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
A GAO report published in June 2014 but not released to the public until July 28, 2014. Titled "EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement" the report, as the title indicates, takes EPA to task for what they say is lax oversight of oil and gas injection wells--wells used to dispose of wastewater from drilling operations. It's important to note that the GAO is extremely partisan and populated with liberal Democrat lifers with an agenda.
The final version of a guidance from the federal Environmental Protection Agency establishing a definition for what is and is not diesel fuel for the purposes of evaluating whether that substance can be allowed in fracking fluid.
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 GAO report published in June 2014 but not released to the public until July 28, 2014. Titled "EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement" the report, as the title indicates, takes EPA to task for what they say is lax oversight of oil and gas injection wells--wells used to dispose of wastewater from drilling operations. It's important to note that the GAO is extremely partisan and populated with liberal Democrat lifers with an agenda.
The final version of a guidance from the federal Environmental Protection Agency establishing a definition for what is and is not diesel fuel for the purposes of evaluating whether that substance can be allowed in fracking fluid.
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.
Waterkeeper's Review of CNSC's Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium and Nu...LOWaterkeeper
The CNSC asked Swim Drink Fish Canada/Lake Ontario to look into its 2016 Regulatory Oversight Report for
Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities in Canada. CNSC provided funding for the review.
Hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland provides an independent review of of the CNSC’s 2016 Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities, with a focus on environmental protection performance including storm water
runoff management at Cameco’s Port Hope Conversion Facility. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was awarded CNSC funding to support Wilf's review.
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.
Environmental Assessments for Energy, Infrastructure and Resource projects ...This account is closed
Understanding the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and how it relates to applicable provincial environmental assessment and planning legislation is critical to the success of your projects. Navigating the challenges of multiple government bodies, project scoping considerations and your consultation responsibilities with First Nations are key to the approval process. Obtaining approvals for these assessments may unlock opportunities or cause challenges.
Presenters:
David Estrin, Partner, Gowlings (Toronto Office)
Rodney V. Northey, Partner, Gowlings (Toronto Office)
Final Environmental Impact Statement for NEXUS Gas Transmission ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the NEXUS Pipeline project, a $2 billion, 255-mile interstate pipeline that will run from Ohio through Michigan and eventually to the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. FERC gave the project a thumbs up, which clears the way for a Certificate to be issued in early 2017.
A public notice about revisions to the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit – 4 (PASPGP-4), which, if we're not mistaken, means more threatened and endangered species have been added to the list that prevents oil and gas companies from doing their job in Pennsylvania.
A letter from Rover Pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting the agency issue the final certificate that will allow Rover to begin tree-clearing and construction of the 511-mile pipeline through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. If the certificate is delayed beyond the end of 2016, it will delay the project an extra year due to tree-clearing restrictions (to accommodate federally-protected bats).
FERC Order Denying Stay of Kinder Morgan's Broad Run Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
Several anti-drillers filed an appeal of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Certificate for the Kinder Morgan Broad Run Expansion Project, asking for a stay claiming a removal of 40 acres of forest for a compressor station would irreparably harm Mom Earth. FERC has ruled against the stay and told the antis Mom Earth will be just fine.
Draft Permit Conditions for Proposed Crestwood LPG Storage Facility at Seneca...Marcellus Drilling News
The proposed conditions set for by the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation if they decide to allow a LPG storage facility to be built in depleted salt caverns along the shores of Seneca Lake, NY. Issued on Nov. 10. The next step in the process will be an issues conference in Horseheads, NY on Feb. 12, 2015.
Study: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status - Results of...Marcellus Drilling News
A "study" published in the online NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives that supposedly shows there *may be* a link between how close people live to fracked wells and an increase in skin rashes and coughing. However, the authors take pains to make it clear they only have theories--no answers. This is not conclusive in any way, shape or form. The survey relies on self-reporting of health symptoms from only 180 households in a single county in southwestern PA. Small sample, self reported, and funded by anti-drilling organizations. That's all you really need to know.
PA DEP After Action Review of Chevron Lanco 7H Well Fire in Greene County, PAMarcellus Drilling News
The After Action Review summary report from the DEP's Bureau of Investigations. The report faults Chevron for two things that gave rise to the fire and resulting tragic death of a contract worker: Chevron's well site managers are inexperienced and overworked, and contractors working at the site were inexperienced. This closes the DEP's investigation into the fire and resulting death. The family of the deceased worker is suing Chevron.
Waterkeeper's Review of CNSC's Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium and Nu...LOWaterkeeper
The CNSC asked Swim Drink Fish Canada/Lake Ontario to look into its 2016 Regulatory Oversight Report for
Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities in Canada. CNSC provided funding for the review.
Hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland provides an independent review of of the CNSC’s 2016 Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities, with a focus on environmental protection performance including storm water
runoff management at Cameco’s Port Hope Conversion Facility. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was awarded CNSC funding to support Wilf's review.
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.
Environmental Assessments for Energy, Infrastructure and Resource projects ...This account is closed
Understanding the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and how it relates to applicable provincial environmental assessment and planning legislation is critical to the success of your projects. Navigating the challenges of multiple government bodies, project scoping considerations and your consultation responsibilities with First Nations are key to the approval process. Obtaining approvals for these assessments may unlock opportunities or cause challenges.
