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 Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Michigan Court of Appeals holds that a well completed using hydraulic fracturing is not an injection well
Several Michigan citizens and the group Ban Michigan Fracking questioned the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) about its definition of “injection well” in Mich. Admin. Code , R. 324.102(x), urging that the definition should include wells completed with hydraulic fracturing (“frack wells”).
The DEQ responded by stating that “a frack well is not an injection well under Rule 324.102(x) because a frack well injects fluids for the ‘initial stimulation’ of oil and gas, whereas Rule 324.102(x) limits injection wells to wells that are used for disposal, storage, or secondary recovery of oil and gas.”
The citizens and Ban Michigan Fracking then filed a declaratory judgment action, requesting that the definition of injection well include a frack well, thus making the regulations relating to injection wells applicable to frack wells.
On February 11, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the DEQ, stating that under the plain language of the rule, an “injection well is either a well used to dispose of…waste fluids or a well used to inject…fluids for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons from a reservoir or for the storage of hydrocarbons.”
According to the court, for a well to be categorized as an “injection well,” it must be used for the purposes of recovering hydrocarbons before and after the injection of fluid.
The court continued:
“…it is undisputed that the frack wells at issue are not used for the purpose of recovering hydrocarbons before the injection of fluid… [B]ecause a newly constructed frack well does not involve the continuing recovery of hydrocarbons, but rather the initial recovery of hydrocarbons when such recovery was nonexistent, the wells at issue here to not fall within the scope of the unambiguous language of Rule 324.102(x).
On March 3, 2014, a motion for reconsideration was filed, asking the court to resolve a separate part of the appeal which the opinion overlooked. The appellants indicate that the court’s opinion did not adjudicate the “contention that a frack well is used to dispose of waste fluids.”
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
The DEQ responded by stating that “a frack well is not an injection well under Rule 324.102(x) because a frack well injects fluids for the ‘initial stimulation’ of oil and gas, whereas Rule 324.102(x) limits injection wells to wells that are used for disposal, storage, or secondary recovery of oil and gas.”
The citizens and Ban Michigan Fracking then filed a declaratory judgment action, requesting that the definition of injection well include a frack well, thus making the regulations relating to injection wells applicable to frack wells.
On February 11, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the DEQ, stating that under the plain language of the rule, an “injection well is either a well used to dispose of…waste fluids or a well used to inject…fluids for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons from a reservoir or for the storage of hydrocarbons.”
According to the court, for a well to be categorized as an “injection well,” it must be used for the purposes of recovering hydrocarbons before and after the injection of fluid.
The court continued:
“…it is undisputed that the frack wells at issue are not used for the purpose of recovering hydrocarbons before the injection of fluid… [B]ecause a newly constructed frack well does not involve the continuing recovery of hydrocarbons, but rather the initial recovery of hydrocarbons when such recovery was nonexistent, the wells at issue here to not fall within the scope of the unambiguous language of Rule 324.102(x).
On March 3, 2014, a motion for reconsideration was filed, asking the court to resolve a separate part of the appeal which the opinion overlooked. The appellants indicate that the court’s opinion did not adjudicate the “contention that a frack well is used to dispose of waste fluids.”
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Michigan to tighten Its hydraulic fracturing rules
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) plans to strengthen its hydraulic fracturing rules by adding provisions to protect water resources and to require additional chemical data submissions. This announcement comes after roughly 200 public meetings held since 2011 and attended by the DEQ.
The proposed revisions would add the following requirements:
As these new rules are being proposed, the anti-fracking group Ban Michigan Fracking is trying to get more than 258,000 signatures by May 2014 in order to have its initiative on the ballot in November 2014. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the fracking ban and has launched its own campaign to defeat the initiative.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Michigan’s current fracturing rules went into effect on June 22, 2011 and require the operator or the service company of a high volume hydraulic fractured (HVHF) well (using more than 100,000 gallons of fracking fluid) to provide:
- Material Safety Data Sheets for the chemical additives used,
- the volume of each additive, and
- the records and associated charts showing fracturing volumes, rates, and pressures.
