This document discusses several issues related to hydraulic fracturing including water usage, fracking fluid disclosure, infrastructure concerns, wastewater discharge, groundwater protection, and other side effects like earthquakes and air pollution. It outlines recent federal actions by the EPA to regulate air emissions and require reporting. It also discusses a study by the National Academy of Sciences on fracking and earthquakes. Finally, it provides updates on state actions and regulations in places like North Carolina, Vermont, New York, Maryland, and Mississippi regarding hydraulic fracturing and related activities.
Estimate of Impacts of EPA Proposals to Reduce Air Emissions from Hydraulic F...Marcellus Drilling News
A study commissioned by the American Petroleum Insitutue and authored by Advanced Resources International finds that if proposed new air emissions regulations go into effect later in 2012, the effect will be to reduce new drilling from fracking by 52%, and result in an 11% decrease in natural gas supplies and a 37% decrease in domestic oil production.
Submission of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper - Relicensing hearing before the Canad...LOWaterkeeper
Cameco Corporation (Cameco) is currently applying to renew its Fuel Facility Operating Licence FFOL-3631.0/2017 (the licence) for its Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF). This licence was issued on February 28, 2012, (valid from March 1, 2012) and will expire February 28, 2017.
The requested licence is for a ten-year period and would permit Cameco to continue to produce nuclear fuel for reactors in Canada and abroad. Currently, the facility is permitted to process and produce up to 2,800 tonnes of uranium as UO2 which is used for CANDU reactor fuel and up to 12,500 tonnes of UF6 which is exported for processing into light water reactor fuel. The requested licence would also permit Cameco to make significant changes to its facility, renovating some buildings, decommissioning others, and building entirely new facilities on the
PHCF site. These changes collectively comprise its Vision in Motion (VIM) project. More specifically, Cameco’s proposed VIM project involves:
• Removing up to 150,000 cubic metres (m3) of radioactive contaminated waste. This includes contaminated soil excavation, “legacy” drummed waste generated at the facility before 1988, and rubble from demolished older buildings at the PHCF site and Center Pier). This waste will be taken to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ secure long-term waste management facility in Port Hope;
• Removing 11 older or under-utilized buildings from the PHCF site and Center Pier;
• Constructing of 4 new buildings and the refurbishment or modification of 7 other buildings at the site;
• Installing of new pump and treat wells to address the groundwater contamination that will remain under the PHCF site after VIM is completed;
• Improving the facility’s stormwater management infrastructure; and
• Moving the eastern fence-line of the PHCF away from the harbour to help facilitate greater public access to Port Hope’s waterfront.
Waterkeeper has been involved in several other past decision-making processes before the CNSC concerning this facility, including its environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992, as well as its application for a Certificate of Approval from the then Ontario Ministry of Environment for its industrial sewage permit. During these processes, Waterkeeper expressed concerns regarding the facility’s poor stormwater management, the need for better cooling water technology, and the need for better environmental monitoring and public communication.
In the last five years, some progress has been made to ensure the initiative supports a more swimmable, drinkable, and fishable Lake Ontario. But more work is still needed.
Submission of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper - Reviewing Canadian Nuclear Safety Co...LOWaterkeeper
The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is an internationally significant undertaking. It is the biggest radioactive waste clean-up project in Canadian history, and involves one of the largest nuclear waste holding facilities in North America. The PHAI is comprised of two distinct projects: the Port Hope waste relocation project (“Port Hope Project”), and the Port Granby waste relocation project (“Port Granby Project”). Together, both projects seek to clean up a combined two-million cubic metres (m3) of low-level radioactive waste from various sites across Port Hope and Port Granby.
The Port Hope Project involves excavating 1,223,250 m3 of historic radioactive waste from several sites around the town of Port Hope to a Long-term Waste Management Facility (PH LTWMF) just north of the community. The project was subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992 (CEAA, 1992) which was conducted from 2001 to 2007. In 2009, the CNSC granted a five-year Nuclear Waste Substance Licence to Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) to implement the project. In 2012, AECL applied to have its licence extended for ten years. This was granted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), making the current licence valid until December 31, 2022.
The Port Granby Project involves the removal of 450,000 m3 of historic radioactive waste from the existing and poorly contained Port Granby waste management facility to a new above ground waste management facility (the PG LTWMF) 700 metres north of the Lake Ontario shoreline. The Port Granby Project was also subject to a federal EA under CEAA, 1992 and the project was approved in 2009. After a public hearing in September 2010, the CNSC granted AECL a ten-year licence to implement this project.