Presenters:
David Estrin, Partner, Gowlings (Toronto Office)
Rodney V. Northey, Partner, Gowlings (Toronto Office)
Final Environmental Impact Statement for NEXUS Gas Transmission ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the NEXUS Pipeline project, a $2 billion, 255-mile interstate pipeline that will run from Ohio through Michigan and eventually to the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. FERC gave the project a thumbs up, which clears the way for a Certificate to be issued in early 2017.
A public notice about revisions to the Pennsylvania State Programmatic General Permit – 4 (PASPGP-4), which, if we're not mistaken, means more threatened and endangered species have been added to the list that prevents oil and gas companies from doing their job in Pennsylvania.
A letter from Rover Pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting the agency issue the final certificate that will allow Rover to begin tree-clearing and construction of the 511-mile pipeline through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. If the certificate is delayed beyond the end of 2016, it will delay the project an extra year due to tree-clearing restrictions (to accommodate federally-protected bats).
FERC Order Denying Stay of Kinder Morgan's Broad Run Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
Several anti-drillers filed an appeal of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Certificate for the Kinder Morgan Broad Run Expansion Project, asking for a stay claiming a removal of 40 acres of forest for a compressor station would irreparably harm Mom Earth. FERC has ruled against the stay and told the antis Mom Earth will be just fine.
Draft Permit Conditions for Proposed Crestwood LPG Storage Facility at Seneca...Marcellus Drilling News
The proposed conditions set for by the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation if they decide to allow a LPG storage facility to be built in depleted salt caverns along the shores of Seneca Lake, NY. Issued on Nov. 10. The next step in the process will be an issues conference in Horseheads, NY on Feb. 12, 2015.
Study: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status - Results of...Marcellus Drilling News
A "study" published in the online NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives that supposedly shows there *may be* a link between how close people live to fracked wells and an increase in skin rashes and coughing. However, the authors take pains to make it clear they only have theories--no answers. This is not conclusive in any way, shape or form. The survey relies on self-reporting of health symptoms from only 180 households in a single county in southwestern PA. Small sample, self reported, and funded by anti-drilling organizations. That's all you really need to know.
PA DEP After Action Review of Chevron Lanco 7H Well Fire in Greene County, PAMarcellus Drilling News
The After Action Review summary report from the DEP's Bureau of Investigations. The report faults Chevron for two things that gave rise to the fire and resulting tragic death of a contract worker: Chevron's well site managers are inexperienced and overworked, and contractors working at the site were inexperienced. This closes the DEP's investigation into the fire and resulting death. The family of the deceased worker is suing Chevron.
OH 7th District Court of Appeals Decision in Hupp v. Beck Energy CorpMarcellus Drilling News
The Seventh District Court of Appeals in Ohio overturned a lower court ruling and ruled in favor of Beck Energy Corp and XTO Energy, a major victory for the drillers and major defeat for the landowners in Monroe and Belmont counties who say their land never got drilled and they wanted to re-sign with another company.
A very false and misleading "update" to a "report" issued by the nefarious, very partisan and very anti-drilling Public Accountability Initiative titled "Anatomy of an Industry Front Group." The "update" to an older hit piece titled Big Green Fracking Machine continues to make the false claim that the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), located in Pittsburgh, PA, is somehow a front group for the drilling industry. The PAI "report" attempts to shame environmental groups from dropping their support for the CSSD. It's apparently working. Three such participants have dropped out over the past year or so.
Monthly report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that shows total oil and gas output from the country's seven most actively drilled shale plays. This latest report shows that the Marcellus continues to dominate, producing more than twice the output (in natural gas) of any other shale play. Fully 37% of all natgas being produced by U.S. shale plays comes from the Marcellus.
A baseline water study conducted by Cornell University graduate students of the chemcial composition of the water in 113 water wells in Chenango County, NY. This study, published in the Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies (titled "Assessing dissolved methane patterns in central New York groundwater") will serve as a baseline with which to compare future samples should shale drilling ever begin in New York State.
Farnsworth v Burhart - Decision from OH Seventh District Court of Appeals on ...Marcellus Drilling News
A decision from the Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals on certain provisions regarding the 1989 Ohio Dormant Minerals Act. The court found: The 1989 DMA is self-executing; the 1989 DMA creates a fixed, rather than a rolling, look-back period; and a reference to a prior mineral severance in a surface conveyance is not a title transaction savings event. This is not the last word about the DMA. A major DMA case now sits before the OH Supreme Court to determine whether the 1989 or 2006 version of the law governs certain situations.
An onerous new rule from the overbearing federal Environmental Protection Agency that requires exploration and production and midstream companies to fill out reams of paperwork tracking every atom of carbon produced by their operations. It's senseless and tyrannical--but that's your federal EPA.
