Chesapeake, 14 Other Energy Companies Have Drilling Permits for Utica Shale in Ohio | Marcellus Drilling News
April 18, 2011
Considerations for Surface Use Agreements — Natural Gas — Penn State Cooperative Extension
April 17, 2011
Considerations for Surface Use Agreements — Natural Gas — Penn State Cooperative Extension.
Considerations for Surface Use Agreements
Posted: April 10, 2011
Many landowners are being approached to lease land for surface use for infrastructure. What should a landowner be aware of? Here are some items to consider
Landowners across many areas of Pennsylvania are being approached by natural gas companies for surface use agreements. These agreements cover various surface activities such as the placement of access roads, compressor stations, water impoundments, pipeline activity, or gas storage infrastructure on the landowner’s property. The terms and conditions of surface use agreements depend largely on the type of infrastructure proposed. However below are some important items to consider when approached about any type of surface use agreement. These items are provided to illustrate the range of items to consider and are not meant to be a comprehensive list of surface use addenda:
1. Who has access to the site and where is the access point/route?
2. How much traffic will the site receive on a daily basis? How frequently do workers need to visit the site?
3. It may be wise to limit the agreement to only the stated use and not open to unrelated uses (for instance an agreement for a pipe valve should not let the company install a metering station, compressor or other structure).
4. Consider further limiting the agreement to the current structure and not allow additional structures to be built without negotiating terms with the landowner.
5. Define all products allowed to be transported through the infrastructure. For pipeline infrastructure it could be limited to natural gas (not oil, not waste water, not hazardous waste). For water infrastructure, you may want to limit it to fresh water (not brines or waste water).
6. Map in advance the exact location and area used for the structure. Any changes to the location of the structure or access routes need to be approved by the landowner.
7. The landowner should have a map showing pre-defined areas for the activity, both during construction and after.
8. Consider site security issues. Is the site fenced and locked? Will there be gates on access roads? Will the landowner have a key to gates?
9. Define the length of the agreement and include specific terms for ending the contract and removal of the equipment.
10. Include terms for restoring the site after construction and final restoration after the agreement has ended.
11. Terms for damage payments and site restoration for any repairs or upgrades to the structure.
12. Consider what the site will look like when completed. Can it be landscaped or fenced to screen the structure from view? Is the structure open or enclosed (in a building)? Can it be disguised through building design or landscaping to blend into the landscape or community?
13. If it’s a pipeline related piece, are nearby homes outside of the ‘impact area’ should there be a leak or explosion? (the operator can provide these distances based on gas pressure, etc).
14. A landowner could request drinking water monitoring if water-related infrastructure is being proposed, or sound and air emissions monitoring for compressors or other pipeline related structures.
15. Does the surface use agreement violate any conditions of an existing gas lease or right-of-way agreement on the property?
In addition to the above list, standard items such as landowner liability, dispute resolution and transferability of the agreement should be considered. All of these items should be in writing and part of the agreement or contract rather than a verbal agreement with the landman. As with any contract or agreement, it’s important to have an experienced attorney, with knowledge of the oil and gas industry, review any contracts before you sign. An attorney can also be helpful in negotiating terms with a landman on your behalf.
~Dave Messersmith, Wayne County Extension Educator
NJDEP seeks strong natural gas drilling regulations to protect Delaware River from pollution | Science updates | NewJerseyNewsroom.com — Your State. Your News.
April 17, 2011
NJDEP seeks strong natural gas drilling regulations to protect Delaware River from pollution
Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Wants no more than 300 ‘fracking’ wells in New York and Pennsylvania
New Jersey wants strong regulations enacted to protect the water supply and natural resources of the Delaware River from any potential negative impacts of natural gas development projects in neighboring states, and is seeking a strict limit to the initial number of production wells, Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin stated in formal comments sent Friday to the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Martin said he recognizes the contributions to the economy and to energy security that development of natural gas resources may make to New York, Pennsylvania and the nation, but added the DRBC, in its effort to create regulations, must move with caution to ensure there is no threat to New Jersey’s drinking water or environment from projects that employ a hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” process.
“We will vigilantly ensure that our water is adequately protected and the natural values of the basin are preserved,” Martin wrote. “We will insist that natural gas regulations, as ultimately promulgated by the DRBC, guarantee the supply and quality of the Delaware River water, on which New Jersey relies for up to one-quarter of our drinking water.”
Once regulations are adopted, New Jersey wants the DRBC to stage the approval of well pads. Martin stated the DRBC should allow no more than 30 production well pads, not to exceed 300 production wells in total, in the two years immediately following adoption of its regulations. He stated the DRBC then should conduct an extensive study to assess the impact of the initial wells and the effectiveness of its regulations before any further drilling could occur.
Martin said New Jersey also remains concerned with wastewater discharges from fracking operations, and wants safeguards in place, particularly for unregulated contaminants, to ensure wastewater does not negatively impact the river basin. He said the state will not agree to any discharge of fracking wastewater until it can be proven that such discharges are not harmful to water quality.