In the last five years, some progress has been made to ensure the initiative supports a more swimmable, drinkable, and fishable Lake Ontario. But more work is still needed.
Estimate of Impacts of EPA Proposals to Reduce Air Emissions from Hydraulic F...Marcellus Drilling News
A study commissioned by the American Petroleum Insitutue and authored by Advanced Resources International finds that if proposed new air emissions regulations go into effect later in 2012, the effect will be to reduce new drilling from fracking by 52%, and result in an 11% decrease in natural gas supplies and a 37% decrease in domestic oil production.
Submission of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper - Relicensing hearing before the Canad...LOWaterkeeper
Cameco Corporation (Cameco) is currently applying to renew its Fuel Facility Operating Licence FFOL-3631.0/2017 (the licence) for its Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF). This licence was issued on February 28, 2012, (valid from March 1, 2012) and will expire February 28, 2017.
The requested licence is for a ten-year period and would permit Cameco to continue to produce nuclear fuel for reactors in Canada and abroad. Currently, the facility is permitted to process and produce up to 2,800 tonnes of uranium as UO2 which is used for CANDU reactor fuel and up to 12,500 tonnes of UF6 which is exported for processing into light water reactor fuel. The requested licence would also permit Cameco to make significant changes to its facility, renovating some buildings, decommissioning others, and building entirely new facilities on the
PHCF site. These changes collectively comprise its Vision in Motion (VIM) project. More specifically, Cameco’s proposed VIM project involves:
• Removing up to 150,000 cubic metres (m3) of radioactive contaminated waste. This includes contaminated soil excavation, “legacy” drummed waste generated at the facility before 1988, and rubble from demolished older buildings at the PHCF site and Center Pier). This waste will be taken to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ secure long-term waste management facility in Port Hope;
• Removing 11 older or under-utilized buildings from the PHCF site and Center Pier;
• Constructing of 4 new buildings and the refurbishment or modification of 7 other buildings at the site;
• Installing of new pump and treat wells to address the groundwater contamination that will remain under the PHCF site after VIM is completed;
• Improving the facility’s stormwater management infrastructure; and
• Moving the eastern fence-line of the PHCF away from the harbour to help facilitate greater public access to Port Hope’s waterfront.
Waterkeeper has been involved in several other past decision-making processes before the CNSC concerning this facility, including its environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992, as well as its application for a Certificate of Approval from the then Ontario Ministry of Environment for its industrial sewage permit. During these processes, Waterkeeper expressed concerns regarding the facility’s poor stormwater management, the need for better cooling water technology, and the need for better environmental monitoring and public communication.
In the last five years, some progress has been made to ensure the initiative supports a more swimmable, drinkable, and fishable Lake Ontario. But more work is still needed.
Submission of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper - Reviewing Canadian Nuclear Safety Co...LOWaterkeeper
The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is an internationally significant undertaking. It is the biggest radioactive waste clean-up project in Canadian history, and involves one of the largest nuclear waste holding facilities in North America. The PHAI is comprised of two distinct projects: the Port Hope waste relocation project (“Port Hope Project”), and the Port Granby waste relocation project (“Port Granby Project”). Together, both projects seek to clean up a combined two-million cubic metres (m3) of low-level radioactive waste from various sites across Port Hope and Port Granby.
The Port Hope Project involves excavating 1,223,250 m3 of historic radioactive waste from several sites around the town of Port Hope to a Long-term Waste Management Facility (PH LTWMF) just north of the community. The project was subject to an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992 (CEAA, 1992) which was conducted from 2001 to 2007. In 2009, the CNSC granted a five-year Nuclear Waste Substance Licence to Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) to implement the project. In 2012, AECL applied to have its licence extended for ten years. This was granted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), making the current licence valid until December 31, 2022.
The Port Granby Project involves the removal of 450,000 m3 of historic radioactive waste from the existing and poorly contained Port Granby waste management facility to a new above ground waste management facility (the PG LTWMF) 700 metres north of the Lake Ontario shoreline. The Port Granby Project was also subject to a federal EA under CEAA, 1992 and the project was approved in 2009. After a public hearing in September 2010, the CNSC granted AECL a ten-year licence to implement this project.
In the last five years, some progress has been made to ensure the initiative supports a more swimmable, drinkable, and fishable Lake Ontario. But more work is still needed.