The proposed revisions would add the following requirements:
- Water withdrawal assessment and monitoring – In the application for a drilling permit, the operator will be required to use the state’s water withdrawal assessment tool. Withdrawal will not be approved if the review indicates that the withdrawal may cause an adverse impact to rivers or streams. Also if there is a water supply within 1,320 feet of a proposed withdrawal, the operator must install a monitor well and report water levels. There will be specifications for water storage pits.
- Water quality sampling – Oil and gas operators will be required to collect baseline samples from up to 10 water supply wells within 1,320 feet of a proposed withdrawal, six months or less before drilling begins.
- Monitoring and reporting – Operators will be required to state in the permit application whether HVHF will be used, submit separate applications for HVHF operations on existing wells, notify the DEQ at least 48 hours in advance before starting the process, and monitor and report fluid pressures and volumes for all HVHF operations.
- Chemical additive disclosures – Operators will be required to submit information regarding HVHF chemical additives on FracFocus.org. The information must include chemical constituents and maximum concentrations. For trade secrets, the chemical family and trade name must be identified.
As these new rules are being proposed, the anti-fracking group Ban Michigan Fracking is trying to get more than 258,000 signatures by May 2014 in order to have its initiative on the ballot in November 2014. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the fracking ban and has launched its own campaign to defeat the initiative.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
University of Michigan's Technical Reports on Hydraulic Fracturing in the State
These Michigan-focused reports conclude the first phase of a two-year University project entitled Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated Assessment. Public comment on these reports may be submitted through October 7, 2013.
A brief description of each report follows.
- Technology: In view of the currently low price of gas, the high price of drilling deep shales, and the absence of new discoveries, it is unlikely that there will be significant growth of the oil and gas industry in Michigan. Hydraulic fracturing has not found widespread application in Michigan, except for a few exploratory wells in the Utica/Collingwood shale where considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to exist.
- Geology and Hydrogeology: Currently there is minimal drilling activity within Michigan that qualifies as high-volume hydraulic fracturing. There are fewer than 60 existing permits or permit applications for hydraulic fracturing. However, there has been a recent increase in mineral rights acquisitions, suggesting anticipated potential growth in unconventional reservoir production via hydraulic fracturing potential growth in unconventional reservoir production via hydraulic fracturing. “Michigan is thus in a unique position to assess the future of high-volume hydraulic fracturing before the gas boom begins and learn from experiences in other states like Pennsylvania.’
- Environment and Ecology: Shale oil gas development, if not properly managed, could adversely affect water quality due to surface water and groundwater contamination as a result of
- spills and releases of produced water, chemical, and drill cuttings,
- erosion from ground disturbances, or
- underground migration of gases and chemicals.
- Public Health: Possible environmental hazards include impaired local and regional air quality, water pollution, and degradation of ecosystem services. Possible hazards in nearby communities include increased traffic and motor vehicle accidents as well as road degradation and a strained healthcare system.
- Policy and Law: State regulations govern hydraulic fracturing. Michigan requires disclosure of the chemical constituents in hydraulic fracturing fluid within 60 days of well completion. Operators need not disclose trade secrets.
- Economics: Hydraulic fracturing may lead to greater disparity in property values. The gas extraction industry creates employment and income, but the effects are modest compared to other industries. This analysis suggests that Michigan may enjoy stronger job creation by encouraging the rework of existing as wells rather than by drilling new wells.
- Public Perceptions: A slight majority of Michigan citizens believe that the benefits of hydraulic fracturing outweigh the risks.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Summit Petroleum (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): EPA’s Aggregation of Oil and Gas Emissions Based on “Mere Functional Relatedness” is Unreasonable
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit* in Summit Petroleum Corporation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nos. 09-4348; 10-4572) vacated EPA's order aggregating Summit's sour gas wells and sweetening plant into a single major source.
