenders can be involved with underwriting and funding unconventional oil and gas production. There are four ways lenders can better address environmental liabilities and associated financial risks of environmentally impacted properties or properties that require ongoing maintenance and repair:

1. Risk avoidance: Stay away from prospect to eliminate or lower risk.
2. Risk reduction: Hire better consultants, use better risk management tools, acquire more data, make better decisions, and provide more training to staff reviewing lending opportunities.
3. Risk sharing: Transfer or outsource the risks by bringing in other partners, or use insurance to address worst‐case scenarios.
4. Risk retention: Accept the risk and budget for the failures by increasing interest rates and fees to cover uncertainties.

13.6.3 Green and Sustainable Remediation

After decades of cleanups that included excavating soils contaminated with low‐level petroleum hydrocarbons and transporting the impacted soil for redeposition in landfills, regulators, consultants, responsible parties, and others decided to evaluate the environmental impacts of the remedial activities themselves (fuel consumption, vehicle exhaust, noise, water consumption for dust control, traffic, etc.) and the entire environmental regulatory decision‐making process (DTSC 2009). The main concept of green remediation is to obtain optimal sustainable revitalization in a project by striving for balance between environmental, economic, and social aspects (DTSC 2009). The evaluation included reviewing the life cycle of activities and the wastes occurring within the process (Figure 13.5). Instead of working with a specific contaminant concentration as a cleanup goal to a spill, a life cycle evaluation framework can be designed by regulators and responsible parties and the community to include other impacts such as ecosystem, or global warming effects, for example (Figure 13.6). For the green and sustainable remediation approach to site cleanup the environmental impacts of site remediation projects are considered as well as economics, effectiveness, and the likelihood of success. A Green Remediation Evaluation Matrix (GREM) was developed for evaluating one cleanup technology or approach compared with remedial alternatives (Table 13.22). A checklist (see Table 13.23, Appendix I) was developed for environmental stressors of remediation by DTSC (2009). As applicable, some of the same environmental impacts (soil disturbance, noise, odor, vibration, air pollution, traffic, etc.) on the environmental remediation checklist may apply to the original unconventional oil and gas drilling and HVHF operations.

13.6.4 Natural Attenuation Software (NAS)

Although rapid natural attenuation, the biological and abiotic degradation of contaminants in the environment, does occur when conditions and biochemistry are optimal, frequently, oxygen or other limiting factors exist, which preclude rapid natural attenuation. Nonetheless, Natural Attenuation Software (NAS) is a screening tool to estimate remediation time frames for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) to reduce groundwater contaminant concentrations to regulatory agency approved limits and to assist stakeholders in decision‐making on the level of source zone treatment in conjunction with MNA using site‐specific remediation objectives. According to US EPA (2017), NAS is designed for application to groundwater systems that have porous, relatively homogeneous saturated sands and gravels. The software assumes that groundwater flow is uniform and unidirectional. NAS consists of a combination of analytical and numerical solute transport models. Natural attenuation processes as reflected in the NAS models include advection, dispersion, sorption, nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) dissolution, and biodegradation. The software determines redox zonation and estimates and applies varied biodegradation rates from one redox zone to the next (US EPA 2017).

13.6.5 Mass Flux Toolkit

The Mass Flux Toolkit was developed for the Department of Defense ESTCP program. It is a simple software tool for users to learn about different mass flux approaches, calculate mass flux from transect data, and apply mass flux values to optimize groundwater plume management. It also presents the user with three options:

1. A module to calculate the total mass flux across one or more transects of a plume, calculate the uncertainty in the calculation, and plot mass flux vs. distance to show the effect of remediation/impact of natural attenuation processes.
2. A module allowing users to perform critical dilution calculations for plumes approaching production wells or streams. An additional feature calculates the capture zone of the supply well and compares it with the transect used to calculate the mass flux, directing the user to alter the transect dimensions if the transect does not encompass the capture zone.
3. A module that provides a review of theory and methods of estimating mass flux (US EPA 2017).

