Federal Review Calls for Changes in State Oil Regulations

- Federal Review Calls for Changes in State Oil Regulations

Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Bakersfield Californian
by John Cox

A recent federal review calls for tightening California's oversight of certain underground injection activities common in Kern County oil fields.

Saying more should be done to protect underground sources of drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-commissioned review recommends several measures that could make it harder for oil companies to get permission to inject steam, wastewater and other materials underground.

The review comes at a sensitive time for California local oil producers. For months the industry has howled about the more cautious, time-consuming approach that Sacramento has taken to regulating underground injection projects over about the last year and a half. Trade associations say delays cost jobs and worsen California's dependence on foreign oil.

Industry representatives said Tuesday it is unclear what exactly will be the impact of the review, a summary of which was posted online Friday by the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. Oil industry spokespeople noted that DOGGR officials have not officially responded to the review.

Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Association, said he saw no "red flags" raised in the report. The most important question, he said, is how the recommendations are implemented by the state, if it comes to that.

"Keep in mind that much of what they're raising is a paperwork problem," Zierman said.

A DOGGR spokesman wrote in an email Tuesday that some of the review's findings are reflected in regulatory changes already instituted at DOGGR over the last three years. Spokesman Don Drysdale indicated that this point will be discussed in meetings tentatively set to begin next month between State Oil and Gas Supervisor Elena Miller and David Albright, the San Francisco-based manager of the EPA's Pacific Southwest Ground Water Office.

Drysdale added that any new rules would have to be drafted by DOGGR and then go through a public review process before being reviewed by the state Office of Administrative Law.

Since 1983, DOGGR has regulated underground injection projects under a "primacy" agreement with the EPA. The agreement requires periodic reviews such as the one posted in summary form Friday.

Three specific issues

In a letter to Miller dated July 18, Albright made specific mention of three issues discussed in the review, which was conducted by Horsley Witten Group, an East Coast environmental science and engineering firm:

• Unlike federal rules, DOGGR regulations do not clearly require the agency to protect water containing up to 10,000 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids. State rules define "fresh water" as containing no more than 3,500 milligrams per liter of dissolved solids;
• State regulators are approving underground injection projects based on reviews that extend a quarter mile around the proposed injection well. "Whereas the fixed radius approach may be appropriate for some injection wells," Albright wrote, other wells may require a wider area of study;
• Federal and state laws say that the maximum surface injection pressure must not exceed a level capable of fracturing the area's underground geology. DOGGR regulators, however, often use only estimates of the fracturing pressure, and that when they perform a more detailed pressure study, then fail to gather "the more accurate combination of surface and bottom-hole measurement."

Albright's letter to DOGGR made brief reference to several other matters raised in the Horsley group's review. These range from the professional qualifications of DOGGR's underground injection control staff and the frequency of project reviews to well plugging and abandonment requirements.

A theme raised repeatedly in the review is that DOGGR has lacked adequate staffing to address various regulatory challenges. It also notes that DOGGR has recently received approval to hire more staff.

DOGGR wrote Tuesday that in fiscal year 2010-11 it received approval to fill 17 underground injection control positions statewide. That brought DOGGR's total payroll to 157, not all of these related to underground injection.

The DOGGR district that includes Kern County performs more underground injections than any other district, comprising 86 percent of the state's active underground injection wells.

The specific uses of Kern injection wells range from cyclic steam (58 percent of all California's active underground injection wells) and steam flooding (14 percent) to water disposal (3 percent).

Cathy Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said she and her staff were anxious Tuesday to get a copy of the full EPA-ordered review, which was not available on DOGGR's website. She said the goal of WSPA, which represents the state's largest oil producers, was to begin work with DOGGR to address the federal government's concerns as quickly as possible and then return to the business of producing oil.

"From a bigger policy perspective," she said, "we really need to come to agreement on how we're going to proceed with all parties."

Copyright (c) 2011 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.)

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

US House Panel to Draft Plan to Split Federal Oil Money with States

- US House Panel to Draft Plan to Split Federal Oil Money with States

Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON
by Tennille Tracy

The House Natural Resources Committee plans to draft legislation that redirects a portion of federal oil royalties to coastal states, ramping up debate on an issue that has also intensified in the Senate.

Rep. Doc Hastings (R., Wash.), chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, said at a hearing Wednesday that he was "actively" reviewing proposals to share federal oil revenue with the states. He said his committee would take up legislation to address the issue after a summer recess.

"When it is all boiled down, a revenue-sharing proposal is, and must be, about fairness," Hastings said.

Hastings didn't say how much royalty revenue he wanted to steer toward the states. A proposal in the Senate directs 37.5% of federal oil royalties to the states. With the federal government reporting more than $5 billion in offshore royalty revenue in 2010, such a move would be a big win for coastal state governments.

Debate over revenue-sharing proposals has intensified in recent weeks as lawmakers look for ways to reduce spending and raise revenues as part of plans to increase the debt ceiling.