GAO Report 14-667 on Need for Possible Federal Regulation of Small Natural Ga...Marcellus Drilling News
A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office titled "OIL AND GAS TRANSPORTATION: Department of Transportation Is Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety." The report recommends the federal government get involved with regulating smaller gathering pipelines used to connect natural gas and oil wells to larger pipelines. Those lines are now either not regulated, or regulated by the individual states.
A petition filed by the litigious Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation preemptively asking PA Commonwealth Court to prevent Gov. Tom Corbett from issuing an executive order that would allow a little more drilling under (not on) some PA state land. The order by Corbett maintains a moratorium on new drilling that involves surface disturbance and requires any new drilling to be done from adjacent private property. The plan would raise an additional $75 million for PA's budget.
The Unconventional Energy Revolution: Estimated Energy Savings for Public Sch...Marcellus Drilling News
A research study performed by IHS and published by the American Petroleum Institute which details the energy cost savings, state by state, for states experiencing and benefiting from the miracle of hydraulic fracturing and the shale revolution. Last year alone Ohio schools saved $60 million on utlity bills and Pennsylvania schools saved $45.5 million on utility bills--thanks to abundant and cheap shale gas.
Norse Energy Appeal of Town Frack Ban Back to NY Court of Appeals for Second ...Marcellus Drilling News
The appeal of Norse Energy of the case in which New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled against Norse and allowed the Town of Dryden to ban fracking townwide. Norse is asking the court to re-hear the case based on a recent decision in a Colorado court that found such municipal bans are illegal.
A piece of propaganda issued by the far-left, virulent anti-drilling Earthworks titled "Blackout in the Gas Patch: How Pennsylvania Residents are Left in the Dark on Health and Enforcement". The "study" supposedly offers evidence of regulatory mismanagement at the state's Dept. of Environmental Protection with respect to the miracle of Marcellus Shale drilling. The report is DOA because it's not independent and misrepresents the data. One more anti-drilling tirade by a fossil fuel-hating organization.
Analyst PowerPoint presentation used for an analyst call on July 24, 2014 by EQT management. The deck contains a number of useful and interesting slides about EQT's drilling program and midstream (pipeline) operations. EQT continues to be a major player in the Marcellus. They plan to drill their very first Utica well later this year--in Greene County, PA.
Pennsylvania County & Municipality Disbursements from 2013 Marcellus Impact F...Marcellus Drilling News
In 2012 PA passed Act 13, which updated shale drilling rules in the state and provided for a tax/fee. Revenues raised from the fee are distributed 60% to the local towns and counties where drilling occurs--where there is an impact. The other 40% goes to Harrisburg politicans as Monopoly money to distribute to their cronies as they see fit. The price to be paid in a corrupt political system.
API Report: Oil and Natural Gas Stimulate Pennsylvania Economic and Job GrowthMarcellus Drilling News
A report from the American Petroleum Institute that shows the incredible number of jobs and resulting economic growth that comes from shale drilling in the U.S. The study keys in on the role of "supply chain" companies--companies that sell good and services to the drilling industry.
Filling the Void: A Citizens' Audit of Ohio Oil and Gas Waste Disposal WellsMarcellus Drilling News
A faux "report" produced by 16 untrained volunteers (anti-drilling activitists) who claim to find evidence of mismanagement of the wastewater injection well program in Ohio on the part of the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. The solution, according to the virulently anti-drilling Ohio Citizen Action group that produced the report, is to have the federal EPA take over active oversight of the injection well program.
Report: Enhanced EPA Oversight and Action Can Further Protect Water Resources...Marcellus Drilling News
A report from the U.S. EPA Inspector General's office saying even though the EPA's own 4-year study proves fracking doesn't affect water supplies, the EPA should try to keep its hand in regulating water used in the fracking business.
Sham "Study": Fracking Beyond the Law - from the Anti-Drilling Environmental ...Marcellus Drilling News
Although Integrity is in their name, it's not in this false study which purports to "out" drilling companies for using diesel fuel in fracking fluids. Problem is, 280 of the 351 wells they say used diesel actually used kerosene, which wasn't considered "diesel" until Feburary of 2014--by the EPA. Gargage in=garbage out in this study.
Report chock full of very cool graphs and tables and useful information--in particular about the unconventional (shale) drilling industry in the state, but also about the conventional oil and gas industry in PA. Issued in 2015.
Your Wastewater Is My Drinking Water; My Wastewater Is Your Drinking Watercarlasstone
Your Wastewater is My Drinking Water; My Wastewater is Your Drinking Water: The importance of cross jurisdictional standards for operator training and certification as it affects the quality of coastal waters, inland seas, and rivers.
Carla Sydney Stone
Quarterly legislative action update: Marcellus and Utica shale region (4Q16)Marcellus Drilling News
A quarterly update from the legal beagles at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. A quarterly legislative action update for the second quarter of 2016 looking at previously laws acted upon, and new laws introduced, affecting the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
An update from Spectra Energy on their proposed $3 billion project to connect four existing pipeline systems to flow more Marcellus/Utica gas to New England. In short, Spectra has put the project on pause until mid-2017 while it attempts to get new customers signed.
