EPA Seeks Comments on Drilling Air Quality

- EPA Seeks Comments on Drilling Air Quality

Tuesday, August 30, 2011
The News Herald, Panama City, Fla.
by Ali Helgoth

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting public comment on an air quality permit sought by a company that plans to conduct exploratory oil drilling 200 miles off the coast of Panama Cit Beach.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/OCSPermits/ShellOCS.html

Shell Offshore applied for an Outer Continental Shelf air permit for mobilization and operation of deepwater drilling vessels and support vessels in two area lease blocks in the Gulf of Mexico, DeSoto Canyon and Lloyd Ridge.

Drilling would last about 150 days per year for five to 10 years, according to a preliminary determination issued by the EPA, which has proposed approval of the permit. Shell does not have plans to establish permanent production platforms, and if the exploration project leads to resource discoveries, additional permits would be required, according to information from the EPA.

The project is southwest of Bay County, about 160 miles southeast of the mouth of the Mississippi River.

A representative from Shell, which initially filed the permit in April 2010, could not be reached Monday for comment.

Public comment is being accepted through Sept. 19 and is limited to air quality issues. Other concerns, like those with drilling safety, the leasing process or discharge, should be directed to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which is the lead permitting agency for the project.

Air pollution emissions generated from the project "are primarily released from the combustion of diesel fuel in the drillships' main engines, as well as in engines that supply power for operating drilling equipment and support vessels," according to the EPA's preliminary determination.

The document states "since the project is located well away from land, the project's emissions impacts will be dispersed over a wide area with no elevated concentration levels affecting any onshore populated area."

The project isn't expected to result in job growth. According to the EPA, "the potential growth of industrial, commercial and residential sources as a result of the proposed DeSoto Canyon and Lloyd Ridge drilling exploration activities in the area just west of the proposed drilling activities is well developed. It is expected that the current infrastructure is more than adequate to support the proposed drilling activities, and no additional growth is expected."

(c)2011 The News Herald (Panama City, Fla.). Distributed by MCT Information Services.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too
LINK

EPA Proposes First Federal Air Standards for 'Fracked' Wells

- EPA Proposes First Federal Air Standards for 'Fracked' Wells

Thursday, July 28, 2011
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON
by Tennille Tracy

The Obama administration has proposed the first national air standards for wells that are drilled using a controversial practice known as hydraulic fracturing.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday it was proposing new rules to reduce the amount of air toxins and smog-forming gases that are released into the air when oil and natural gas is produced.

The rules are expected to reduce cancer risks and help reduce ozone levels in areas where oil and natural-gas production occurs, the EPA said. The standards should also lead to lower emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide.

A lot of the emissions the EPA has targeted escape into the air when natural-gas wells, drilled using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, are being prepared for production.

The EPA is proposing to reduce the emissions by requiring the use of special equipment to separate oil and gas from a mix of fracking fluids and water that flows to the surface during one stage of well completion.

Certain states, such as Wyoming and Colorado, already require the use of this equipment.

The EPA says these proposed standards will eventually save the oil and gas industry about $30 million a year. That's because the standards will force companies to collect the hydrocarbons, which they can then sell.

Hydraulic fracturing already receives a lot of scrutiny from lawmakers, regulators and environmental groups because of its possible impacts on drinking water.

The proposed rules announced Thursday would apply to more than 25,000 wells a year, as well as to storage tanks and other pieces of equipment used by the oil and gas industry.

The EPA estimates the proposed rules will reduce smog-forming volatile organic compounds emitted by the oil and gas industry by 25%. They should also reduce methane emissions by 26% and air toxins by nearly 30%.

The EPA undertook this new rule-making after a pair of environmental groups successfully sued the agency to update clean-air standards for the oil and natural-gas industry. The agency is under a court-ordered deadline to finalize the rule by February.

"We are seeing oil and gas development take a tremendous toll on clean air," said Jeremy Nichols, director of the climate and energy program for Wild Earth Guardians. "Our health and environmental safeguards are woefully outdated."