Opponents of revenue-sharing plans, often Democrats and lawmakers from non-coastal states, say it would be unwise for the federal government to give up billions of dollars of oil royalties at a time when it's struggling to claw its way out of debt.

Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), the highest-ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said Wednesday that a revenue-sharing plan would be a "big mistake" and that it's "just something [the federal government] can't afford."

"How can we even begin to discuss this subject right now?" Markey said.

Under current arrangements, states collect royalties from oil produced within the first three miles of a coastline. The federal government then collects most of the royalties on oil produced in the next three miles and lays claim to all of the royalties beyond that.

Supports of revenue sharing, often Republicans and coastal state representatives, say state officials will be incentivized to support more offshore oil production if they can collect a greater share of the royalties.

A battle over revenue sharing in the Senate has suspended action on a long-awaited bill that would strengthen safety standards for offshore oil drilling. At a committee-level markup last week, lawmakers blocked a vote on the bill after Sens. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) and Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) looked set to fail in their attempts to attach a revenue-sharing proposal to it.

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

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

Fed Cuts 2011 and 2012 Growth Forecasts, Confirms End of QE2

- Fed Cuts 2011 and 2012 Growth Forecasts, Confirms End of QE2



Jun 22, 2011

The Federal Reserve cut its forecast for economic growth this year, saying GDP should increase 2.7% to 2.9% for 2011, down from its forecast in April for 3.1% to 3.3% growth. It's the second time that growth forecasts have been lowered this year.

The Fed said in a statement, "The slower pace of recovery reflects in part factors that are likely to be temporary, including the damping effect of higher food and energy prices on consumer purchasing power and spending as well as supply-chain disruptions associated with the tragic events in Japan."

The central bank said it sees 2012 growth in the range of 3.3% to 3.7%. In April, the bank had projected 2012 growth at a more robust 3.5% to 4.2%.

The Federal Open Market Committee said it anticipates inflation will "subside to levels at or below those consistent with the Committee's dual mandate as the effects of past energy and other commodity price increases dissipate."

The Committee also confirmed it was ending its $600 million bond purchasing program known as "QE2," and that it would maintain interest rates at their current exceptionally low levels for an extended period of time.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

May Federal Budget Deficit Comes in at $58 Billion

- May Federal Budget Deficit Comes in at $58 Billion



Jun 10, 2011

The Federal Government's budget deficit came in at $58 billion in May, down 58% from May 2010, the Treasury Department reported today in its monthly budget statement.

In a once a year revision, the Treasury also said it now expects the Troubled Asset Relief Program to cost a total of $48 billion. That's down from an estimate in August of 2009 that the total cost of the program could reach as high as $341 billion.

The government is getting more back for its investments in banks than it originally estimated it would, an official said. The downwardly revised re-estimate doesn't represent money in or out. It is essentially an accounting change.

The deficit has totaled $927 billion through the first eight months of the year, down $8 billion from the $935 billion reported over the same period in 2010.

The government spent $233 billion in the month, while total receipts were $175 billion. $30.9 billion was spent on interest payments to service the national debt, while receipts increased 19% from last May.

Oil & Gas Post

Promote Your Page Too

Fed Lowers 2011 GDP Growth Estimate, Raises Core Inflation Expectation

Fed Lowers 2011 GDP Growth Estimate, Raises Core Inflation Expectation



Apr 27, 2011

The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday lowered its expected rate of growth for the US economy in 2011, citing a slower pace than anticipated for the start of the year. In an unprecedented press conference after a meeting of the Fed's Board of Governors, Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the employment picture appears to be better than expected. January's unemployment rate forecast of 8.8- 9% was lowered to 8.4-8.7% for the end of the year.

Begich Proposes Federal Coordinator for OCS

Begich Proposes Federal Coordinator for OCS

Monday, March 28, 2011
Alaska Journal of Commerce
by  Tim Bradner

Alaska U.S. Sen. Mark Begich told the Alaska Legislature he will introduce legislation establishing an Arctic outer continental shelf federal coordinator and creating a joint regional lease and permit processing office for Alaska's OCS region, modeled after the federal gas pipeline coordinator position.

The new federal coordinator would have authority to work across many agencies involved in permitting, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department.

The bill would be introduced soon, Begich spokeswoman Julie Hasquet said.

Begich spoke in Juneau in his annual address to the Legislature.

"The federal OCS coordinator would work with the state of Alaska and affected local governments to streamline development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, which hold such promise for future oil and gas development," Begich said.

He also urged serious discussion of which federal agency should have jurisdiction over air permitting.

Begich argued for federal air quality permit authority in the Arctic OCS region to be brought under the Department of the Interior, which now has jurisdiction over air permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

This would take away the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current authority for air quality permits in the Arctic OCS.

An air quality permit for Shell's proposed exploration in the Beaufort Sea is now bogged down in appeals before the Environmental Review Board, an internal EPA appeals panel.

"We need to address the two different air permitting systems in the country. There are currently two processes and two different federal agencies overseeing air permits -- one for the Gulf of Mexico and one for everyone else -- including the Arctic," Begich said in his speech. "This makes no sense. It's not fair and it puts companies with projects in the Arctic at a competitive disadvantage. We need to level the playing field. It's time to move all air permitting under the Interior Department."