“While protecting the water supply and quality in the basin is paramount, New Jersey recognizes the significant positive economic impact that the development of this natural gas resource will have on the DRBC states,” Martin wrote.
“We also recognize the important role that the development of Marcellus Shale natural gas plays in the energy security of the United States and as a cleaner fuel source than coal or oil,” Martin continued.
“But New Jersey believes it is imperative that the DRBC move cautiously when authorizing the development of natural gas in the basin,” Martin added. “We must work toward guaranteeing that the environmental integrity of the Delaware River Basin is forever protected.”
New Jersey wants proper management and disposal of the waste material derived from the fracking process, that sources of water from the basin required for the extraction activity be sustainable, and evidence that water diversions would not cause adverse impacts to other water users or the environment.
“Without these conditions in place, natural gas development activities in the Delaware River Basin will be unacceptable,” Martin wrote.
Hydraulic fracturing uses high volumes of water mixed with small amounts of sand and chemical compounds to extract natural gas locked within the shale. New drilling and extraction techniques have renewed interest by energy development companies in drilling for natural gas deposits trapped within the Marcellus formation, which is estimated to contain enough natural gas to meet U.S. demand for decades.
While no drilling would occur in New Jersey, as many as 10,000 wells could be drilled in the Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania and New York.
The DRBC, whose members include the four Delaware River Basin states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware – plus the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has legal authority over both water quality and water quantity issues throughout the basin. The commission has proposed natural gas development rules that are now the subject of public comments, which will be accepted through Friday.
To see the full text of Commissioner Martin’s formal comments to the DRBC, visit: http://www.nj.gov/dep/docs/collier-drbc20110414.pdf
For information on the DRBC’s public comment process, visit: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/newsrel_naturalgas030211.htm
— TOM HESTER SR., NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
Drilling bills queued up in committee | Denton Record Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas | Local News
April 17, 2011
 |
Drilling bills queued up in committee
12:35 AM CDT on Sunday, April 17, 2011
Area legislators have introduced more than 30 bills in the state’s 82nd regular session in relation to shale gas drilling and production. With a few exceptions, most bills are still in committee.
More than 20 of the bills attempt some degree of change in the regulations — from a small change in current legislation to an overhaul of the Texas Railroad Commission. Some bills would protect the industry from more restrictive environmental rules. Several bills seek to address air quality issues, while another handful of bills address property rights issues that have come under stress with the drilling boom.
In the case of SB 655, abolishing the Texas Railroad Commission, a new agency would be created with its powers and duties — the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. The elected governing body would be reduced from three commissioners to one.
The last day for House committees to consider legislation is May 9. The last day for the Senate committees is May 27.
Regulatory reform
Two Democratic legislators from Fort Worth, Sen. Wendy Davis and Rep. Lon Burnam, were active in filing drilling-related bills. Most haven’t gained traction.
Burnam filed bills to give cities more authority over gas pipelines, prevent drilling within 1,200 feet of public schools, and impose a fee on drilling waste sent to commercial injection wells to pay for an oilfield cleanup fund. All are pending in committee.
He is awaiting hearings on other bills, including one requiring many condensate tanks to be equipped with vapor recovery units.
Burnam said bills that would better regulate the industry face an uphill battle before the House’s Energy Resources Committee. They also face intense pushback from industry lobbyists, he said.
“For over 100 years now, the oil and gas industry has in large measure controlled the state government,” Burnam said. “Especially in a committee like this, they are disproportionately influential.”
Davis filed multiple drilling-related bills that are awaiting hearings before the Senate’s Natural Resources Committee. They include tighter restrictions on gas vapor releases, commercial disposal wells and pipelines, and more protections for residents of some unincorporated areas.
Another bill would require companies to use a unique “tracer” fluid in the liquid they use for hydraulic fracturing, a controversial practice that involves pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground to break up rock and free gas. The bill would protect the industry from false claims of groundwater pollution and help settle costly legal disputes between drillers and landowners, Davis said in a February news release announcing the bill.
She was unavailable for comment Friday.
Two bills introduced by Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, have already been approved in the Energy Committee, and should clean up unintended problems with new legislation passed last session, according to her chief of staff, Kevin Cruser.
Burnam, Crownover and Rep. Tan Parker, R-Flower Mound, have also signed onto HB 3328, known as the fracking disclosure bill, which is being carried by the committee chairman, Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland.
The bill would require operators to disclose the chemicals being used when they hydraulically fracture a well. Some constituents have significant reservations about the bill, Cruser said.
“We’ve got some work to do on that,” he said.
Some fracking companies, namely Halliburton and FracTec, have publicly opposed the bill. While many environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, endorse the bill, others have opposed the bill’s provision for trade secrets, calling for full disclosure.
Industry representatives testified to the committee that they need a trade-secrets provision.
