Showing posts with label Arkansas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arkansas. Show all posts

Eighth Circuit refuses to overturn jury verdict despite allegations that verdict was tainted

In Hiser v. XTO Energy, Inc., the Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict against XTO Energy, Inc. (XTO) and rejected XTO’s argument that the district court should have granted its motion for a new trial. The appeal was heard by Judge Duane Benton, Judge Michael J. Melloy, and Judge Bobby E. Shepherd. Hiser involved allegations by the plaintiff that she suffered damages due to XTO’s drilling operations on a neighbor’s property.


During deliberations, the jury asked the district court whether XTO’s drilling operations included fracking or only drilling. The judge responded that the jury could only consider evidence presented by the parties. After XTO moved for a new trial, the parties submitted affidavits from multiple jurors. The jurors stated that they discussed fracking before the court’s instruction; however, those discussions ceased after the court instructed them to only consider the evidence presented at trial.


The jurors disagreed on the extent of their fracking discussion. Whereas one juror stated that they discussed the potential negative effects of fracking on the plaintiff, another juror stated that there was no discussion of the negative impact of fracking. Indeed, another juror stated that they merely discussed fracking generally. The jurors also disputed whether they discussed earthquakes, a topic that was mentioned only briefly at trial.


The Eighth Circuit rejected XTO’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by not ordering a new trial. The panel reasoned that the district court’s instruction adequately reduced any potential risk of prejudice. Moreover, the panel noted that there was no evidence of prejudice. Even assuming that the jury discussed earthquakes before the court’s instruction, the panel concluded that the discussion did not impact the verdict or prejudice XTO. 

Furthermore, if the jury discussed earthquakes after the court’s instruction, the panel reasoned that there was no prejudice because the discussion did not reference the plaintiff or XTO. Lastly, the panel held that even if the jurors discussed extraneous information, XTO did not demonstrate that it suffered any prejudice or that the verdict was impacted.

EPA reviews states’ solid waste management regulations for oil and gas operations

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.

Eight Arkansas families sue natural gas gathering company over compressor station operations

In the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas, on April 24, 2014, eight families who live near compressor stations operated by Desoto Gathering Company sued that company, alleging the emission of “huge amounts of methane and hydrogen sulfide, as well as other flammable, malodorous and noxious gases, chemicals and compounds, directly into the air.” In addition, these families assert that the compressor stations “are injuriously loud and produce harmful levels of noise and toxic emissions” and that they have been harmed by the noise, vibration, odor and pollution.

Having purchased their property many years ago because it was in a rural, non-industrial setting, the families allege that they were not consulted when the compressor stations were built nor when the stations were enlarged. The families claim that their “homes are within the blast/impact zone of the Midge 2 [and Scotland CPF 2] compressor station[s], the area which is likely to be impacted in the event the massive amounts of explosive natural gas or other flammable hydrocarbons on-site were to explode or catch fire.”

Stating causes of action for strict liability and negligence, each of seven families seeks $3 million for compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages (with one family seeking $8 million and $12 million, respectively, claiming exacerbation of the husband’s post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosed by the Department of Veterans Affairs) for discomfort resulting from the company’s activities and for personal injuries resulting from the noise and vibration of the compressor stations.

This lawsuit, Ramsey, et al. v. Desoto Gathering Company, LLC, Case No. 23CV-14-258, in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas for the 20th Judicial District, was filed two days after a $2.925 million verdict in Dallas, Texas for nuisance damages arising from the drilling activities of a natural gas company. Click here for more information on the Dallas verdict.

The eight families in this lawsuit were severed from a class action lawsuit now in federal court, Ramsey, et al. v. Desoto Gathering Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00626-BRW, In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, on March 27, 2014. The Court severed these families because the class action was not based on claims arising from the Midge CPF-2 and Scotland CPF-2 compressor stations, but rather on another compressor station.

House Democrats request hearing on induced seismicity

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, issued a letter to their Republican counterparts requesting a joint hearing on the issue of seismic activity induced by the underground injection of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing activities. In the letter dated December 18, 2013, the members cite the increased seismic activity in previously seismically inactive locations, the critical need for additional data, and the potential regulatory gaps in current law that put people and property at risk from man-made earthquakes.

According to the ranking members, “[t]he tremendous boom in U.S. oil and natural gas production over the past several years has been the result of the expanded use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, techniques that generate large quantities of wastewater, which is often disposed of through underground injection,” and reference a recent report by the National Research Council that linked seismic events to wastewater injection in Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, and other locations. The members also point to a joint October study from the U.S. Geological Survey and Oklahoma Geological Survey that suggested tremors in the state "may" be linked to hydraulic fracturing.