Shell reacted favorably to Begich's suggestions.

"The senator clearly understands the challenges facing responsible operators, like Shell, as well as the need for a regulatory process that is predictable and accountable," company spokesman Curtis Smith said in a statement. "A federal OCS regional coordinator for Alaska could go a long way in making that happen. Shell has already spent five years and over $50 million trying to secure an air permit for our drilling rig but with no success. The Senator's effort to align Arctic air permitting under the Department of Interior, as it is in the Gulf of Mexico, is one Shell supports."

Top Ten Ways Govt is Preventing Federal Onshore U.S. Production

Top Ten Ways Govt is Preventing Federal Onshore U.S. Production

Friday, March 25, 2011
by  Karen Boman

Rigzone Staff

Western Energy Alliance, formerly IPAMS, reported that at least half of the non-producing onshore U.S. acreage is the direct result of bureaucratic delays imposed by the Obama administration, not oil and gas companies are refusing to develop lands currently under lease.

The organization has published a top ten list to show how bureaucratic delays are not only preventing more production of domestic oil and natural gas today, but putting at risk tomorrow's production as well, said Kathleen Sgamma, the organization's director of government and public affairs.

While companies are in the long process of satisfying all the requirements necessary to begin production, new federal policies and deliberate bureaucratic delays are preventing American production in the West. Western Energy Alliance estimates that about one-third of leased acreage will not be developed by the current leaseholder with today's technology because exploratory work determines there are insufficient resources and other factors.

Sgamma said that the Obama administration continues to deflect blame for leases that are not producing onto the industry, yet their rhetoric displays a misrepresentation of how oil and natural gas development on federal lands works.

"The truth is that companies are doing all they can to develop federal energy resources, but a lease is not a green light to produce—it's the first step in a long, expensive process that is fraught with bureaucratic red tape and lawsuits by environmental groups determined to stop domestic energy development," noted Sgamma.

"Since development on federal lands takes close to ten years, we know that production today is the result of policies and actions from several years ago," said Sgamma. "Symbolic, punitive measures will do nothing to increase domestic energy supply. What's needed is legislation that provides certainty, clears obstacles, and encourages production."

The top ten ways that the government is preventing production on federal onshore leases includes:

Project Approvals: Whether a small project under fifty wells or a large one with thousands, the Department of the Interior (DOI) is simply not approving oil and natural gas projects. Environmental analysis and project approval must occur before companies can even apply for drilling permits. Normally, this process can take over seven years, but companies are currently experiencing indefinite delays.

EPA Overreach: Recent EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] expansion imposes excessive, redundant regulatory burdens on oil and natural gas production and introduces high levels of uncertainty. EPA has directly prevented project approvals in the West. EPA overreach is having a chilling effect on energy production, diverting precious time and resources away from energy development and into non-productive regulatory activities.

Permitting: Companies are not getting permits to drill in a timely fashion. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conservatively estimates a 206 day average processing time for permits. Depending on the field office, permits can take over 500 days. Companies cannot start to produce without a permit.

Reduced Leasing: Often producers conduct exploratory work on leases and determine that nearby areas have the right geology for energy production. DOI frequently defers and delays these offset leases needed to develop the existing leasehold. New policies in 2010 added three additional layers of analysis and regulation, on top of the existing five. These bureaucratic delays have led to anemic lease sales, canceled sales, and indefinite deferrals. Delays in obtaining offset leases prevent production on existing leaseholds.

Unissued Leases: DOI continues to hold millions of dollars in unissued leases, despite statutory requirements to issue leases within sixty days of receipt of payment from successful bidders. Unissued leases can hold up production on adjacent existing leasehold.

Stipulations: DOI has cleared much of the backlog of unissued leases in Wyoming, but in many cases has added more restrictions that were not specified at the time of sale. These new restrictions, such as even preventing development from the surface, reduce the value of leases and may render them uneconomic to develop.

Withdrawal of Leases: One of the first things Secretary Salazar did after taking office was to withdraw 77 leases in Utah. That has been followed by the intent to cancel existing leases in the Wyoming Range, after the government had already completed the leasing contracts. Existing, adjacent leases are affected.

Wild Lands: New policies for wild lands mean that DOI can unilaterally determine that an area is suitable for wilderness protection, and delay for years any development while they reinventory the lands and update land use plans. In the meantime, DOI treats these areas as de facto wilderness, despite lacking legal authority, which prevents production on many existing leases.

Climate Change Challenge: Environmental lawsuits have caused DOI to delay leases in Montana while additional environmental analysis and climate change study is done. Rather than settling these lawsuits as in the past, DOI should stand by its analysis that showed no significant impact to climate change from leasing in Montana.

Ad Hoc Requirements: BLM field offices are arbitrarily adding new requirements to permits, and requiring producers to conduct new and redundant analysis without a basis in law. These arbitrary delays in the field are another means of “death by a thousand cuts” that prevent energy production, job creation, and economic development.