DOE Order Granting Elba Island LNG Right to Export to Non-FTA CountriesMarcellus Drilling News
An order issued by the U.S. Dept. of Energy that allows the Elba Island LNG export facility to export LNG to countries with no free trade agreement with the U.S. Countries like Japan and India have no FTA with our country (i.e. friendly countries)--so this is good news indeed. Although the facility would have operated by sending LNG to FTA countries, this order opens the market much wider.
A study released in December 2016 by the London School of Economics, titled "On the Comparative Advantage of U.S. Manufacturing: Evidence from the Shale Gas Revolution." While America has enough shale gas to export plenty of it, exporting it is not as economic as exporting oil due to the elaborate processes to liquefy and regassify natural gas--therefore a lot of the gas stays right here at home, making the U.S. one of (if not the) cheapest places on the planet to establish manufacturing plants, especially for manufacturers that use natural gas and NGLs (natural gas liquids). Therefore, manufacturing, especially in the petrochemical sector, is ramping back up in the U.S. For every two jobs created by fracking, another one job is created in the manufacturing sector.
Letter From 24 States Asking Trump & Congress to Withdraw the Unlawful Clean ...Marcellus Drilling News
A letter from the attorneys general from 24 of the states opposed to the Obama Clean Power Plan to President-Elect Trump, RINO Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel and RINO House Speaker Paul Ryan. The letter asks Trump to dump the CPP on Day One when he takes office, and asks Congress to adopt legislation to prevent the EPA from such an egregious overreach ever again.
Report: New U.S. Power Costs: by County, with Environmental ExternalitiesMarcellus Drilling News
Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost technology options for new electricity generation across much of the U.S. when cost, public health impacts and environmental effects are considered. So says this new research paper released by The University of Texas at Austin. Researchers assessed multiple generation technologies including coal, natural gas, solar, wind and nuclear. Their findings are depicted in a series of maps illustrating the cost of each generation technology on a county-by-county basis throughout the U.S.
Annual report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing oil and natural gas proved reserves, in this case for 2015. These reports are issued almost a year after the period for which they report. This report shows proved reserves for natural gas dropped by 64.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or 16.6%. U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves also decreased--from 39.9 billion barrels to 35.2 billion barrels (down 11.8%) in 2015. Proved reserves are calculated on a number of factors, including price.
The monthly tabulation and prediction from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on production and activity in the largest 7 U.S. shale plays. All 7 shale plays will experience a decrease in natural gas production from the previous month due to low commodity prices.
Velocys is the manufacturer of gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants that convert natural gas (a hyrdocarbon) into other hydrocarbons, like diesel fuel, gasoline, and even waxes. This PowerPoint presentation lays out the Velocys plan to get the company growing. GTL plants have not (so far) taken off in the U.S. Velocys hopes to change that. They specialize in small GTL plants.
PA DEP Revised Permit for Natural Gas Compression Stations, Processing Plants...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, Gov. Wolf announced the DEP would revise its current general permit (GP-5) to update the permitting requirements for sources at natural gas compression, processing, and transmission facilities. This is the revised GP-5.
PA DEP Permit for Unconventional NatGas Well Site Operations and Remote Piggi...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, PA Gov. Wolf announced the Dept. of Environmental Protection would develop a general permit for sources at new or modified unconventional well sites and remote pigging stations (GP-5A). This is the proposed permit.
Onerous new regulations for the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale industry proposed by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection. The new regs will, according to the DEP, help PA reduce so-called fugitive methane emissions and some types of air pollution (VOCs). This is liberal Gov. Tom Wolf's way of addressing mythical man-made global warming.
The monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration for December 2016. This issue makes a couple of key points re natural gas: (1) EIA predicts that natural gas production in the U.S. for 2016 will see a healthy decline over 2015 levels--1.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) less in 2016. That's the first annual production decline since 2005! (2) The EIA predicts the average price for natural gas at the benchmark Henry Hub will climb from $2.49/Mcf (thousand cubic feet) in 2016 to a whopping $3.27/Mcf in 2017. Why the jump? Growing domestic natural gas consumption, along with higher pipeline exports to Mexico and liquefied natural gas exports.
A sort of "year in review" for the gas industry in the northeast. If you could boil it all down, the word that appears prominently throughout is "delay" with respect to important natgas pipeline projects. From the Constitution, which should have already been built by now, to smaller projects, delays were the prominent trend for 2016.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission responded to each point raised in a draft copy of the PA Auditor General's audit of how Act 13 impact fee money, raised from Marcellus Shale drillers, gets spent by local municipalities. The PUC says it's not their job to monitor how the money gets spent, only in how much is raised and distributed.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Act 13/Impact Fees Audit by PA Auditor...Marcellus Drilling News
A biased look at how 60% of impact fees raised from PA's shale drilling are spent, by the anti-drilling PA Auditor General. He chose to ignore an audit of 40% of the impact fees, which go to Harrisburg and disappear into the black hole of Harrisburg spending. The Auditor General claims, without basis in fact, that up to 24% of the funds are spent on items not allowed under the Act 13 law.