This article was prepared by Barclay Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com / 713 651 3662) from Fulbright's Energy Law Practice.
The Court agreed with American Petroleum Institute and American Exploration and Production Counsel that EPA’s determination that the physical requirement of “adjacency” in an aggregation determination can be established through mere functional relatedness is unreasonable and contrary to the plain meaning of the term “adjacent.”
The court remanded the case to EPA for a reassessment of Summit's Title V source determination in light of the proper, plain-meaning application of the requirement that Summit's activities be aggregated only if they are located on physical contiguous properties.
Judge Moore dissented from the opinion, stating that EPA’s consideration of functional interrelatedness was “both reasonable (and thus worthy of deference) and correct,” and that she would have affirmed the agency’s decision to aggregate Summit’s stationary sources.
It is not yet known whether EPA will seek a rehearing en banc or a petition for certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
* The states within the geographic boundaries of the Sixth Circuit are Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.
This article was prepared by Barclay Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com / 713 651 3662) from Fulbright's Energy Law Practice.
Texas, Other States Move Forward With Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Regulations
Earlier this year, Texas became the latest state to draft regulations requiring the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. Michigan and Montana issued similar regulations over the summer, joining Arkansas, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania as states recently active in regulating hydraulic fracturing.[1] The new regulations require specific disclosures by operators and outline requirements for construction and operation of the well and continued monitoring of well activity. Three additional states, Louisiana, New York, and North Dakota, have proposed regulations open for public comment. This briefing examines recent changes and additions in hydraulic fracturing regulations throughout the country.
On October 11, 2011, the public comment period closed for the proposed hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure regulations issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas. The Railroad Commission issued the new regulations on September 9, pursuant to HB 3328, passed by the Texas Legislature in June.[2] HB 3328 requires that the approved regulations be effective by July 1, 2012; however, it is expected that regulations will be finalized by the end of the year.
The proposed Texas regulations require public disclosure of chemicals used in the fracturing process that are either regulated by OSHA or are otherwise intentionally added, along with the actual or maximum concentrations of each chemical.[3]
Michigan's Supervisor of Wells issued new regulations in May 2011, which became effective June 22, 2011.[4] Under the regulations, well completions for high volume hydraulic fracturing must include the Material Safety Data Sheet and the volume used for all additives. High volume hydraulic fracturing is defined as an operation that is intended to use a total of more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Additional regulations apply to wells with large volume water withdrawals, defined as withdrawals with a cumulative total of over 100,000 gallons per day. For these wells, permit applications must include: a water withdrawal evaluation (and in some cases a site-specific review by the DEQ); the proposed total volume of water needed; the number of water withdrawal wells; well locations, depths, and proposed pumping rates and frequencies; any freshwater wells within 1,320 feet; and the locations and dimensions of proposed freshwater pits.
Texas: Public Comment Period Closed
On October 11, 2011, the public comment period closed for the proposed hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure regulations issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas. The Railroad Commission issued the new regulations on September 9, pursuant to HB 3328, passed by the Texas Legislature in June.[2] HB 3328 requires that the approved regulations be effective by July 1, 2012; however, it is expected that regulations will be finalized by the end of the year.
The proposed Texas regulations require public disclosure of chemicals used in the fracturing process that are either regulated by OSHA or are otherwise intentionally added, along with the actual or maximum concentrations of each chemical.[3]
Companies would be required to use Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers to identify chemicals in the fracturing fluids, making the disclosure more transparent for shippers, suppliers, end users, and the public. The regulations specifically exempt from disclosure chemicals unintentionally added, chemicals that occur naturally, or chemicals not disclosed by the manufacturer, supplier, or service company.