In the letter, the members argue that it is not clear that current requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control (UIC) program are adequate to address the risk posed by induced seismicity to critical surface infrastructure such as nuclear power plants and dams, not to mention homes and businesses in the vicinity of injection wells.

It must be noted that the causal connection between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes continues to be unresolved – studies and experts have produced research and opinion on both sides of the issue. Oklahoma state geologist G. Randy Keller called the claims "a rush to judgment," while Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes said his teams have found "no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself" is the cause of earthquakes.

New study shows no evidence of water contamination from shale gas drilling in Arkansas

Duke University and the U.S. Geological Society (USGS) investigated the possible degradation of water quality in shallow aquifers overlying the Fayetteville Shale formation in north-central Arkansas, where approximately 4,000 wells have been drilled since 2004 to extract unconventional natural gas.

The study which was released in mid-May 2013 found no evidence of groundwater contamination from shale gas production in Arkansas.  The scientists sampled 127 shallow drinking water wells in areas overlying the gas-producing Fayettevile Shale formation.  The samples were taken at various locations by personnel from the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission.  The samples were analyzed for major and trace elements and hydrocarbons.  Isotropic tracers were used to identify the sources of possible contamination.  The chemical composition of any contaminants in the water samples was compared to those found in gas samples from the nearby shale gas drilling sites. The comparisons showed no spatial relationship between methane and salinity occurrences in the shallow drinking wells located in proximity to the sites.  The low concentrations of methane that were found in the water did not match the isotopic fingerprint of the methane in the gas samples in all but two cases, showing that the methane in the water was primarily produced by biological activity in the shallow aquifers.

The scientists concluded that “systematic monitoring of multiple geochemical and isotopic tracers is necessary for assessing the possible groundwater contamination in areas associated with shale gas exploration as well as the possible hydraulic connectivity between shallow aquifers and deeper production zones.”   The scientists indicated that variations in local and regional geology as well as human factors, such as drilling techniques and the integrity of the well bore, play major roles in determining the possible risk of groundwater impacts from  shale gas development and in preventing or allowing gas leakage from drilling sites to shallow aquifers.


USGS Offers Insight into Impacts of Fracturing in Fayetteville Shale

A report recently released by the United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) found that water wells in the Fayetteville Shale of north-central Arkansas are, thus far, not contaminated by the area’s hydraulic fracturing activities.

The Fayetteville Shale is a relatively small shale play, with 4,000 wells drilled as of April, 2012. The concern of area residents that their water wells were contaminated by shale activity prompted the USGS’ involvement and subsequent testing.

The USGS sampled 127 domestic water wells in the Fayetteville Shale area for major ions and trace metals, with some samples tested for methane and carbon isotopes.

The USGS also looked for elevated salt levels, as well as methane in the groundwater supply. All levels were found to be consistent with or in lower concentrations than historical records for samples collected between 1951 and 1983.

The most frequently analyzed constituent was chloride, a large component of the produced water accumulated during the hydraulic fracturing process and a significant indicator of whether produced waters had entered shallow groundwater. Interestingly, the historical data revealed statistically larger chloride concentrations than in the samples collected for this study.

The report concludes that while the test results do not indicate an improvement in overall water quality, there is no evidence of groundwater contamination by fracturing fluids or methane in the study area.


This article was prepared by Kristen Hulbert (khulbert@fulbright.com or 713 651 5303) from Fulbright's Environmental Practice.

Survey of Flaring Regs for Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming

Natural gas production is booming in the United States.

Operators, aided by advances in hydraulic fracturing, have ramped up production, whether by reworking old oil wells or exploiting new formations altogether.

However, just because an operator has the ability to produce natural gas does not necessarily mean that it can sell the gas; compressors, pipelines, treatment plants, and other infrastructure must be prepared in order to get the gas to market. 

In some cases, this lack of infrastructure has led operators to vent or flare gas at the wellhead. 

In order to get a better understanding of where the law stands and in what direction it may head, below is a survey of the major gas-producing states’ regulations regarding flaring. 

Note:  this survey covers only the regulations that speak directly to the question of whether an operator may flare the gas on private lands. Flaring has other potential legal repercussions, such as the particles that are emitted in the process that could call into question state or federal clean air laws or endangered species, and different regulations apply to wells located on state- or federally-owned land. Those concerns are beyond the scope of this survey.

Arkansas

Arkansas allows operators to vent or flare gas within 7 days of when gas is first encountered in a well. After that time, gas may not be vented or flared unless the operator obtains an exception from the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission.