13.6.6 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Decision Support Tools

Decision support tools are interactive software tools that assist users in data acquisition, spatial data management, technology modeling, and cost estimating. The matrix is a table that provides general information about each decision support tool.

13.6.7 Risk‐Based Decision‐Making

Risk‐based cleanup uses a method to address soil or water impacts that may leave some or a significant amount of contamination in the subsurface so long as the residual concentrations do not pose a risk to human health and the environment. Typically, a more extensive subsurface investigation sampling program and site evaluation are required to verify the conditions. A risk‐based cleanup is commonly used when removal of the contamination may risk more severe damage to a sensitive environment such as a wetland, or remediation would undermine the foundation of a building, or when costs to remove contamination are excessive.

For risk assessments, the conceptual exposures must be identified (Figure 13.7), and the primary environmental concerns (Table 13.24) relate to the contaminant group or chemical family (Brewer 2018).

Risk‐based decision‐making required the exposure pathways to be identified (Figure 13.8) and various media sampled. Site‐specific sampling, combined with local regulatory guidelines and policies for agencies with a risk‐based environmental management focus, allows for cleanup goals to address site‐specific conditions, intended property use, and to minimize contaminant impacts to human health or the environment. For example, once sampling has been completed, an average soil concentration of 0.15 mg kg⁻¹ for benzene (Figure 13.9) would suggest that the value exceeds the screening level for leaching in the chart. If leaching is a likely regulatory concern at the site, additional risk evaluation, assessment, sampling, or other mitigation steps might be appropriate.

13.7.1 Low‐Cost Cleanup Projects

These projects occur in the $2 500–25 000 range.

13.7.2 Medium‐Cost Cleanup Projects

These projects, such as leakage from a 500 to 5000 gal (2–19 m³) aboveground storage tank or underground storage tank leading to 500–3000 cubic yards (382–2294 m³) of impacted soil, are likely to range from about $25 000 to 250 000, with many projects that have 2 000 cubic yards (1 529 m³) of impacted soil or more to be in the $100 000–150 000 range.

13.7.3 Higher‐Cost Cleanup Projects

Higher cleanup cost projects would extend from about $250 000 to $2.5 million or more for a few thousand gallons of petroleum hydrocarbons spilled. The higher costs may relate to a much larger release volume; a much deeper zone of contamination; a comingled plume with recalcitrant chlorinated compounds, such as dry‐cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene (PCE) or industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE); or a more urgent point‐of‐use treatment requirement to protect an underground drinking water source.

13.7.4 Railway Cleanup Costs

Bakken crude oil floats on water, is heavier than air, and has moderate volatility. These chemical and physical characteristics also inform railway cleanup, especially when spills develop near waterways. The estimated costs for railway spill cleanup do not include costs for lawsuits, regulatory fines, or other damages. Photos from the Lynchburg, Virginia, railway spill provide evidence of the event (Figure 13.10). Railway costs related to specific incidents are summarized in Table 13.25.

13.7.5 Pipeline Leaks

A Bakken crude oil spill was noted by the US EPA On‐Scene Coordinator report (US EPA 2015) for the 17 January 2015 incident in the Yellowstone River pipeline crossing area. The pipeline operator, Bridger Pipeline, observed abnormal pressure readings prior to the release. The pipeline was shut down. A release was discovered four hours later in the river. Estimates for the release from the 12 in (30.5 cm) diameter pipeline range from 300 barrels (12 600 gal; 47.6 m³) to 1200 barrels (50 400 gal; 190.8 m³).

