In an April 1, 2014 memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarized state regulatory programs concerning the management of solid waste from oil and natural gas exploration, development and production (E&P) operations.
In reviewing each state’s regulations, the EPA focused on surface storage and disposal facilities managing produced waters, drilling muds, drilling cuttings, hydraulic fracturing return fluids, and various other waste liquids and materials intrinsically related to oil and gas E&P.
The EPA found that the state regulations were primarily concerned with the “technical requirements associated with the design, construction, operation, maintenance, closure, and reclamation of surface pits, ponds, lagoons or tanks, as well as financial assurance requirements associated with such facilities.”
Among the common parameters are state requirements for liners in pits and impoundments, secondary containment requirements for tanks, set-back requirements, and various inspection requirements. However, the EPA did find gaps in regulations relating to groundwater monitoring, leachate collection, air monitoring, and waste characterization.
Overall, with the review, the EPA had developed an understanding of the wide-range of state regulatory programs currently in place in the twenty-six (26) oil and gas producing states covered in the summary.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts
Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission finalizes hydraulic fracturing rules
The Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission finalized its proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations at a public meeting on April 2, 2014. The Commission first proposed these regulations in December 2012 and has revised the draft regulations several times.
The regulations require the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process and, with this last revision, include a provision allowing the operators to submit the names of proprietary chemicals confidentially. The confidential information must be “separately filed in an envelope clearly marked confidential along with a list of the documents which are non-disclosable as trade secrets, the specific legal authority, and specific facts supporting non-disclosure” in accordance with Alaska’s public information statutes. Anyone can make a request for disclosure of that information under Alaska’s Public Records Act and file a lawsuit in Superior Court if the claim of confidentiality is challenged.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
The regulations require the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process and, with this last revision, include a provision allowing the operators to submit the names of proprietary chemicals confidentially. The confidential information must be “separately filed in an envelope clearly marked confidential along with a list of the documents which are non-disclosable as trade secrets, the specific legal authority, and specific facts supporting non-disclosure” in accordance with Alaska’s public information statutes. Anyone can make a request for disclosure of that information under Alaska’s Public Records Act and file a lawsuit in Superior Court if the claim of confidentiality is challenged.
In addition, the latest regulations require a pre-hydraulic fracturing plan for baseline water sampling of water wells located “within a one-half mile radius of the current or proposed wellbore trajectory.” The operator must make “reasonable and good faith efforts” to secure the permission of all landowners to allow the pre-fracking sampling. A landowner who refuses pre-fracking sampling or refuses to allow disclosure of the results is not required to be included in the post-fracking water sampling plan.
The regulations include requirements relating to casing and cementing, identification of freshwater aquifers and all water wells located within one-half mile of the well’s surface location, the hydraulic fracturing program, pressure relief valves, confinement of hydraulic fracturing fluids, and annulus pressures. Within 30 days of completion of the hydraulic fracturing operation, the operator must file a Report of Sundry Well Operations with the Commission, outlining the work performed, the tests conducted and a summary of daily well operations. Prior to submitting the Report of Sundry Well Operations, the operator must post the information to the FracFocus.org website.
The regulations include requirements relating to casing and cementing, identification of freshwater aquifers and all water wells located within one-half mile of the well’s surface location, the hydraulic fracturing program, pressure relief valves, confinement of hydraulic fracturing fluids, and annulus pressures. Within 30 days of completion of the hydraulic fracturing operation, the operator must file a Report of Sundry Well Operations with the Commission, outlining the work performed, the tests conducted and a summary of daily well operations. Prior to submitting the Report of Sundry Well Operations, the operator must post the information to the FracFocus.org website.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Alaskan Oil & Gas Agency Proposes Regulations of Hydraulic Fracturing
While hydraulic fracturing has been used for decades in Alaska, Alaskan oil and gas production is entirely from conventional porous rock sources, so hydraulic fracturing is not used to the same degree as elsewhere in the United States.
The proposed regulations will incorporate Alaska’s current wellbore integrity rules, but seek to increase oversight and make more information available to the public.
Specifically, the regulations would require the approval of state regulators before hydraulic fracturing is conducted, notification of landowners prior to hydraulic fracturing, and the full disclosure of chemicals found in the hydraulic fracturing liquids to be used.
The proposed regulations will incorporate Alaska’s current wellbore integrity rules, but seek to increase oversight and make more information available to the public.
Specifically, the regulations would require the approval of state regulators before hydraulic fracturing is conducted, notification of landowners prior to hydraulic fracturing, and the full disclosure of chemicals found in the hydraulic fracturing liquids to be used.
The regulation also requires operators to test all water wells within a half-mile radius of the oil or gas well, both before and after hydraulic fracturing occurs. The sampling and testing parameters include pH, dissolved methane, and other compounds.
The proposed regulations seek to define hydraulic fracturing as “the treatment of a well by the application of hydraulic fracturing fluid under pressure for the express purpose of initiating or propagating fractures in a target geologic formation to enhance production of oil and/or natural gas.”
The proposed regulations seek to define hydraulic fracturing as “the treatment of a well by the application of hydraulic fracturing fluid under pressure for the express purpose of initiating or propagating fractures in a target geologic formation to enhance production of oil and/or natural gas.”
The term is currently undefined under Alaskan state law.
Within 30 days from the public hearing, the AOGCC will decide whether to adopt the proposed provisions addressing hydraulic fracturing, to revise the regulations and submit for further public comment, or to take no action on them.
This article was prepared by Lauren Brogdon (lauren.brogdon@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 5375) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Within 30 days from the public hearing, the AOGCC will decide whether to adopt the proposed provisions addressing hydraulic fracturing, to revise the regulations and submit for further public comment, or to take no action on them.
This article was prepared by Lauren Brogdon (lauren.brogdon@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 5375) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)