A new law in Arkansas was touted as a full-disclosure bill even though it had a trade-secrets clause, according to Donna Adolph of Arkansans for Oil and Gas Accountability.
To apply for the exemption, operators need only fill out a half-page check-off sheet, Adolph said, adding that the burden of proof will move to another arena but falls on the same affected parties as before.
“The burden is on us to prove it’s not a trade secret, and not the other way around,” Adolph said.
New language added to the Texas bill puts forth specific criteria for trade secrets so that it doesn’t become a loophole later, according to Scott Anderson of the Environmental Defense Fund. Operators must submit their claim that meets established criteria under both state law and the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
If the trade-secret provision is not preserved, it diminishes the incentive and opportunity for industry to make innovations for “greener” formulas for fracking, Anderson said.
The Texas Legislature knows the world is watching this bill, Anderson said, and that the onus is upon it to set a national precedent.
Resident lobbyists
Adolph said her group had a chance to look at the Arkansas bill in November and, made up of residents, was given the chance to provide feedback, including warning legislators that the trade-secret provision weakened the bill.
Flower Mound resident Ginger Simonson said she feels residents can be effective tools for change, even when up against well-funded industry lobbyists.
“When large numbers of the voting public start saying the same thing, it’s more important to listen,” Simonson said. “Even a good official, if they are nonresponsive, can be kicked out of office.”
Simonson, active in the overturn of a mayor and two council members last year, continues to be active in local elections this year. But she has also turned her attention to state legislation.
Recently, she asked her friends and neighbors to urge support for HB 3792, which preserves a city’s ability to regulate pipelines inside its municipal limits and gives it more authority over regulating compressors.
“The government closest to the voter is the most accountable,” Simonson said. “The voters have the best chance of getting good laws — the most protective laws — from the people we see every day.”
PEGGY HEINKEL-WOLFE can be reached at 940-566-6881. Her e-mail address is pheinkel-wolfe@dentonrc.com.
LOWELL BROWN can be reached at 940-566-6882. His e-mail address is lmbrown@dentonrc.com.
SHALE BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE 82ND LEGISLATURE
Most bills meant to address problems with shale gas development or the agencies that regulate the industry are currently pending in committee unless otherwise noted.
Regulatory reform
HB 1124 — Safety requirements for gas pipelines in certain counties
HB 1125 — Provides for study of odorant in gathering and transmission pipelines in populated areas
HB 1556 — Provides setback of 1,200 feet between a public school and any well site
HB 2001 — Relating to the exemption or tax reduction for certain high-cost gas (referred to Ways & Means)
HB 2125 — Gives priority to oil and gas well inspections for certain counties
HB 2126 — Provides for fines for certain violations in certain counties
HB 2289 — Allows gas companies to use public rights of way (amended and approved by committee)
HB 2987 — Establishes an account for emissions monitoring in certain counties (referred to Environmental Regulation)
HB 3134 — “Death penalty” for operators that fail to plug inactive oil or gas wells
HB 3212 — Imposes fee on commercial injection of oil and gas waste (scheduled for public hearing)
HB 3460 — Requires oil and gas well logs to be filed with the state
HB 3792 — Provides for municipal authority in regulating pipelines inside city limits
HB 3328 — Disclosure of composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids
SB 103 — Requirements for installing, maintaining, operating and relocating wastewater pipeline facilities (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 105 — Restricts commercial injection disposal to certain formations (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 107 — Regulates repair of natural gas pipeline leaks (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 655 — Abolishes the Railroad Commission of Texas and transfers powers and duties to a new entity, the Texas Oil and Gas Commission (scheduled for public hearing)
SB 745 — Regulates saltwater pipelines (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 772 — Requires tracers in hydraulic fracturing (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 1049 — Disclosure of composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 1041 — Provides for location of Railroad Commission hearings (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 1869 — Provides for fines for Railroad Commission (referred to Finance)
SB 1873 — Creates a well inspection fund (referred to Natural Resources)
Property rights
SB 106 — Condemnation of municipal property for pipelines (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 875 — Provides a defense from nuisance or trespass prosecution arising from greenhouse gas emissions when operator is in compliance with state and federal environmental permits
SB 1633 — Rules for gas exploration and production in unincorporated areas (referred to Natural Resources)
SB 1870 — Regulates mineral interest pooling (referred to Natural Resources)
Air quality monitoring
HB 2694 — Continues the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (amended and approved by committee
HB 3110 — Requires the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to perform a regulatory impact analysis before creating new standards for the oil and gas industry under the permit by rule or standard permit programs (approved out of committee)
HB 1126 — Emissions control for crude oil and condensate storage tanks in certain areas (referred to Environmental Regulation)
HB 3066 — Regulates air contaminant emissions from oil and gas wells (referred to Environmental Regulation)
SB 104 — Restricts venting of natural gas wells (referred to Natural Resources)