The final report from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection that finds, after several years of testing, no elevated levels of radiation from acid mine drainage coming from the Clyde Mine, flowing into Ten Mile Creek. Radical anti-drillers tried to smear the Marcellus industry with false claims of illegal wastewater dumping into the mine, with further claims of elevated radiation levels in the creek. After years of testing, the DEP found those allegations to be false.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in Harper v Muskingum Watershed Conse...Marcellus Drilling News
Anti-drilling landowners (backed by Food & Water Watch) claimed the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District had violated the deed to the land it owns by leasing that land for Utica Shale drilling. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the case. The anti-drillers lost.
Schedule 13D - Stone Energy Corporation - Largest Shareholder Opposes Bankrup...Marcellus Drilling News
Stone Energy's largest investor, Thomas Satterfield, owns 9.9% of the company's stock. He doesn't want to see that stock turned into toilet paper by handing the keys over to debtholders under the current bankruptcy plan. He filed this report with the SEC opposing Stone's existing plan.
role of women and girls in various terror groupssadiakorobi2
Women have three distinct types of involvement: direct involvement in terrorist acts; enabling of others to commit such acts; and facilitating the disengagement of others from violent or extremist groups.
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
31052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
हम आग्रह करते हैं कि जो भी सत्ता में आए, वह संविधान का पालन करे, उसकी रक्षा करे और उसे बनाए रखे।" प्रस्ताव में कुल तीन प्रमुख हस्तक्षेप और उनके तंत्र भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। पहला हस्तक्षेप स्वतंत्र मीडिया को प्रोत्साहित करके, वास्तविकता पर आधारित काउंटर नैरेटिव का निर्माण करके और सत्तारूढ़ सरकार द्वारा नियोजित मनोवैज्ञानिक हेरफेर की रणनीति का मुकाबला करके लोगों द्वारा निर्धारित कथा को बनाए रखना और उस पर कार्यकरना था।
Future Of Fintech In India | Evolution Of Fintech In IndiaTheUnitedIndian
Navigating the Future of Fintech in India: Insights into how AI, blockchain, and digital payments are driving unprecedented growth in India's fintech industry, redefining financial services and accessibility.
In a May 9, 2024 paper, Juri Opitz from the University of Zurich, along with Shira Wein and Nathan Schneider form Georgetown University, discussed the importance of linguistic expertise in natural language processing (NLP) in an era dominated by large language models (LLMs).
The authors explained that while machine translation (MT) previously relied heavily on linguists, the landscape has shifted. “Linguistics is no longer front and center in the way we build NLP systems,” they said. With the emergence of LLMs, which can generate fluent text without the need for specialized modules to handle grammar or semantic coherence, the need for linguistic expertise in NLP is being questioned.
27052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
Welcome to the new Mizzima Weekly !
Mizzima Media Group is pleased to announce the relaunch of Mizzima Weekly. Mizzima is dedicated to helping our readers and viewers keep up to date on the latest developments in Myanmar and related to Myanmar by offering analysis and insight into the subjects that matter. Our websites and our social media channels provide readers and viewers with up-to-the-minute and up-to-date news, which we don’t necessarily need to replicate in our Mizzima Weekly magazine. But where we see a gap is in providing more analysis, insight and in-depth coverage of Myanmar, that is of particular interest to a range of readers.
ys jagan mohan reddy political career, Biography.pdfVoterMood
Yeduguri Sandinti Jagan Mohan Reddy, often referred to as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, is an Indian politician who currently serves as the Chief Minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh. He was born on December 21, 1972, in Pulivendula, Andhra Pradesh, to Yeduguri Sandinti Rajasekhara Reddy (popularly known as YSR), a former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and Y.S. Vijayamma.
GAO Report - Drinking Water: Characterization of Injected Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production
1. Page 1 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
September 23, 2014
Congressional Requesters
Drinking Water: Characterization of Injected Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production
Every day in the United States, at least 2 billion gallons of fluids are injected into underground formations to enhance oil and gas production, or to dispose of fluids brought to the surface during the extraction of oil and gas resources.1 Wells used for injecting fluids associated with the extraction of oil and gas resources are known as class II injection wells.2
Domestic production of oil and gas has increased dramatically in the last several years, with corresponding increases in wastewater resulting from production processes. The majority of fluids injected into class II wells consist largely of brine and may contain pollutants such as chlorides, hydrocarbons, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. The fluids are injected deep underground into porous rock formations, such as sandstone, that are generally below aquifers that can, or do, supply drinking water. Because a significant percentage of the population gets its drinking water from underground aquifers, these wells have raised concerns about the safety of the nation’s drinking water.
3
1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Class II Wells – Oil and Gas Related Injection Wells, accessed September 08, 2014, Specifically, hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling has increased domestic production from unconventional sources such as shales, tight sandstones, and coalbed formations. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of fluids underground, and fluids that are produced from formations during oil and gas production, including fluids from hydraulic fracturing activities that flow back out of the well, must be disposed of or reused. Oil and gas operations that inject fluids underground for disposal or enhanced recovery are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted the process of injecting fluids into a well to hydraulically
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/index.cfm.