Colorado

In Colorado, all flaring must be authorized by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission unless it is done during an upset condition, well maintenance, well stimulation flowback, purging operations, or a productivity test.

Louisiana

In Louisiana, flaring of natural gas is prohibited unless the Louisiana Office of Conservation finds upon written application that such a prohibition would result in an economic hardship on the operator. The regulations further note that no such economic hardship can be found if the current market value—at the point of delivery for the gas proposed to be vented—exceeds the cost involved in making the gas available to market.

North Dakota

Gas may be flared during the first year of production from a well. N.D. Century code 38-08-06.4. After the one-year grace period, the well must be either connected to a pipeline or used at the wellhead to power an electrical generator, unless the producer applies for and obtains an exception. Id

Producers can obtain exceptions from the Industrial Commission for additional flaring if the producer presents evidence demonstrating the economic infeasibility of piping gas from the well. Id. 

It is economically infeasible to connect the well to a natural gas gathering line if the direct costs of connecting the well to the line and the direct costs of operating the facilities connecting the well to the line during the life of the well are greater than the amount of money the operator is likely to receive for the gas, less production taxes and royalties, should the well be connected to the gathering line. N.D. Century Code 43-02-03-60.2.

Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, an operator may vent or flare up to 50 mcf/day without a permit if: (i) it is not economically feasible to market the gas; (ii) a suitable stand, line, or stack is used to prevent a hazard to people; and (iii) there is less than 100 ppm of hydrogen sulfide in the gas. For venting or flaring at rate greater than 50 mcf/day, the operator must seek an administrative permit from the Conservation Division of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s oil and gas conservation regulations do not address flaring, other than to say that it may be done so long as it does not endanger people.

Texas

Texas producers have a grace period of 10 days after the initial completion, recompletion in another field, or workover operations in the same field, during which they may flare natural gas. 16 TAC 3.32(f)(1)(A). Releases of gas that are not routinely measured (such as small amounts that escape during the initial completion of a well) are exempt from flaring requirements and need not be measured for the purposes of well allowables. 16 TAC 3.32 (d)(1)

Producers may also vent or flare gas when a well must be unloaded or cleaned-up to atmospheric pressure, but may only do so for fewer than 24 hours in one continuous event or a total of 72 hours in one calendar month. 16 TAC 3.32(f)(1)(B). Texas producers may obtain exceptions from the railroad commission for the release of gas when the operator presents information to show the necessity of the release. 16 TAC 3.322(f)(2)

However, such administrative exceptions shall not be granted for periods exceeding 180 days, though they may be renewed. 16 TAC 3.32(h).

Wyoming

Wyoming allows for flaring without any additional regulatory authorization in the following situations: 
  1. During emergencies or upset conditions, which are temporary situations that result in the unavoidable short-term venting or flaring of gas; 
  2. For well purging and evaluation tests;
  3. During initial or recompletion evaluation tests which shall not exceed 15 days unless otherwise authorized; or 
  4. If it is a venting or flaring of casinghead gas from an oil well that produces less than 60 MCF of gas per day, unless the Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission determines that waste is occurring.
If an operator wishes to vent or flare gas in any other circumstance, it must apply for authorization from the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the application must include the information required by Section 39.

Texas RRC Press Release, May 23, 2012


Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter discussed the possibility of new regulations in a May 23 news release. Noting that gas drilling activity “is outstripping capacity and awaiting pipeline infrastructure,” Commissioner Porter asserted that Texas “must proactively address flaring.” The only specifics provided in the news release were: 
  1. that the Railroad Commission is seeking to work in partnership with Texas electrical energy regulators to use excess gas for strategic generation in light of the threat of weather-induced power curtailment; and
  2. that the Railroad Commission is studying a pilot program for using gas as a source of power for on-lease operations in lieu of flaring the gas.

This article was prepared by Barclay Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com / 713 651 3662) from Fulbright's Energy Law Practice.

Injection Wells and Their Possible Link to Seismic Activity

The use of injection wells, a preferred method for disposal of various fluids such as wastewater or brine (salt water), is a popular topic in the news media lately due to a suspected link between use of these wells and earthquakes.

Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, the United Kingdom, and most recently Youngstown, Ohio and central West Virginia have been experiencing frequent, small earthquakes. On New Year’s Eve, a 4.0 magnitude earthquake struck just outside of Youngstown, Ohio. This quake was just one of 11 earthquakes experienced in the area since March, 2011.

