PennFuture Navigation

Bear in the Woods: Environmental Law Blog
Showing posts with label marcellus shale drilling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marcellus shale drilling. Show all posts

Monday, November 19, 2012

DEP sends strong warning that expedited cannot mean slapdash


The flurry of activities occurring in the Marcellus Shale regions of Pennsylvania, such as well pad, pipeline and compressor station development, could do major violence to our water resources if activities are not carefully regulated.

Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requires persons proposing to disturb five acres or more of land in connection with such activities to obtain coverage under an erosion and sediment control permit. The terms and conditions of this permit are intended to protect our water resources.

Unfortunately, DEP offers an expedited review process under which applicants are guaranteed permit coverage within 14 business days. To qualify for an expedited permit, applications must be prepared and certified by a licensed professional registered in Pennsylvania who has attended a mandatory training.

PennFuture does not support the expedited permit review process because we believe every application should receive a complete technical review from DEP staff to ensure that oil and gas activities will not degrade rivers, streams, and other bodies of water. Nevertheless, we were pleased to find some encouraging news related to the expedited permit review process on the Environmental Hearing Board docket last week.

Attached to a notice of appeal filed by AECOM Technical Services Inc. was a letter suspending an AECOM employee's ability to utilize the expedited permit review process in the future based on an application she prepared for the Williams Field Services Company, LLC Springville Gathering Line Project in which she allegedly failed to identify a number of water resources, resulting in a whopping 34 unauthorized impacts to wetlands and streams, at least some of which appear to have been entitled to special protection.

DEP also appeared to raise the possibility of a criminal investigation when it invoked the provisions of Pennsylvania law that relate to false swearing and unsworn falsification to authorities. The suspension and implied threat of criminal prosecution should send a strong message to all professionals: They must comply with the law when preparing erosion and sediment control permit applications.

PennFuture hopes that all licensed professionals registered in Pennsylvania, as well as the gas companies that retain their services, are listening carefully.

Friday, September 28, 2012

New York Monitors Groundwater for Methane To Prepare for Shale Gas Development

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) recently completed a study of dissolved methane in groundwater.

Unlike Pennsylvania, New York is taking steps to document the existence of dissolved methane in groundwater before gas development in Marcellus and Utica shale occurs.

The report contains some good background information on methane and groundwater. For example, the report explains the basics on how methane dissolves and is released from water. Methane can dissolve in water just like carbon dioxide gas used in carbonated beverages. When pressure is reduced, as occurs when the top is removed from a bottle, gas comes out of the solution and causes bubbling and fizzing in the beverage. The same occurs in groundwater. Methane can be dissolved in water under extreme pressure beneath many layers of rock. When that rock is fractured and the water enters a location under less pressure, such as a water well, the dissolved gas can be released, resulting in bubbling water. If the gas is released in a closed structure, such as a home or water tank, the concentration of gas can become flammable and explosive.

The report also explains the scientific basis for safety levels used by state and federal officials. Methane reaches saturation in water at 28 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at atmospheric pressure and becomes flammable in air at about 5 percent by volume. For this reason, the federal government recommends that action be taken to closely monitor water that contains methane concentrations from 10 to 28 mg/L (or 3 to 5 percent by volume in air). Concentrations of methane less than 10 mg/L in water (or 1 to 3 percent by volume in air) are not as great a concern, but the gas should be monitored to ensure no buildup over time.

The study is comprehensive — involving 239 locations and encompassing eight of 14 major river basins in the state. For samples collected through 2011, the study concluded that a full 91 percent of wells over varied conditions throughout the state contain methane below the federal action level of 10 mg/L, and that nearly half (47 percent) contain no measurable amounts of methane. In only five cases (2 percent of the total number of samples) did the methane concentration exceed 28 mg/l.
Interestingly, the report broke down the data dependent upon whether the water samples came from unconsolidated or consolidated (bedrock) aquifers. Methane was found in both, but in varying numbers. Effectively no methane could be found in a full 93 percent of samples collected from unconsolidated aquifers, and only 1 percent had levels exceeding 28 mg/l. Even in wells drilled into bedrock, where one would expect to find methane dissolved in water, 73 percent effectively had no methane, while 4 percent contained concentrations greater than 28 mg/l. Three of the four highest methane concentrations all came from wells drilled into one particular type of shale. These findings appear to suggest that the location and depth of groundwater wells might provide a screening tool for determining where funds should be expended to test for methane concentrations in water.