Companies can also claim trade secret exemptions, which must be approved by the Railroad Commission. If a trade secret exemption is granted, only three parties can challenge it:
- the landowner on whose property the wellhead is located;
- any adjacent property owners; and
- government agencies.
Michigan: Regulations Effective June 22, 2011
Michigan's Supervisor of Wells issued new regulations in May 2011, which became effective June 22, 2011.[4] Under the regulations, well completions for high volume hydraulic fracturing must include the Material Safety Data Sheet and the volume used for all additives. High volume hydraulic fracturing is defined as an operation that is intended to use a total of more than 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluid.
Additional regulations apply to wells with large volume water withdrawals, defined as withdrawals with a cumulative total of over 100,000 gallons per day. For these wells, permit applications must include: a water withdrawal evaluation (and in some cases a site-specific review by the DEQ); the proposed total volume of water needed; the number of water withdrawal wells; well locations, depths, and proposed pumping rates and frequencies; any freshwater wells within 1,320 feet; and the locations and dimensions of proposed freshwater pits.
If there is a freshwater well within 1,320 feet, a monitor well must be installed and monitored daily during water withdrawal, and weekly thereafter. During the withdrawal process, injection pressures must be recorded. Upon well completion, records and charts showing fracturing volume, rates, pressures, and the total volume of flowback water must be included in the record of well completion.
According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, no current hydraulic fracturing activity in Michigan would qualify as high volume under the proposed regulations.[5]
According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, no current hydraulic fracturing activity in Michigan would qualify as high volume under the proposed regulations.[5]
Existing wells, which are located on the Antrim Shale, are shallow and typically use only 50,000 gallons of water in the fracturing process. The regulations were implemented in anticipation of development on the Utica Shale, a deeper formation that would require much larger volumes of water use.
Montana: Regulations Effective August 27, 2011
The Montana Board of Oil and Gas issued new regulations that became effective August 27, 2011.[6] Under the Montana regulations, applications for permits must include the volumes and types of materials to be used in the proposed hydraulic fracturing activities. Principal components or chemicals must be identified by trade name or generic name.
Upon completion, fracturing operators must disclose the amounts and types of chemicals used, including the additive types, chemical ingredient names, and CAS numbers. Operators can qualify for trade secret exemptions, under which exempted chemicals must be identified by trade name, inventory name, chemical family name, or other unique name, and operators must disclose the quantity of the exempted chemical to be used. The regulations also require that permit applications include the processes to be used and the maximum anticipated treating pressure.
In addition to application requirements, the Montana regulations lay out specific structural and operational requirements. Fracturing wells must have a pressure relief valve and a remotely controlled shut-in device. Before stimulation, fracturing wells must undergo a casing pressure test. During the casing test, the maximum anticipated pressure must be applied for thirty minutes without the well losing more than ten percent of the pressure. Additionally, during operations, the annular space must be monitored. Upon completion, operators must describe the interval or formation treated and the amounts of maximum pressure during treatment.
In September 2011, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued extensive proposed regulations that outline permitting and operations requirements for hydraulic fracturing that uses more than 300,000 gallons of water cumulatively.[7] Under the proposed regulations, operators must follow the requirements of the application process for a normal drilling permit, as well as comply with State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and Stormwater Pollutant Prevention (SWPP) plans. The New York regulations will be out for public comment through December 12, 2011.
To obtain a permit for hydraulic fracturing, operators must include the following information: the minimum and estimated maximum depths; the proposed volume of water and source of the water; distances from certain types of water supplies; identities of nearby abandoned wells; the engines and fuel to be used and air emission control measures; and information on blowout preventer measures. The New York regulations also contain detailed requirements for setbacks, water and pressure testing, casing structure, and construction, including site preparations and maintenance.