The American Petroleum Institute, a group representing the oil and gas industry, asked the EPA to postpone the finalization of the rules by six months.

"API will review these proposed rules to ensure that they don't inadvertently create unsafe operating conditions, are cost effective and truly provide additional public health benefits," said Howard Feldman, API's director of scientific and regulatory policy.

Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too
LINK

'Fracking' Has EPA Seal of Approval

- 'Fracking' Has EPA Seal of Approval

Thursday, July 14, 2011
Mclatchy-Tribune News Service.
by Andrew P. Morriss

Natural gas is clean and cheap compared to other forms of energy. Over the last few years, U.S. and world natural gas reserves have soared - U.S. reserves are up by over a third - as we've discovered how to apply the technique known as fracking to unleash gas trapped in deep underground shale formations.

Fracking involves pumping a mixture of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into underground formations, releasing the gas trapped there. Some of the material pumped in returns to the surface; some remains underground where it props open the fractures created in the formation.

The technique has been in use in the United States since the 1940s and it has been used around the world for decades in both oil and gas production. What is new is its effectiveness as methods are refined and the extent of the areas where it can be used cost effectively.

This has revolutionized America's energy picture. Shale gas made up just 1 percent of our gas supply in 2000; today it represents 25 percent.

In the early 2000s, plans were under way to build liquefied natural gas terminals to import natural gas from the Middle East. Today we are retrofitting our ports to allow us to export it. Natural gas prices have fallen to a quarter of their 2000 price, in large part as a result of this dramatic increase in supply.

As we discover new shale formations with recoverable gas, we face some difficult technical and legal issues. The liquid residue can pose risks to ground water and pumping pressurized liquid into the ground can affect neighbors' properties.

However, thus far fracking's dangers are mostly theoretical. Earlier this year EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson - certainly no friend to the hydrocarbon energy industry - told Congress that there had been "no proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water."

"We have in place a national regulatory system to protect ground water and well developed principles of property law that protect neighbors," she testified. "We don't need more rules, just consistent application of those we have already."

Indeed, all forms of energy production involve side effects. Consider these examples:

• Wind and solar energy production require extensive use of rare earth minerals. Almost all of these minerals are imported from China where their production often triggers environmental disasters. The British Daily Mail's investigation into rare earth production for renewable energy earlier this year quoted Greenpeace China as saying "There's not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment."
• Ethanol poses serious threats to water in the Midwest, both from its water-intensive production draining aquifers faster than they recharge and from groundwater pollution from increased fertilizer use in growing corn.
• Nuclear plants require disposal of long term radioactive wastes. Coal plants emit both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases, while mining risks lives and the environment.

Unless we are willing to drastically reduce our energy use - and so diminish our access to energy-intensive goods like pharmaceuticals and computers - we cannot reject every advance in energy production.

And unlike renewable energy firms such as General Electric and Archers Daniels Midland, the natural gas industry doesn't have its hand out asking for subsidies. Making sure we do not shut down development of our natural gas reserves with ill-considered regulatory measures is critical to our energy future.

(C) 2011 Mclatchy-Tribune News Service.. All Rights Reserved

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too
LINK

Justice Dept Claims EPA Did Not Violate Range's Due Process Rights

Justice Dept Claims EPA Did Not Violate Range's Due Process Rights

Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas
by Jack Z. Smith

The Justice Departments contends in court papers filed Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency did not violate Range Resources' constitutional right of due process when it issued a Dec. 7 emergency order against the company related to methane contamination of two residential water wells in Parker County.

Range's due-process argument is "without merit," the department said, arguing that the Fort Worth-based natural gas producer "seeks to curtail the EPA's emergency powers" under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act "in a manner that would seriously harm EPA's ability ... to address risks to underground sources of drinking water and public water systems."