A pipeline leak which occurred on 30 September 2013 released 20 600 barrels (865 200 gal; 3 275.1 m³) of Bakken crude oil in a farm field in Mountrail County, North Dakota, about 900 ft by 1500 ft (274 m × 457 m), with a distance to the nearest surface water estimated at 0.5 mile (0.8 km). Tesoro Logistics Pipeline was the operator of the pipeline and responsible party (NDDH 2013). Lateral extent of contamination was noted as 7.3 acres or 3.0 ha (ha). Field burning occurred on 3 acres (1.2 ha). Monitoring wells were installed.

References

1. Abramzon, S., Samaras, C., Curtright, A. et al. (2014). Estimating the consumptive use costs of shale natural gas extraction on Pennsylvania roadways. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 20, 12 p.
2. Bell, R.B. and Bell, M.P. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing and real estate issues. The Appraisal Journal, The Appraisal Institute, Winter 85: 9–17.
3. Brewer, R. (2018). Environmental Investigation and Development of “Brownfield Sites” in Hawaii, Department of Health Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response, Brownfield Kauai County Development and Land Reuse Redevelopment Workshop 2018, Kauai, Hawaii, US, 10 July, 6 p.
4. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1981). Water Well Standards: State of California, Bulletin 74–81. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA, 55 p. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/water_well_standards__bulletin_74‐81_/ca_well_standards_bulletin74‐81_1981.pdf (accessed 22 October 2018).
5. Christie, S. (2010). Protecting our roads. Testimony before the Pennsylvania House Transportation Committee. 10 June.
6. CostHelper Home and Garden (CostHelper) (2017). Well drilling cost, how much does well drilling cost? Retrieved 20 September 2017; http://home.costhelper.com/well‐drilling.html.
7. Department for Toxic Substances Control (2009). Interim advisory for green remediation. California Environmental Protection Agency, December, 40 p.
8. Dutzik, T., Ridlington, E., and Rumpler, J. (2012). The Costs of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage. Minneapolis, MN: Environment Minnesota Research & Policy Center.
9. Elswick, F. (2016). How much does it cost to build a mile of road? Midwest blog, p. 9.; Retrieved 30 September 2017; http://blog.midwestind.com/cost‐of‐building‐road.
10. Gunderson, D. (2012). Oil Boom and the North Dakota Economy. Minnesota Public Radio. 4 January; Retrieved 30 September 2017; http://www.commerce.nd.gov/news/detail.asp?newsID=1063.
11. Heinberg, R. (2013). Snake Oil: Chapter 5 – the economics of fracking: who benefits? Resilience. 23 October; Retrieved 30 September 2017; http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013‐10‐23/snake‐oilchapter‐5‐the‐economics‐of‐fracking‐who‐benefits#.
12. HIDOH (2017). Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater – Hawaii Edition (Fall 2017): Hawai'i Department of Health, Office of Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response. Retrieved 23 October 2017; http://eha‐web.doh.hawaii.gov/eha‐cma/Leaders/HEER/EALs.
13. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2012). Incremental Sampling Methodology. ISM‐1. Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Incremental Sampling Methodology Team www.itrcweb.org.
14. Integra Realty Resources (IRR) (2010). Flower Mound well site impact study, Dallas, TX, p. 108.
15. Interagency Land Acquisition Conference (ILAC) (2016). Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, p. 262.
16. Kelso, M. (2015). 1.7 Million Wells in the U.S. – A 2015 Update, Updated National Well Data, FracTracker Alliance, 3 August, 8 p.; Retrieved 29 September 2017; https://www.fractracker.org/2015/08/1‐7‐million‐wells.
17. Ladlee, J.R. (2017). Natural Gas Production Decline Curve and Royalty Estimation, Penn State Extension, 8 August, 6 p.; Retrieved 21 October 2017; https://extension.psu.edu/natural‐gas‐production‐decline‐curve‐and‐royalty‐estimation.
18. Moss, K. (2008). Potential Development of the Natural Gas Resources in the Marcellus Shale: New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Denver, CO: National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Geologic Resources Division.