To comply with SPDES and SWPP requirements, operators must disclose particular information and submit plans aimed at preventing water contamination and sediment erosion. Operators must disclose: the proposed additives and each additive's proposed volume; copies of Material Safety Data Sheets for each product to be used; the proposed percent of water, proppants, and each additive product; documentation showing that the proposed additives have reduced aquatic toxicity and pose a lower potential risk to water resources and the environment than available alternatives (or that available alternative products are not equally effective or feasible); and the identification of the service company. Trade secret protection is available if granted by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Plans to prevent water contamination and sediment erosion require operators to continually monitor well activity, such as stormwater discharges, water usage, and flowback and produced water volumes. Operators must have certification for planned disposal methods, secondary containment measures, spill prevention plans, and methods to store flowback water.
On August 30, 2011, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources released a proposed rule for public comment.[8] The rule requires operators upon well completion to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing fluid, a list of additives including trade names and suppliers, CAS numbers for hazardous chemicals, and maximum ingredient concentrations. The proposed rule has a provision for trade secret protection under which only the chemical family must be disclosed.
The Department of Natural Resources has not officially issued an anticipated effective date. According to reports, the rule is expected to become effective in October 2011.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on September 23, 2011.[9] Under the proposed rules, companies who do not use a frac string running inside the intermediate casing string must disclose the hydraulic fracturing fluid composition, including the trade name, supplier, ingredients, CAS number, and the maximum ingredient concentrations of all additives in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. No disclosure is required for wells that use a frac string inside the intermediate casing string. The proposed rules also outline specific safety systems that must be used, including pressure relief valves, diversion lines, and remote operated frac valves. The North Dakota regulations are currently out for public comment, and a public hearing is scheduled for November 1.
This article was prepared by Barclay R. Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com or 713 651 3662) and Andrea Fair (afair@fulbright.com or 713 651 3782) from Fulbright's Litigation Department.
Learn more about Fulbright's Shale and Hydraulic Fracturing Task Force at www.fulbright.com/shale.
----
[1] See 25 Pa. Code §78.55 (as part of the permitting process, drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site in the Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection); Wy. Oil & Gas Comm'n § 3-8(c) (operators must disclose chemical additives and proposed concentrations in the Application for Permit to Drill or Deepen). Ariz. Admin. Code § 12-7-117 (operators of wells using "artificial stimulation" must report the amount and types of material injected within 15 days of the procedure).
[2] HB 3328, 2011 Leg., 82 Sess. (TX 2011). For an in-depth analysis of HB 3328 and the proposed Texas disclosure requirements, see Texas Legislature Joins Growing Number of States in Requiring Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, Fulbright Briefing (June 16, 2011).
[3] 36 Tex. Reg. 5765 (2011) (to be codified at 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.29) (proposed September 9, 2011) (Railroad Commission of Texas).
[4] Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011, High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Well Completions, State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (May 23, 2011).
[5] Keith B. Hall, Michigan Issues New Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations, Oil & Gas Law Brief, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C.
[6] Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 36, Chapter 22.
[7] N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, Parts 52, 190, 550–556, 560, 750
[8] LAC 43:XIX Subpart 1, Chapter 1.
[9] N.D. Admin. Code § 43-02-03-27.1.
In addition to application requirements, the Montana regulations lay out specific structural and operational requirements. Fracturing wells must have a pressure relief valve and a remotely controlled shut-in device. Before stimulation, fracturing wells must undergo a casing pressure test. During the casing test, the maximum anticipated pressure must be applied for thirty minutes without the well losing more than ten percent of the pressure. Additionally, during operations, the annular space must be monitored. Upon completion, operators must describe the interval or formation treated and the amounts of maximum pressure during treatment.
New York: Out for Public Comment
In September 2011, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued extensive proposed regulations that outline permitting and operations requirements for hydraulic fracturing that uses more than 300,000 gallons of water cumulatively.[7] Under the proposed regulations, operators must follow the requirements of the application process for a normal drilling permit, as well as comply with State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and Stormwater Pollutant Prevention (SWPP) plans. The New York regulations will be out for public comment through December 12, 2011.