The department filed a 31-page brief in a Dallas federal court where Senior Judge Royal Furgeson is considering a Justice Department complaint, filed Jan. 20, contending that Range failed to comply with three of six provisions in the EPA order. The department is asking Furgeson to deny Range's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Range has also filed an appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The department said Range is entitled only to a hearing on whether it complied with the emergency order and "whether any civil penalties should be assessed." Fines could be $16,500 per day per violation.

In its Dec. 7 order, EPA said Range "caused or contributed" to the methane contamination of the water wells, likely from two nearby Range gas wells. Methane is the chief component of natural gas.

Range's wells were drilled more than a mile deep into the Barnett Shale, far below the water wells, which are roughly 200 feet deep.

Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said late Monday that the company is reviewing the Justice Department's brief and that its "position remains the same": that it did not cause the water wells' contamination.

Range argues that the EPA's findings represent "sheer guesswork" based on "threadbare-thin" reasoning. It noted that EPA enforcement official John Blevins, who signed the emergency order, later backtracked somewhat, saying in a sworn deposition that Range "may" have caused or contributed to the wells' contamination.

Range argues that "there is 5,500 feet of the earth's strata separating the bottom of the private water wells from the subsurface horizontal sections" of its gas wells. The company contends that the EPA "does not even set forth a theory how gas could migrate from Range's wells to the aquifer."

The Texas Railroad Commission found March 29 that the Range gas wells did not cause the contamination. Its members said they agreed with its staff hearing examiners, as well as with Range and its consultants, that the gas in the water wells likely migrated from the shallow Strawn geological formation, into which some gas wells were drilled in the early 1980s.

Copyright (c) 2011, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

Range Calls EPA Conclusions 'Sheer Guesswork'

Range Calls EPA Conclusions 'Sheer Guesswork'

Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas
by Jack Z. Smith

Range Resources, fighting claims by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it "caused or contributed" to the contamination of two Parker County, Texas, water wells, says in court filings that the EPA's conclusions are "sheer guesswork" based on "threadbare-thin" reasoning.

In filings with the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Range also argues that the EPA's Dec. 7 emergency order against the Fort Worth-based natural gas producer requires the company to engage in fact-finding efforts that the agency itself should have undertaken.

The EPA pinpointed two Range natural gas wells, drilled more than a mile deep into the Barnett Shale, as the likely sources of methane contamination in the residential water wells in far south Parker County that are approximately 200 to 220 feet deep. Methane is the chief component of natural gas.

Range said "there is 5,500 feet of the earth's strata separating the bottom of the private water wells from the subsurface horizontal sections" of its gas wells, and that the EPA order "does not even set forth a theory how gas could migrate from Range's wells to the aquifer."

Range says the EPA's order imposed costly and excessive requirements far beyond the scope required to ensure protection of the drinking-water supplies of the two contaminated wells, which served nine people.

The EPA declined to provide specific responses to Star-Telegram questions about Range's criticisms of the agency's investigation. The EPA said Friday that it "stands by the order" and "seeks to ensure that the contamination found in the drinking water wells ... is properly addressed." The EPA said it would soon file briefs responding to Range.

Among Range's contentions, the company said the order directed it "to engage in long-term and costly remedial action, including conducting an extensive study of a 20-county aquifer [the Trinity Aquifer], identifying gas flow pathways anywhere within that aquifer regardless of the source and preparing a plan to eliminate those flows and remediate any area of the aquifer that has been impacted from gas from any source."

David Poole, senior vice president and general counsel for Range, estimated that the company already has spent $1.5 million to $1.75 million defending itself against the EPA order.

Range says the EPA ignored advice from an agency chemist, Doug Beak, to do more analytical work before concluding that Range's gas wells caused the contamination. Range obtained a Nov. 28 e-mail that Beak sent to Chris Lister, an EPA environmental engineer involved in the contamination investigation.

Beak said in the e-mail that data the EPA obtained from testing natural gas from a Range well and the gas in one of the contaminated water wells showed strong similarities, but that "this is not conclusive evidence."

The U.S. Justice Department filed a complaint in a Dallas federal court Jan. 20, saying that Range failed to comply with the EPA's order. Range appealed to the 5th Circuit, seeking the order's dismissal.