Implications of the New NESHAP/NSPS for the Oil and Gas SectorCindy Bishop
Presented March 27, 2012 to the Dallas Chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Provides a broad overview of the new NESHAP and NSPS for Oil and Gas
GAO Report: Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements for Shale Oil & GasMarcellus Drilling News
A report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Sept. 2012 which looks at environmental and public health requirements for unconventional oil and gas development and (1) describes federal requirements; (2) describes state requirements; (3) describes additional requirements that apply on federal lands; and (4) identifies challenges that federal and state agencies reported facing in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs.
A report issued by the Government Accountability Office looking at the information collected by the federal EPA and the individual states with regard to wastewater fluids injected into Class II injection wells. Several anti-drilling members of the U.S. Congress wanted ammunition in their efforts to oppose fracking and figured this was a good as way as any to do
Delaware Riverkeeper Letter to DRBC Requesting Intervention to Stop PennEast ...Marcellus Drilling News
A letter authored by THE Delaware Riverkeeper herself, Maya van Rossum, petitioning the Delaware River Basin Commission to interject itself into the permitting process of the PennEast Pipeline that is slated to run from Wilkes-Barre, PA all the way to Trenton, NJ, carrying abundant, cheap Marcellus Shale natural gas.
The first phase of the Northern Collector Water Tunnel project is located along the eastern fringes of the Aberdare Conservation area approximately 60 kilometer north of Nairobi county.
The works are located in Kangema and Kigumo sub counties of Murang'a county
A 119-page response submitted by Brad Gill, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York to the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation about the DEC's latest revision to draft fracking rules for the state. The IOGA response is highly critical of the new revisions and makes detailed recommendations on how to fix the proposed rules to ensure drilling actually happens in NY. According to IOGA, they are forced to now be "adversarial" in their stance after working closely with the DEC over the past 4.5 years on this issue.
Hydraulic Fracturing and Marcellus Shale Gas 11 22 2011Michael Klein
The drilling technique of Hydraulic Fracturing has allowed natural gas producers to extract natural gas economically from deep shale formations. This innovative drilling technique has made enormous quantities of natural gas available in wide areas of the United States from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Wyoming, North Carolina, and Colorado. The drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing accounts for roughly a quarter of total natural gas production in the United States as cited by the Energy Information Administration. With the increased emphasis on the use of natural gas in our federal energy policy, there will be new regulations, processes, and resources that will be required to mitigate the risks to human health and the environment from this new drilling technique. The presentation discusses the process of hydraulic fracturing; the threats that are posed to human health and the environment, areas in the USA where the process is used with an emphasis on the Marcellus Shale formation, current and new regulations being put into place, and plaintiff challenges to the process.
Implications of the New NESHAP/NSPS for the Oil and Gas SectorCindy Bishop
Presented March 27, 2012 to the Dallas Chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Provides a broad overview of the new NESHAP and NSPS for Oil and Gas
GAO Report: Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements for Shale Oil & GasMarcellus Drilling News
A report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Sept. 2012 which looks at environmental and public health requirements for unconventional oil and gas development and (1) describes federal requirements; (2) describes state requirements; (3) describes additional requirements that apply on federal lands; and (4) identifies challenges that federal and state agencies reported facing in regulating oil and gas development from unconventional reservoirs.
A report issued by the Government Accountability Office looking at the information collected by the federal EPA and the individual states with regard to wastewater fluids injected into Class II injection wells. Several anti-drilling members of the U.S. Congress wanted ammunition in their efforts to oppose fracking and figured this was a good as way as any to do
Delaware Riverkeeper Letter to DRBC Requesting Intervention to Stop PennEast ...Marcellus Drilling News
A letter authored by THE Delaware Riverkeeper herself, Maya van Rossum, petitioning the Delaware River Basin Commission to interject itself into the permitting process of the PennEast Pipeline that is slated to run from Wilkes-Barre, PA all the way to Trenton, NJ, carrying abundant, cheap Marcellus Shale natural gas.
The first phase of the Northern Collector Water Tunnel project is located along the eastern fringes of the Aberdare Conservation area approximately 60 kilometer north of Nairobi county.
The works are located in Kangema and Kigumo sub counties of Murang'a county
A 119-page response submitted by Brad Gill, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York to the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation about the DEC's latest revision to draft fracking rules for the state. The IOGA response is highly critical of the new revisions and makes detailed recommendations on how to fix the proposed rules to ensure drilling actually happens in NY. According to IOGA, they are forced to now be "adversarial" in their stance after working closely with the DEC over the past 4.5 years on this issue.