D&L Energy, whose affiliate Northstar Disposal Services LLC operates the Youngstown well, voluntarily shut the well down after the tenth earthquake occurred. Soon after, Ohio Governor John Kasich’s administration placed a temporary moratorium on injection wells within a 5-mile radius of Northstar No. 1, the particular Youngstown well believed to be the cause of the quakes.

This occurred less than a year after Arkansas declared a moratorium on disposal wells due to earthquakes during the development of the Fayetteville Shale. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources believes that fracking waste pumped into Northstar No. 1 has been seeping into a previously unknown fault line and, as a result, has caused this seismic activity.

The chairman of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University analogizes by saying the water pressure essentially “greases the wheels of the earthquake process that is there naturally and causes the earthquakes to occur at lower stress levels than they might normally have needed to occur.” At the same time, for the seismic activity to occur, the wastewater would need to be injected specifically into a stress region.

Seismographs from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory were set up in Youngstown and concluded that the earthquake occurred nearly 2 miles below the surface, the same depth as the well. Ohio has over 177 injection wells throughout the state.

However, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ director stated that the Northstar No. 1 well is the only well that has been related to seismic activity in the state since injection wells were first installed in the 1970s.

Some state senators have called for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to intervene and for an indefinite, statewide moratorium on the use of injection wells.
A statewide moratorium could present a major problem, both for the livelihoods of thousands of Ohio residents as well as for other states who rely on these injection wells for disposal of water generated from oil and gas activities in those states.

Prior to its shutdown, nearly 5,000 42-gallon barrels of brine water were pumped into Northstar No. 1 dailyA majority of this water came from oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. A similar situation has arisen in West Virginia, which experienced 10 quakes in 2010 and another one in January 2012.

After the initial quakes in 2010, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection worked with Chesapeake Energy to reduce the amount of fluid being injected into its disposal wells in the area.
According to news reports, Chesapeake Energy had recently begun to slowly increase the amount of injected fluid when the latest earthquake struck. While West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection believes there is a link between the earthquake and Chesapeake Energy’s increased injection fluid, there currently is no evidence that these events are related.

The company is skeptical that any link exists given that the earthquake occurred 6 miles from the disposal well, nearly 3 miles below the well’s disposal zone, and 25 earthquakes have been reported within 100 miles of the current seismic activity since 2000, one of which struck before the injection well was even drilled.
Since seismic monitors were not present at the site, the link between the quakes and the increased injected fluid remains unproven. Studies attempting to link earthquakes to underground injection are ongoing.

U.S. EPA has not yet weighed in on this issue, but as the news media continues to focus on the issue and public concerns continue to rise, that may change.

This article was prepared by Heather M. Corken (hcorken@fulbright.com or 713 651 8386) and Kristen Roche (kroche@fulbright.com or 713 651 5303) from Fulbright's Environmental Law Practice Group.

SOURCES
Henry Fountain, Ohio: Sites of Two Earthquakes Nearly IdenticalN.Y. Times, Jan. 3, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/earth/ohio-sites-of-two-earthquakes-nearly-identical.html?_r=1&ref=us.
Julie Carr Smyth, Company cautions against linking well, Ohio quakesThe Washington Times, Jan. 12, 2012, available at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/company-cautions-against-linking-well-ohio-quakes/.
Joe Vardon, State links quakes to work on wellsThe Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 1, 2012, available at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/01/01/state-links-quakes-to-work-on-wells.html.
Edward McAllister, Avoiding Fracking Earthquakes May Prove ExpensiveScientific American (Jan. 3, 2012), available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=avoiding-fracking-earthquakes-expensive.
Ohio Connects Quakes to Injection Well, Previously Unknown Fault Line NearbyBusiness Journal Daily (Jan. 12, 2012), available at http://business-journal.com/ohio-connects-quakes-to-injection-well-previously-unknown-fault-line-nearb-p20690-1.htm.
Spencer Hunt, A seismic shift in Ohio’s concerns over earthquakesThe Columbus Dispatch, Jan. 9, 2012, available at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/01/09/a-seismic-shift.html.
Joe Vardon, State links northeast Ohio quakes to injection wellsThe Columbus Dispatch, Dec. 31, 2011, available at http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/31/new-quakes.html.
The Associated Press, W.Va. DEP: Injection, quakes could be tiedStar Gazette, Jan. 13, 2012, available at http://www.stargazette.com/article/20120113/NEWS11/120113015/W-Va-DEP-Injection-quakes-could-tied.
The Associated Press, Chesapeake skeptical of quake-drilling connectionCharleston Gazette, Jan. 13, 2012, available at http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/201201130127.