2EPA regulates six classes of underground injection wells. Class II wells are used to inject brines and other fluids associated with oil and gas production, as well as hydrocarbons for storage, and are the focus of this report. Additionally, class I wells are used to inject hazardous wastes, industrial non-hazardous liquids, or municipal wastewater beneath the lowermost underground drinking water sources; class III wells are used to inject fluids associated with solution mining of minerals beneath the lowermost underground drinking water source; class IV wells are used to inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above underground drinking water sources (these wells are banned unless authorized under a federal or state groundwater remediation project); class V wells, in general, are used to inject nonhazardous fluids into or above underground drinking water sources, and are typically shallow, on- site disposal systems; class VI wells are used to inject carbon dioxide for long-term storage.
3GAO, Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks, GAO-12-732 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2012).
2. Page 2 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
fracture formations for oil and gas production activities from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
4
You requested that we describe what information EPA and states collect from class II well operators on the characteristics of injected fluids. This report describes information that EPA and selected states require injection well operators to provide on the characteristics of fluids injected into class II wells.
To respond to the objective, we reviewed and summarized requirements for operators to provide information about the characteristics of fluids injected into class II wells for the class II program in each of eight selected states. These are outlined in federal regulations, state regulations, guidance, and related program documents for class II programs. To clarify our understanding of the state and federal requirements for class II wells, we interviewed officials in EPA and in each of the selected eight states. We reviewed the same states chosen for our June 27, 2014, review of EPA’s class II program: California, Colorado, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.5 These states represent a nongeneralizable sample, selected on the basis of the location of current shale oil- and gas-bearing formations across the country, the number of class II wells in each state, and whether the class II program was managed by the state or EPA regions. To identify current shale oil- and gas-bearing formations across the country, we used Energy Information Administration regions that are organized around national shale oil and shale gas resources.6 These regions represent diverse geography and geologic formations, as well as different oil and gas and wastewater operations. We selected at least one state in each of the six regions identified by the Energy Information Administration. We also selected states that had higher numbers of class II wells to ensure our sample represented increased class II activity. Finally, we selected states that had both state (California, Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas) and EPA-managed programs (Kentucky, Pennsylvania).7
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to September 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
4In 2005, the Energy Policy Act amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt the underground injection of fluids associated with hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities from regulation under class II programs, except in cases where diesel fuels are used in the fracturing process.
5For additional information on the state selection methodology, see GAO, Drinking Water: EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated With Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement, GAO- 14-555 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2014).
6Energy Information Administration, Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Oil and Shale Gas Plays (July 2011).
7States request approval from EPA to manage the UIC programs within their respective borders, including the class II programs. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA Administrator approves state programs for one or more classes of wells through a rulemaking process, with public notice and comment, and EPA updates federal regulations to reflect the approved program. Once EPA has approved a state’s program, the state has primary management and enforcement responsibility for its UIC program, known as primacy. In states that do not have approval to manage their programs, EPA regional offices manage the programs in the state directly. Twenty-five states with class II wells manage their class II programs and regulate over 95 percent of the class II wells nationwide. Eight states with class II wells have programs managed by EPA regional offices. The remaining 17 states have no class II wells.
3. Page 3 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
Background
To protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination, class II injection wells are subject to regulation by the UIC program overseen by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act.8 The UIC program regulates three types of class II wells associated with oil and gas production: (1) enhanced recovery wells into which brine, water, steam, carbon dioxide, or other fluids and gases are injected to increase the recovery of oil and gas from oil- or gas-bearing formations; (2) disposal wells into which brines and other fluids brought to the surface during oil and gas production activities are injected for disposal; and (3) storage wells into which liquid petroleum products are injected, generally as part of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.9 The number of class II wells grew from approximately 144,000 in fiscal year 2005 to over 172,000 in fiscal year 2012.10
EPA oversees and regulates all classes of injection wells, including class II wells associated with oil and gas production. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, states may request approval from EPA to manage the UIC programs in their respective borders. Under the act, the EPA Administrator approves states’ programs for one or more classes of wells through a rulemaking process, with public notice and comment, and EPA updates federal regulations to reflect the approved program. To gain EPA approval, a state must adopt and implement a program that meets the minimum requirements established in EPA regulations,
11 or, specifically for class II programs, a state may adopt and implement a program that it demonstrates to be as effective as federal regulations in preventing the contamination of underground sources of drinking water.12 Once EPA has approved a state’s program, the state has primary management and enforcement responsibility for its UIC program, known as primacy. In states that do not have approval to manage their programs, EPA regional offices manage the programs in the states directly.13
EPA developed safeguards to protect underground drinking water sources in the 1980s with the purpose of preventing fluids that are injected into underground formations from endangering underground drinking water sources. EPA has approved 39 states, either through the conventional or alternative process, to manage their own class II programs, while EPA manages the class II programs in 11 states.
14
8An underground source of drinking water as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 144.3 is any nonexempt aquifer or part of such an aquifer which: supplies any public water system; or which contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system, and (1) currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or (2) contains fewer than 10,000 milligrams/liter of total dissolved solids. These safeguards require well operators to, among other
9The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency stock of oil maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy.
10Approximately 18,000 wells were not newly drilled wells, but were incorporated into the class II program as a result of the reclassification of some wells in California.