Hydraulic Fracturing and Marcellus Shale Gas 11 22 2011Michael Klein
The drilling technique of Hydraulic Fracturing has allowed natural gas producers to extract natural gas economically from deep shale formations. This innovative drilling technique has made enormous quantities of natural gas available in wide areas of the United States from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Wyoming, North Carolina, and Colorado. The drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing accounts for roughly a quarter of total natural gas production in the United States as cited by the Energy Information Administration. With the increased emphasis on the use of natural gas in our federal energy policy, there will be new regulations, processes, and resources that will be required to mitigate the risks to human health and the environment from this new drilling technique. The presentation discusses the process of hydraulic fracturing; the threats that are posed to human health and the environment, areas in the USA where the process is used with an emphasis on the Marcellus Shale formation, current and new regulations being put into place, and plaintiff challenges to the process.
In June 2010, EPA proposed a rule to regulate coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). After a lengthy delay, the proposed rule, which set forth two options for the regulation of CCRs, is expected to be finalized by the end of this year.
A Review of Water Law-Related Enforcement, Regulation, Legislation and Litigation from 2012; Presented at the Louisiana Air & Waste Management Annual Conference in October 2012
Pennsylvania’s New Oil and Gas Regulations for Unconventional Wells – Part 1:...CohenGrigsby
The new rules for unconventional oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania are finally here. The regulations in Chapter 78a, relating to unconventional wells, were published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 8, 2016.
New Construction Stormwater Regulation in MinnesotaDan Schleck
Attorney Dan Schleck makes a presentation to the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) on new construction stormwater permitting and regulation in Minnesota
A critique of New York's draft drilling regulations for hydraulic fracturing submitted by Judith Enck, Region 2 Administrator for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The critique was submitted on Weds, Jan 11 just hours before the filing deadline closed at the New York State DEC.
Presented by Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA) Research & Policy Associate James Robinson. August 8, 2013.
Contact James Robinson with any questions: james@rafiusa.org
919-542-1396 ext. 209
For more information about forced pooling and landowner rights visit: http://rafiusa.org/issues/landowner-rights-and-fracking/
EPA Fact Sheet for Proposed Amendments to Air Regulations for the Oil and Nat...Marcellus Drilling News
An overview of the proposed new rule changes EPA is proposing to prevent air pollution from hydraulic fracturing used in the oil and gas industry. The new rule changes seek to reduce the level of volatile organic compounds the EPA says are escaping into the air around drilling operations--from well pads, compressor plants, pipelines and other industry-related activities.
5. Federal Actions
Hydraulic Fracturing
April 2012 – EPA promulgated new air regulations with
a goal to reduce VOC emissions:
Phased requirements for all NEW natural gas wells
Before Jan 2015 – flare or capture
After Jan 2015 – capture
New requirements for production controllers, storage
vessels and dehydrators
6. Federal Actions
Exceptions for new wells: “Green” completions
are not required for:
New exploratory (“wildcat”) wells or delineation wells
(used to define the borders of a natural gas reservoir),
because they are not near a pipeline to bring the gas to
market.
Hydraulically fractured low-pressure wells, where natural
gas cannot be routed to the gathering line.
Owners/operators must reduce emissions from these wells
using combustion during the well-completion process, unless
combustion is a safety hazard or is prohibited by state or local
regulations.
7. Federal Actions
EPA has added notification and reporting
requirements:
must notify EPA by e-mail no later than two days before
completion work begins.
owners/ operators must submit a report on their well
completions that is certified by a senior company official
attesting to the report’s truth, accuracy and
completeness
8. Federal Actions
Requirements for Storage Vessels at the Well Site
New storage tanks with VOC emissions of 6 tons a year
or more must reduce VOC emissions by at least 95
percent. EPA expects this will generally be accomplished
by routing emissions to a combustion device.
9. Federal Actions
NSPS Requirements for New and Modified
Compressors
Capture and reroute or flare
Required maintenance schedules on seals etc.
10. Title V case – 6th Circuit
Summit Petroleum
41 sites
Common Control
Court overturn EPA
11. Prior Federal Action
Hydraulic Fracturing
Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress revised the SDWA
definition of “underground injection” to specifically
exclude from UIC regulation the “underground
injection of fluids or propping agents (other than
diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing
operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities
12. Hydraulic Fracturing
EPA published on May 10, 2012, Permitting Guidance for Oil
and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel
Fuels—Draft. The initial public comment period for this
proposal was 60 days –the deadline was extended to August
23, 2012
Not exempt activity (as other hydraulic fracturing fluids
currently are) - diesel hydraulic fracturing will require UIC
permit
Important threshold question – how will diesel be defined?
