Showing posts with label Oklahoma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oklahoma. Show all posts

Earthquake risks prompt evaluation of wastewater injection

Earthquake risks recently prompted lawmakers and regulators in several oil and gas producing states to evaluate wastewater injection purportedly linked to seismic activity. Key developments include:
  • 4/21: SMU faculty publish geophysical report blaming two wells for Azle, Texas quakes
  • 4/23: US Geological Survey issues report claiming seismic events in 8 states were induced
  • 4/23: Oklahoma Geological Survey issues statement saying seismic events unlikely to be natural
  • 4/24: Texas Railroad Commission issues public statement that it will order show cause hearings for the two Azle wells
  • 5/4: Researchers and Railroad Commission officials testify before Texas House Energy Resources Committee induced seismicity hearing
Review a discussion of legal issues associated with induced seismicity.

We will continue to monitor breaking developments here at The Hydraulic Fracturing Blog.


This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group and Emery Richards (emery.gullickson.richards@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 5698) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Antitrust Group.

Oklahoma orders shut down of disposal well after multiple earthquakes

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Commission) ordered the temporary shut down of a disposal well near Cushing. Cushing has reported several earthquakes in October. Two earthquakes with a 3.2 and 4.0 magnitude, respectively, occurred on October 7th, and a 4.3 magnitude earthquake occurred three days later. There was also a 2.7 magnitude earthquake later in the month. Despite these events, no major damage has been reported.

Officials caution, however, that people should not draw any correlation between the well and the recent earthquakes afflicting the nearby area. The well may simply have been drilled too deep. The commission stated that operators have never had permission to drill into the granite bedrock zone.

The Commission has ordered the temporary shut down of several wells. The wells cannot be operated again until they are plugged back to make the injections shallower. A number of operators have also volunteered to shut down their wells and make their injections shallower.

In addition, the Commission has enacted the “traffic light” program to combat the heightened seismic activity in the state. Under the program, any disposal well located within six miles of an earthquake with a 4.0 magnitude or higher is placed in the “yellow light” category. All wells in the yellow light category receive heightened scrutiny.

The Commission’s response to increasedseismic activity in the state.


This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 3662) and Johnjerica Hodge (johnjerica.hodge@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713 651 5698) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.



Recent studies concerning induced seismicity and wastewater disposal wells

At the Seismological Society of America’s annual conference held in early May 2014, several studies examined whether there is a correlation between the injection of wastewater into disposal wells and seismic activity.

In an abstract entitled “Potential Case of Induced Seismicity from A Water Disposal Well in South-Central Oklahoma,” the researcher found that a swarm of earthquakes in Love County, Oklahoma beginning on September 17, 2013, were occurring at shallow depths consistent with the injection depths of a near-by injection disposal well.

However, because this area had seen similar shallow earthquakes in the past, the researcher could not address whether the earthquake swarm was caused by fluid injection or simply an “unlikely coincidence.”

In another presentation, seismologists at the US Geological Survey indicated that, while the total volume of wastewater injected into a disposal can be a factor in a seismic episode, another important factor “is the presence of high-permeability fluid pathways that can channel the injection effects on pore pressure from the target aquifer into a fault zone, especially a fault that is well oriented for slip in the ambient stress field.” Often, these faults are only revealed after the seismic incident. “The available data corroborate the notion that the likelihood of induced earthquakes large enough to be felt is largely independent of injection rate.”

It should be noted that previously, a representative of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, who was reviewing the relationship between certain earthquakes and injections wells, stated that there was not enough evidence to say that the seismic events were caused by injection of oil and gas waste and urged everyone to keep an “open mind” regarding the cause of the earthquakes.

Also 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.

For additional information, please see “Injection Wells and Their Possible Link to Seismic Activity” and “What’s Shaking? Induced Seismicity.”


This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.

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.

Senators question EPA’s proposed research into states’ efforts to regulate hydraulic fracturing

In a letter dated May 8, 2014, five U.S. senators urged the Office of Inspector (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to discontinue its “preliminary research on the EPA’s and states’ ability to manage potential threats to water resources from hydraulic fracturing,” arguing that such a review is “well outside the mission and expertise of the OIG…[and] duplicative of numerous other federal efforts.”

The OIG announced its proposed research in a memorandum dated February 5, 2014, stating that it would evaluate the regulatory authority that is available to the EPA and the states, identify potential threats to water resources from fracturing operations, and evaluate how the EPA and the states have responded to these threats. According to the OIG, this research would improve preventative and response measures and improve coordination among the EPA, states and industry to ensure that water resources are protected.

The senators from Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas complain that the EPA has previously “conducted a number of indisputably flawed and unscientific investigations attempting to link hydraulic fracturing to water contamination and has continued to come up empty handed.” Moreover, the senators state that, with this additional research, the EPA is trying to “manufactur[e] a need for new regulations on a production technique that has been safely and effectively regulated at the state level for the better half of a century.” According to the senators, only state regulators with knowledge and expertise of their state’s geology, ecology, and hydrology and who have a vested interest in protecting their state’s water supplies from contamination are qualified to tailor regulatory programs to meet their state’s needs.