To obtain a permit for hydraulic fracturing, operators must include the following information: the minimum and estimated maximum depths; the proposed volume of water and source of the water; distances from certain types of water supplies; identities of nearby abandoned wells; the engines and fuel to be used and air emission control measures; and information on blowout preventer measures. The New York regulations also contain detailed requirements for setbacks, water and pressure testing, casing structure, and construction, including site preparations and maintenance.
To comply with SPDES and SWPP requirements, operators must disclose particular information and submit plans aimed at preventing water contamination and sediment erosion. Operators must disclose: the proposed additives and each additive's proposed volume; copies of Material Safety Data Sheets for each product to be used; the proposed percent of water, proppants, and each additive product; documentation showing that the proposed additives have reduced aquatic toxicity and pose a lower potential risk to water resources and the environment than available alternatives (or that available alternative products are not equally effective or feasible); and the identification of the service company. Trade secret protection is available if granted by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Plans to prevent water contamination and sediment erosion require operators to continually monitor well activity, such as stormwater discharges, water usage, and flowback and produced water volumes. Operators must have certification for planned disposal methods, secondary containment measures, spill prevention plans, and methods to store flowback water.
Louisiana: Out for Public Comment
On August 30, 2011, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources released a proposed rule for public comment.[8] The rule requires operators upon well completion to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing fluid, a list of additives including trade names and suppliers, CAS numbers for hazardous chemicals, and maximum ingredient concentrations. The proposed rule has a provision for trade secret protection under which only the chemical family must be disclosed.
The Department of Natural Resources has not officially issued an anticipated effective date. According to reports, the rule is expected to become effective in October 2011.
North Dakota: Out for Public Comment
The North Dakota Industrial Commission proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing on September 23, 2011.[9] Under the proposed rules, companies who do not use a frac string running inside the intermediate casing string must disclose the hydraulic fracturing fluid composition, including the trade name, supplier, ingredients, CAS number, and the maximum ingredient concentrations of all additives in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. No disclosure is required for wells that use a frac string inside the intermediate casing string. The proposed rules also outline specific safety systems that must be used, including pressure relief valves, diversion lines, and remote operated frac valves. The North Dakota regulations are currently out for public comment, and a public hearing is scheduled for November 1.
This article was prepared by Barclay R. Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com or 713 651 3662) and Andrea Fair (afair@fulbright.com or 713 651 3782) from Fulbright's Litigation Department.
Learn more about Fulbright's Shale and Hydraulic Fracturing Task Force at www.fulbright.com/shale.
----
[1] See 25 Pa. Code §78.55 (as part of the permitting process, drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site in the Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection); Wy. Oil & Gas Comm'n § 3-8(c) (operators must disclose chemical additives and proposed concentrations in the Application for Permit to Drill or Deepen). Ariz. Admin. Code § 12-7-117 (operators of wells using "artificial stimulation" must report the amount and types of material injected within 15 days of the procedure).
[2] HB 3328, 2011 Leg., 82 Sess. (TX 2011). For an in-depth analysis of HB 3328 and the proposed Texas disclosure requirements, see Texas Legislature Joins Growing Number of States in Requiring Disclosure of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, Fulbright Briefing (June 16, 2011).
[3] 36 Tex. Reg. 5765 (2011) (to be codified at 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.29) (proposed September 9, 2011) (Railroad Commission of Texas).
[4] Supervisor of Wells Instruction 1-2011, High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing Well Completions, State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (May 23, 2011).
[5] Keith B. Hall, Michigan Issues New Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations, Oil & Gas Law Brief, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann L.L.C.
[6] Administrative Rules of Montana, Title 36, Chapter 22.
[7] N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, Parts 52, 190, 550–556, 560, 750
[8] LAC 43:XIX Subpart 1, Chapter 1.
[9] N.D. Admin. Code § 43-02-03-27.1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)