11Section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to grant primary enforcement authority to states for all classes of UIC wells.
12Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act created an alternative process for EPA to grant primary enforcement authority to states for class II wells only.
13For additional information on class II wells, see GAO-14-555. Some states that have been approved for primacy do not have class II wells, and the number of states with class II programs is smaller than the number with primacy approved.
14EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Statement of Basis and Purpose: Underground Injection Control Regulations, (Washington, D.C.: May 1980). In GAO-14-555, our review included a summary and comparison of the regulations and guidance that establish state and EPA-managed program safeguards, but we did not analyze the technical
4. Page 4 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
things, meet technical standards for constructing, operating, testing, and monitoring injection wells. As part of these safeguards, EPA regulations require that operators “monitor the nature of the injected fluids with sufficient frequency to yield data representative of their characteristics.”15 According to EPA officials, the purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the fluids to be injected into a class II well are fluids that are allowed to be injected into a class II well and are considered nonhazardous. According to EPA documentation, information on the characteristics of injected fluids can help to provide an early warning of potential contamination of underground sources of drinking water and can help federal and state regulators understand the reasons for well failures and take appropriate corrective actions.16
States, and EPA regional offices that manage programs in some states, are largely responsible for the day-to-day management of the class II program. Management includes permitting wells, inspecting wells, enforcing regulations, developing and applying guidance, and collecting and reporting program data to EPA.
Information Collected by EPA and Selected States on the Characteristics of Fluids Injected into Class II Wells Varies
Class II programs in seven of the eight states we selected require that permit applicants provide some information on the characteristics of fluids injected into class II wells prior to permitting, but the specificity and frequency of the information applicants report varies from state to state. Specifically, all of the states we selected except for Ohio require that applicants provide some information on the characteristics of fluids injected into class II wells, but the specific constituents to be reported differ by state. For example, EPA Region 4, which manages the class II program in Kentucky, requests that applicants analyze the pH, total dissolved solids, and specific gravity of the fluid to be injected into a class II well, and can request that applicants provide additional data on the chemical characteristics of injected fluids. Conversely, class II programs in Colorado and North Dakota request an analysis of the fluids injected into class II wells but do not specify what information on fluid characteristics applicants are required to provide. While Ohio’s regulations do not require operators to provide information on the characteristics of fluids injected, the regulations narrowly define what fluids can be injected into class II wells. In addition, according to state officials, Ohio conducted research on the characteristics of produced water in the state’s oil and gas producing formations and samples fluids injected into class II wells during well inspections.
According to EPA officials, fluid characterization requirements for class II wells are designed to ensure that no chemicals are injected that could potentially damage the wells. In addition, EPA officials told us that the agency does not prescribe a set list of constituents that state and EPA- managed class II programs should monitor. Specifically, according to guidance issued by EPA on class II well monitoring, EPA cannot recommend a single set of constituents that should be monitored because injection fluids can vary widely in composition and contain different naturally occurring chemicals and fluids used in oil and gas production depending on the source of the
sufficiency of those safeguards. According to EPA officials, the safeguards established in EPA regulations are still sufficient.
1540 C.F.R. §§ 146.23(b), 144.28(g)(2).
16EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Statement of Basis and Purpose: Underground Injection Control Regulations, (Washington, D.C.: May 1980).
5. Page 5 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
injection fluid. As a result, state programs and programs managed by EPA regions have discretion to monitor the injection fluid constituents that they deem critical to protect underground sources of drinking water in their respective states or regions.
In addition, five of the eight programs we selected request that well operators conduct additional analyses of fluids injected into class II wells after the well has been permitted. Of these five programs, in Kentucky, EPA Region 4 requests that operators provide updated information on fluids injected into class II wells annually, and Colorado requests updated reporting every 5 years. Texas and California request updated information on fluids injected when the source of the injected fluids changes. EPA Region 3, which manages the program in Pennsylvania, requests that operators provide updated information on fluids injected into commercial class II wells every year and fluids injected into private wells every 2 years. Of the remaining states, North Dakota and Oklahoma only request information on fluid characteristics during the class II well permitting process or when requested by state officials. Ohio regulations allow state officials to sample injection fluids at any time during a well’s operation.
Table 1 presents detailed information requested from operators by select states and EPA regional offices on the characteristics of fluids injected into class II wells.
Table 1: Information Collected by EPA and Selected States on the Characteristics of Fluids Injected into Class II Wells
State, Agency
Fluid characteristics reported
Frequency of testing (or reporting)
California, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
According to officials, the chemical analysis typically lists the major constituents of the injection fluid, total dissolved solids, and pH.
The source and analysis of the injection fluid is required in any injection project application.a After the project is approved, a chemical analysis of the liquid being injected should be provided by the operator whenever the source of injection fluid is changed, or when the division requests the data from the operator.b
Colorado, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
According to officials, injected fluids must be analyzed for total dissolved solids, major cations and major anions.c Officials stated that they include these conditions in permit approval letters.