Pointing to extensive studies of hydraulic fracturing from the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Government Accountability Office, and the EPA, the senators urge that this research be stopped and that the OIG focus on “a more relevant and needed inquiry into fraud, abuse, and waste at the EPA.”

Lesser prairie-chicken added to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s list of threatened species

After more than 15 years of review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced on March 27, 2014 that the lesser prairie-chicken, a species of prairie grouse, is a “threatened” species, a step below “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The lesser prairie-chicken’s population is in rapid decline, due largely to habitat loss and fragmentation and the on-going drought in the southern Great Plains. Once abundant across much of the five range states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado, the lesser prairie-chicken’s habitat of native grasslands and prairies has been reduced by an estimated 84%. The estimated population of the lesser prairie-chicken was reduced by half from 2012 to 2013.

Anticipating and hoping to ward off the threatened species designation, more than forty (40) private companies in the five states representing oil and gas, pipelines, electric transmission and wind energy voluntarily enrolled more than 3.5 million acres and provided more than $21 million to conserve the prairie-chicken habitat, as part of a comprehensive, science-based conservation strategy under the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' (WAFWA) range-wide conservation plan. In addition, a number of on-the-ground programs have been implemented over the last decade to conserve and restore the lesser prairie-chicken’s habitat. These programs include the Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative, the Bureau of Land Management’s New Mexico Candidate Conservation Agreement, and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.

However, after reviewing the best available science and the on-the-ground conservation efforts and because “threats impacting the species remain and are expected to continue into the future,” the FWS determined that the “lesser prairie-chicken is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future and warrants listing as threatened under the ESA.”

The FWS included a final special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA that is supposed to limit regulatory impacts on landowners and businesses from the listing. The rule will allow the five range states to continue to manage conservation efforts for the species and avoid further regulation of activities such as oil and gas development, that are covered under the WAFWA’s range-wide conservation plan. Oil and gas development activities include seismic and land surveying, construction, drilling, completions, workovers, operations and maintenance, and plugging and remediation.

Companies now have 30 days to enroll in a range-wide conservation plan or a CCCA. According to the president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, all entities having an interest in the activities covered should consider enrolling because “they’ll find it more palatable than going to the Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to drill a well.”

The president of the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association expressed the organization’s disappointment in the threatened species designation, stating that “[t]his undoubtedly will affect independent oil and gas producers operating in the Lone Star State.”

The listing is expected to take effect May 1, 2014, 30 days after publication of the final rule and final special rule in the Federal Register.


This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.

What's shaking? Induced seismicity

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has long studied and prepared hazard maps predicting the risks of natural earthquakes. Now the USGS plans to integrate information relating to induced earthquakes and potentially induced earthquakes into its National Seismic Hazard Map. Since its last earthquake map in 2008, the USGS has identified a “remarkable” spate of earthquakes triggered by industrial activities in parts of the country. The USGS sees this increased induced seismicity to be a hazard that should be analyzed. In assessing the risk, the scientists need to determine whether the activity causing the earthquakes is likely to end quickly or whether the shaking is likely to become a “normal” event.

Some recent earthquakes have occurred in areas where there are deep disposal wells in which wastewater from oil and gas operations is injected 10,000 to 20,000 feet underground. USGS geophysicist Dr. William Ellsworth who has studied injection-induced seismic events, opines that “the mechanism responsible for inducing these events appears to be the well-understood process of weakening a preexisting fault by elevating the fluid pressure.” In Oklahoma where there are approximately 4,400 disposal wells, there were almost 3,000 earthquakes in 2013, when there were only 50 in the previous 30 years. In south-central Kansas, where there are over 5,000 injection wells, there was a series of earthquakes in the fall of 2013, culminating in a 3.8 earthquake in December. In the area surrounding Azle, Texas, where there are a number of disposal wells, from November 1, 2013 through the end of the year, there were approximately 30 earthquakes.

The citizens of Azle met with a representative of the Texas Railroad Commission in early January 2014. As a result of that meeting, the Commission hired a California seismologist to study the possibility of a correlation between oil and gas activities and the earthquakes. In addition, in the Texas legislature, the House Energy Resources Committee has formed a subcommittee on seismic activity to study allegations that the quakes are linked to the injection wells. This subcommittee is to consider past studies, ongoing research, expert testimony, and input from the Commission and the University of Texas’ Bureau of Economic Geology. Currently, researchers from the USGS and Southern Methodist University have placed monitoring instruments around Azle to pinpoint the location of the seismic events.

So far, there has been no definitive link between the seismic activity in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas with disposal wells. A representative of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has stated that there is not enough evidence to say that the events were caused by injection of oil and gas waste and urges everyone to keep an “open mind” regarding the cause of the earthquakes.

For additional information, see previous blogs, including “Injection wells and their possible link to seismic activity” and “House Democrats request hearing on induced seismicity.”

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.

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.