The EPA continues to oppose Range's request to take sworn depositions of Lister and another EPA official, Jerry Saunders, who were involved in the contamination investigation.

While the EPA says Range "caused or contributed" to the contamination, Range repeatedly has noted that John Blevins, the EPA official who signed the order, later retreated somewhat, saying in a Jan. 25 sworn deposition that Range "may" have caused or contributed to it.

The Texas Railroad Commission found March 29 that the Range gas wells did not contaminate the water wells. The commission agreed with staff examiners and Range consultants that the gas in the water wells likely came from the shallow Strawn geological formation, which is only a few hundred feet deep and into which some gas wells were drilled in the early 1980s.

The EPA did not participate in that inquiry.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

EPA to Shed Light on Fracturing Rules

EPA to Shed Light on Fracturing Rules

Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Houston Chronicle
by Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Federal regulators will soon clarify the rules for natural gas companies that inject diesel fuel into the ground as part of their hydraulic fracturing operations, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday.

The guidance, which EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says is coming "very shortly," is meant to clear up rules for natural gas producers.

A congressional investigation concluded earlier this year that companies have not secured EPA permits before injecting more than 32 million gallons of diesel fuel and other fluids into the ground in fracturing operations between 2005 and 2009.

States historically have regulated hydraulic fracturing. The technique involves injecting mixtures of water, sand and chemicals including diesel fuel deep underground at high pressures to break up dense shale rock and release gas locked in it. Although Congress exempted most hydraulic fracturing activities from EPA's jurisdiction as part of a 2005 rewrite of the Safe Drinking Water Act, that exception does not apply to diesel -- even though the government only began to regulate it last year.

Jackson insisted that the EPA has authority to regulate diesel fuel in fracturing fluids.

"Our belief is that this is not exempt," she said. "That exception specifically says that diesel is not exempt. So if you are injecting diesel, that is a concern."

Environmental worries

The move comes amid mounting environmental fears about the hydraulic fracturing process, which is being combined with horizontal drilling techniques to extract previously unrecoverable natural gas from shale formations across North America.

Conservationists are concerned about the high water demands of fracturing. Environmentalists warn that natural gas can escape out of poorly designed wells and that chemicals in fracturing fluids can taint nearby water sources.

A blowout at a Chesapeake Energy natural gas well in Pennsylvania last week renewed those fears. The incident prompted the company to temporarily stop hydraulic fracturing in the region.

Easing public concerns about the process is key to natural gas development, said Gene Sperling, the chairman of the White House's National Economic Council.

Speaking at an Energy Information Administration conference, Sperling said the energy industry should embrace "common-sense regulation that builds the public trust" that fracturing does not put at risk clean or safe drinking water.

Industry representatives broadly have argued against federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing and insist state officials are better positioned to oversee the work. Although some oil field services companies and natural gas producers have begun voluntarily providing details about the ingredients of their fracturing fluids, there is no federal mandate for that disclosure.

Backing from Shell

Marvin Odum, the president of Shell Oil Co., said the company "supports regulations that require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the process ... and adhere to the highest safety standards."

"Responsible operators should have no problem complying," Odum added.

Odum said that Shell is working toward a goal of recycling 100 percent of the water it uses in its hydraulic fracturing operations.

He insisted that hydraulic fracturing techniques can be used to extract natural gas safely.

"Make no mistake," he said. "It can be done without harming the environment. Anything less is unacceptable."

Proposed EPA Regs Put Energy Reliability, Affordability at Risk, CEO Says

Proposed EPA Regs Put Energy Reliability, Affordability at Risk, CEO Says



Apr 15, 2011

The Southern Company (SO) CEO Thomas Fanning told Congress today that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed regulation is risking reliability, American jobs, and higher electricity prices and could impact economic development. Utility companies have 60 days to comment on the proposal. Fanning said the deadline is inadequate for companies to analyze all the data and offer its opinions. Southern Company's shares are up 0.95% in early trading at $38.20.