19. Muehlenbachs, L., Spiller, E., and Timmins, C., 2015a, The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development, 2015. American Economic Review, Vol. 105, No. 12, Dec., pp. 3633–3659.
20. Muehlenbachs, L., Spiller, E., Steck, A., and Timmins, C. (2015b). The Impact of the Fracking eBoom on Rents in Pennsylvania, 15 February, 31 p.; Duke University, Durham, NC. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~timmins/fracking_rents.pdf (accessed 22 October 2018).
21. National Groundwater Association (NGWA) (2016). 2016 NGWA Contractors Survey. Columbus, OH: National Groundwater Association, 2 p.
22. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (2017). Railroad Accident Brief, CSXT Petroleum Crude Oil Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Release, DCA14FR008, 30 April 2014, Lynchburg, Virginia, NTSB/RAB‐16/01, report reissued on 3 April2017, 13 p.
23. New York State (2011). Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, (SGEIS). Department of Environmental Conservation, August, 1448 p.
24. North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) (2013). General Environmental Incident Summary, Incident 2056, Environmental Health Section. Report #EIR2056, Incident Date: 9/29/13, Report by Eric Haugstad, Tesoro Logistics Pipeline, 13 p.; Retrieved 18 November 2017; http://www.ndhealth.gov/EHS/FOIA/Spills/Summary_Reports/EIR2056_Summary_Report.pdf
25. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) (2017). Environmental Good Samaritan Act, Updated 10/18/2017, 2 p.; Retrieved 27 October 2017; http://files.dep.state.pa.us/OilGas/BOGM/BOGMPortalFiles/OilGasReports/2017/GOOD_SAMARITAN/Good_Sam_Project_List.pdf.
26. Podulka, S.G. and Podulka, W.J. (2010). Comments on the Science Advisory Board's 5/19/2010 Draft Committee Report on the US EPA's Research Scoping Document Related to Hydraulic Fracturing Report.
27. Ritzel, B. (2015). Critical Assessment of the Literature Regarding the Public Costs of Roadway Damage Due to Fracking, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, Research Papers, Graduate School, 71 p.
28. Rogers, D.L. (2013). Externalities of shales: road damage. Energy Policy Forum. 1 April.
29. San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) (2016). User's Guide: Derivation and Applications of Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Interim Final 2016, 237 p.
30. Throupe, R., Simons, R., and Mao, X. (2013). A review of hydro “Fracking” and its potential effects on real estate. Journal of Real Estate Literature 21 (2): 205–232.
31. United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA) (2016). Hydraulically fractured wells provide two‐thirds of U.S. natural gas, 5 May, 2 pages; Retrieved 29 September 2017; https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26112.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2015). Bridger Pipeline Release, Glendive, Montana, Region VIII, Paul Peronard, On‐Scene Coordinator; Retrieved 18 November 2017; https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=9708.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2017). Software Packages and Online Tools, Clu‐In, Contaminated Site Clean‐Up Information; Retrieved 15 October 2017; https://clu‐in.org/software.
34. White, N.E. (2013). A tale of two shale plays. 2012 SRSA Fellows Address. The Review of Regional Studies 42 (2): 107–119.

Suggested Reading

1. Department of Water Resources (DWR) (1990). Water Well Standards: State of California, Bulletin 74–90 (Supplement to Bulletin 74–81). Sacramento, CA, 93 p. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/water_well_standards__bulletin_74‐90_/ca_well_standards_bulletin74‐90_1991.pdf: Department of Water Resources accessed 22 October 2018.
2. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (2017). A Guide for the Private Well Owner, PUB 605.1; May, Version 18. San Jose, CA: SCVWD, 20 p.
3. Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (USTCF) (2014). Cost Guidelines Update January 1, 2014, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Sacramento, California, 47 p.
4. U.S. Army Center for Excellence (USACE) (2012). Conceptual Site Models for Ordnance and Explosives (OE) and Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Projects. EM 200–1‐12. https://www.itrcweb.org/ism‐1/references/EM_200‐1‐12.pdf.