According to officials, water analyses of fluids injected into injection wells are required within 1 year of commencement of injection. Injected fluids are required to be monitored with sufficient frequency to yield data representative of their characteristics. Therefore, water analyses of fluids injected are required as a Condition of Approval, on Form 26 (Source of Produced Water For Disposal), when sources are added or deleted. Water analyses of fluids injected are also required at 5-year intervals.
Kentucky, EPA Region 4
According to officials, the fluid analysis must include the pH, total dissolved solids, and specific gravity; as well as a list of all chemicals and their composition used for any well stimulation and fracturing during that sampling year, and a list of any additives
According to officials, analyses shall be made beginning within 12 months from the effective date of the permit, or 12 months from the most recent analysis, whichever is later. For wells that resume injection
6. Page 6 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
used and their chemical composition, including any inhibitors used to prevent scaling, corrosion, or bacterial growth, and these lists should indicate the brand name of the product and the manufacturer. On EPA’s written request, an injection fluid analysis can include the following additional constituents: barium, calcium, total iron, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, sulfate, carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, and purgeable aromatic hydrocarbons.
after having been shut-in, the permittee will have 30 days from the date injection resumes for the submission of the injection fluid analysis.d
North Dakota, Industrial Commission, Oil and Gas Division
Only fluids brought to the surface in connection with natural gas storage, or conventional oil or natural gas production, and wastewater from gas plants that are integral to production operations may be injected into a class II well.e In the permit application, a quantitative analysis from a state-certified laboratory of a representative sample of the fluid to be injected is required.f This analysis reports the major anions and cations.
After the permit is approved, the operator must conduct sampling as the commission may require.g
Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Resource Management
According to officials, class II injection well operators are not required to analyze the chemical composition of injected fluids. Only saline geological formation water resulting from, obtained from, or produced in connection with exploration, drilling, stimulation, production, or plugging of oil and gas wells (defined in Ohio law as “brine”h) is permitted to be injected into class II saltwater injection wells.i According to officials, the division has supported research to analyze produced water samples from oil and gas producing formations.j In addition, operators may monitor the specific gravity of fluids when applying to increase permitted injection pressure limits.
The division may sample injection fluids at any time during injection operations.k According to officials, division inspectors collect fluid samples from permitted injection facilities for analysis at an EPA certified laboratory.
Oklahoma, Corporation Commission
In the permit application, operators will provide an analysis of sodium, chloride, and total dissolved solids.l
According to state officials, fluids may be tested during pollution investigations or as a result of citizen complaints.
Pennsylvania, EPA Region 3
According to EPA officials, in the permit application, operators are required to do a fluid analysis including: specific gravity, total organic carbon, pH, specific conductance, sodium, chloride, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, barium, hydrogen sulfide, alkalinity and dissolved oxygen, hardness, and magnesium to characterize the fluids to be injected.
According to EPA officials, operators are required to provide an analysis of injected fluids during permitting. Commercial wells are required to resample every year and whenever the operator anticipates a change in the source of the fluid to be injected. Privately owned wells should be resampled every 2 years and whenever the source changes.
Texas, Railroad Commission
According to officials, during permitting, an operator provides general categories of fluid types, such as exempt oil and gas waste, fresh water, salt water, fracture water flowback, natural gas, hydrogen sulfide, steam, air polymer, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and naturally occurring radioactive material as defined by Texas law.
According to officials, a permit amendment is required if the operator wants authority to inject a fluid that is different from that approved in the permit.
7. Page 7 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
Sources: GAO analysis of EPA and state regulations and guidance. | GAO-14-857R
aCal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 1724.7(c)(7) (2014).
bCal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 1724.10(d) (2014).
cA cation is a positively charged atom or molecule. An anion is a negatively charged atom or molecule.
dShut-in wells are wells that are shut off for a period of time and do not accept injected fluids.
eSee N.D. Admin. Code 43-02-05-01(2)(a) (2014).
fN.D. Admin. Code 43-02-05-04(1)(m) (2014).
gN.D. Admin. Code 43-02-05-12(4) (2014).
hOhio Rev. Code Ann. § 1509.01(U) (2014).
iAccording to Ohio officials, samples were analyzed for total dissolved solids, specific conductance, pH, specific gravity, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, chloride, sulfate, alkalinity, strontium, lithium, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, titanium, and zinc.
jSee Ohio Admin. Code 1501:9-3-06 (2014).
kOhio Admin. Code 1501:9-3-07(J) (2014).
lOkla. Admin. Code § 165:10-5-5(b)(5)(D) (2014).
Agency Comments
We provided EPA and the managers of the eight state class II programs we reviewed with a draft of this report for comment. EPA and Ohio provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Susan Iott, Assistant Director; Mark Braza, John Delicath, Micah McMillan, and Rich Johnson.
J. Alfredo Gómez
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
8. Page 8 GAO-14-857R Drinking Water
List of Requesters
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Henry Waxman
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Peter DeFazio
Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
The Honorable Benjamin Cardin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Diana DeGette
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Edward Markey
United States Senate
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senate
(361594)
9. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
10. The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to ourPodcasts . Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512- 4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, DC 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Phone
Connect with GAO
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Congressional Relations
Public Affairs PleasePrintonRecycledPaper.