13. EPA's Study of Hydraulic
Fracturing
At the request of Congress, EPA is conducting a study
to better understand any potential impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and ground
water
first progress report is planned for late 2012. A final
draft report is expected to be released for public
comment and peer review in 2014
15. Bureau of Land Management
Proposing Hydraulic Fracturing
Rule
May 2012 – Rule will regulate hydraulic fracturing on
public land and Indian land. The rule would:
(1) provide disclosure to the public of chemicals used in
hydraulic fracturing on public land and Indian land
(2) strengthen regulations related to well-bore integrity
(3) address issues related to flowback water
(wastewater)
Public comments were extended thru September 10,
2012
16. BLM – not just out west – in the
Southern Section of AWMA
Currently there are several oil and gas leases in process
in Alabama and Mississippi for oil and gas leasing in
2012 and 2013
Recent oil and gas leases completed in Alabama and
Mississippi in 2012
US Forest Service delayed certain leases this year due
concerns over environmental issues
17. National Academy of Sciences -Report
on Hydraulic Fracturing and
Earthquakes
Three major findings emerged from the study:
(1) the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently
implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high
risk for inducing felt seismic events
(2) injection for disposal of waste water derived from
energy technologies into the subsurface does pose some
risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been
documented over the past several decades relative to the
large number of disposal wells in operation
(3) Carbon Capture and Storage operations, due to the
large volumes of injected fluids, may have potential for
inducing larger seismic events.
18. Recent State Action
North Carolina passed new law – new commission
with broad authority, prohibits certain hydraulic
fracturing chemicals, requires additional controls and
reporting
Vermont banned hydraulic fracturing in May 2012
(had no oil or gas ongoing activities)
New York and New Jersey – under moratorium
19. Other State Legislation
Maryland –
new law this summer that creates a presumption that
contamination found in a drinking water well in the area (a
2500 foot radius) of a gas well is caused by the gas exploration
or production activity.
Presumption lasts one year from the last drilling, well
completion or fracking activity.
Eliminate presumption if offer to test, share results and land
owner refuses to allow access to drinking water well
Note - Maryland under drilling ban until study complete in
2014
26. Mississippi
Current operators in early stages of development thru
2013 – limited number of wells utilizing fracking
If decision makes business sense – by 2014 could see
up to 20 wells a month underway
27. Mississippi Oil and Gas Board
Proposed Rule 26 – Requirements For Hydraulic
Fracture Stimulation - Report Of Shooting Or Treating
Must obtain prior approval
Demonstrate casing is sufficient to protect
Reporting Currently 2 wells reported in Miss and 55 in Ala.
Disclosure
Identify fracking fluids - (Fracfocus.org)
Based on recently passed Louisiana regulations
Will be taken up at September 19th Board meeting
Potentially effective early November
28. Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Working closely with operators
Wells using up to 12 million gallons of water to develop
up to 8000 foot horizontal well
300,000 to 400,000 gallons per stage
Local geology is important – for example the average
amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing in
California is 164,000 gallons per job
29. Mississippi
Currently using surface water – rivers and farm ponds
Limit to flows above minimum
Trucking and piping water to sites
Industry considering pipe line from Mississippi River
No requests to use groundwater - yet
31. Hydrocarbon Formations – Post
Removal
Who has legal ownership of the pore space post gas/oil
removal ?
32. Kansas
S.B. 271 – Ownership of Pore Space
The ownership of all pore space in all the strata below
the surface lands and waters of Kansas would be vested
in the owners of the surface above the strata.
33. Wyoming
34-1-152. Ownership of pore space underlying
surfaces.
(a) The ownership of all pore space in all strata below
the surface lands and waters of this state is declared to
be vested in the several owners of the surface above the
strata
34. North Dakota
Title to pore space. Title to pore space in all strata
underlying the surface of lands and waters is vested in
the owner of the overlying surface estate.
35. Mississippi Geologic Sequestration
of Carbon Dioxide Act
(§53-11-1)
Oil and Gas Board determines use of reservoir
Oil/gas production or carbon storage or both
If determined (by O & G Board)that sequestration is
best use – must obtain approval of the majority
interest of surface owners
Must obtain full approval from owners within 12 months
from Order