It is unfortunate and contrary to the public interest that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performed no baseline monitoring similar to that being done by the NYDEC. Although the DEP has a statutory obligation to investigate individual claims that drilling contaminated drinking water supplies, each such claim and investigation consumes DEP resources. And while drilling companies are obligated to offer to collect samples from drinking water sources within a specified distance of a proposed gas well, the companies have no authority to require that a sample be collected, and the specified distance was established by the General Assembly arbitrarily and not based on any factual or scientific data. Further, the sampling requirement is based on a distance horizontally from the well, and does not account for laterals that will eventually be used to fracture the shale. If a claim of contamination is made by a resident and DEP concludes that it cannot prove that the drilling caused the contaminated water in the well, then the landowner is left to pursue an action on his or her own against what is likely to be a well-funded defendant. Alternatively, the company may choose to spend resources to satisfy the complainant as a matter of doing business even though it genuinely believes that it has no responsibility for the contamination. Even if the landowner has funds to pursue an action or if the government steps in because more than one home has been allegedly affected, the result will likely be a substantial expenditure of public and private resources resolving the dispute. None of these scenarios is an efficient means of doing business or protecting the public health and safety.

By developing baseline data of dissolved methane content in its aquifers before shale gas development begins, New York is serving the interests of both residents and the industry. The study will not resolve all disagreements, but it will provide substantial data against which to compare the impact of the industry when it arrives and should lead to the more efficient resolution of individual disputes, particularly if New York couples the baseline data with adoption of a law that requires gas companies to collect water samples of nearby drinking water supplies and requires that residents submit to that sampling or document well conditions that prevent the sampling from taking place.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Show us the revenue!

A few months ago, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) issued a policy statement on "Shale Gas Development Beneath Publicly-Owned Streambeds."

The policy begins by stating: "Gas development companies interested in drilling beneath publicly-owned streambeds must obtain a gas lease from [DCNR] prior to drilling[.]" The policy statement notes that DCNR, in consultation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has developed a list of publicly-owned streambeds.

Also posted on DCNR's Web page are two maps showing the locations of the publicly owned streambeds on the DCNR-DEP list. The first is a single-frame map dated February 28, 2012 that includes shading that reveals the extent of the Marcellus Shale formation.

The second is an interactive map that allows the viewer to select particular streams and zoom in to see the precise location of the streambed (and underlying gas) claimed by the Commonwealth.

This is a big deal.

First, it's our property, and nobody may enter and occupy our property without our permission. In Pennsylvania, although it is lawful for a well drilled on one property to pull in natural gas from beneath a neighboring property, one may not drill a well into property owned by someone else without permission, usually in the form of a lease. So, a gas company that has drilled beneath a publicly-owned streambed without first obtaining a lease from the Commonwealth is occupying our public property without permission —which is a polite way to say "trespassing."

Second, there is a lot of money at stake. In 2010, DCNR got a $6.15 million bonus payment ($4,000 per acre), plus a 20 percent royalty for a lease with Chesapeake Energy authorizing the extraction of gas beneath 1,500 acres of a seven mile stretch of the Susquehanna River in Bradford County. At the time, DCNR estimated that the Commonwealth owns the mineral rights beneath at least 25,000 additional acres of rivers and streams.

Take a quick look at DCNR's maps. Given the extent of the streambeds claimed by the Commonwealth, the number of wells drilled in the Marcellus Shale, and the extraordinary length of most horizontal gas wells (several thousand feet), it would be a miracle if every horizontal well drilled into the Marcellus Shale managed to avoid areas beneath the streambeds DCNR identifies as publicly-owned.

With our current budgetary straits, this is no time to subsidize rich gas companies by allowing them — for free — to occupy public property, and to collect and sell the public's natural gas.

So we ask:

How many wells have been drilled beneath publicly owned streambeds in Pennsylvania without a lease? In other words, how many gas wells are occupying public property without the public's permission and without compensation?

What is the Commonwealth doing about such wells?

Show us the leases, and (cue Cuba Gooding Jr.) show us the revenue!