Marcellus & Utica Shale Story Links: Monday, Oct 24, 2011
The “best of the rest” – stories that caught MDN’s eye that you may be interested in reading:
Read More “Marcellus & Utica Shale Story Links: Monday, Oct 24, 2011”
The “best of the rest” – stories that caught MDN’s eye that you may be interested in reading:
Read More “Marcellus & Utica Shale Story Links: Monday, Oct 24, 2011”
MDN is somewhat surprised at the poll results from the most recent poll which asked if PA should redefine natural gas as a “mineral right” for purposes of deeds and real estate transactions. Since 1882 it has not been considered a mineral right. If the courts in PA change it now, it is akin to changing the rules in a baseball game at the bottom of the 9th inning with 2 outs. It threatens to throw the drilling industry in PA into chaos as multiple lawsuits will surely be filed and take years to resolve. Still, MDN readers by a convincing majority say such a change should be made.
Should PA courts redefine natural gas as a mineral right?
Yes (46%, 111 Votes)
No (40%, 97 Votes)
Not sure (14%, 33 Votes)
Total Voters: 241
Should fracking wastewater be regulated by the federal EPA?
MDN reported on the EPA’s very loud and clear message this past week that they intend to start regulating where and how fracking wastewater can be disposed (see this MDN story). For years now, the EPA has attempted to control oil and gas drilling by whatever means they can. Traditionally, and by law, oil and gas drilling is left to the states to regulate, not the federal government. But of course that hasn’t stopped the federal government over the years in encroaching on states’ rights. MDN has gone on record numerous times saying the EPA should butt out of what belongs to the states—that the states know best how to regulate their own industry, which is heavily dependent on unique geography—rather than receive a one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government.
The EPA is currently conducting a multi-year study on hydraulic fracturing, attempting to determine whether or not it’s really a safe technology. That study will not be completed until 2014. In the meantime, they still want to pull the strings and control what happens. This time they are using wastewater disposal from fracking as the method to do it.
The strongest argument for federal control is that water flows across borders—what’s done in one state can and will affect other states. And who better to ensure one state’s “lax” rules don’t injure the environment of another state than the EPA? That’s the argument. The counter-argument is, we already have oversight of waterways that are truly interconnected: It’s called the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). Both organizations are made up of the states where those mighty rivers flow—including all of the watershed areas and tributaries around those rivers. The commissions are quasi-federal organizations with state representation, and they’re doing a fine job of regulating wastewater disposal, and water usage, in their particular jurisdictions.
Also, while there is still wastewater being produced from fracking, many drillers now recycle 100 percent of the wastewater and reuse it in their fracking operations. So the volume of wastewater that needs disposal is decreasing over time.
What do you think? Are the SRBC and DRBC sufficient to the task of protecting water that flows across borders? Should the federal EPA be involved? Register your vote on the right side of any page on the website.
Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.
Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor
Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Oct 23, 2011: Should the EPA Regulate Fracking Wastewater?”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is signaling their intent to continue overreaching their authority by regulating oil and gas drilling in the U.S., violating states’ constitutional rights to do so themselves. The EPA’s “back door” way of regulating hydraulic fracturing (buying them time while they try to regulate it by the front door with their multi-year study of the process), is by controlling the disposal of wastewater produced during fracking. From the EPA’s press release yesterday:
Read More “EPA to Regulate Shale Gas Drilling via Wastewater Standards”
New York’s passage of new drilling rules to allow for shale gas drilling has had more twists than a Greek tragedy and has taken longer to finish than a death scene in an opera. MDN has asked the rhetorical question, several times, that even IF new rules are passed and permits are issued, will drilling companies bother to show up? See this MDN article from March of this year. Now, others are starting to raise the same question:
Dimock, PA has been a rallying cry for many who oppose shale gas drilling. For those with only a peripheral knowledge of the struggle, the word Dimock conjures up an image of nasty hydraulic fracturing fluids seeping into ground water supplies and contaminating them so they are now undrinkable by humans or animals. But such an image would be wrong.
What happened in Dimock, according to the PA State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is that the drilling company Cabot Oil & Gas did not properly case (enclose the bore hole), which led to methane (natural gas) escaping through cracks into the local water supply for area homes. Methane gas in water does not kill when consumed, but it can become an explosion hazard as happened with one local water well in the area.
Sorry for the delay in posting new articles, folks. I know many people rely on MDN to provide a daily update of what’s happening in the world of Marcellus and Utica Shale. MDN editor Jim Willis has been traveling (that pesky day job sometimes gets in the way!) and has now returned home, so regular updates will resume on Friday. Thanks for you patience.
Jim Willis
Editor, MDN
Interest in Ohio’s Utica Shale gas is booming as evidenced by the ramp up in the number of drilling permits issued. More than half of all permits issued have come in the last three months.
Read More “Ohio Utica Shale Permits Double in Last 3 Months”
While it would be unfair to say that support or opposition to shale gas drilling breaks strictly along political party lines, it is not unfair to point out this observation: Those who oppose drilling are mostly Democrats, while those who support drilling are mostly Republican. MDN has seen it again and again in public opinion polling data, and in news stories. Here’s the latest news story, this one from Ohio, which further supports MDN’s observation:
Cecil Township in Washington County, PA—a suburb of Pittsburgh—recently passed an ordinance changing shale gas drilling from a permitted use to a conditional use, meaning each well drilled would have to be approved by the township on a case by case basis. It requires drillers to do twice the work—once in filing a permit application with the state, and a second time with the local municipality. Range Resources, one of the nation’s largest Marcellus Shale drillers (and with operations in Cecil), has just filed a lawsuit requesting the new ordinance be overturned.
Read More “Range Resources Sues Cecil Township Over New Ordinance”
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which oversees oil and gas drilling in the state has issued new guidelines for evaluating air pollution sources from oil and gas operations. Specifically, the new guidelines clarify when operations should be considered a single source, and when operations will be considered separately, thereby facing stricter permit requirements. The move tightens controls over potential sources of air pollution from drilling and related operations.
Read More “PA DEP Clamps Down on Air Pollution Rules for Gas Drilling”
Under threat of a lawsuit, supervisors in Columbus Township (Warren County, PA) reversed their previous ban on the disposal of fracking fluids in two injection wells in the township (see this previous MDN story about the lawsuit).
Injection wells are deep wells used to dispose of fracking fluid from those drillers who do not recycle all of the fracking fluid used in their drilling operations. The fluid is pumped into the wells under high pressure, forcing it deep into the ground. Ohio has hundreds of such injection wells due to a better underground geography. However, PA currently has only a relative handful of injection wells (less than a dozen?), including the two in Columbus Township.
Read More “Columbus Twp, PA Ban on Injection Wells Rescinded”
Some banks are getting into the business of advising their customers, like farmers, on what kind of gas lease to sign when energy companies come knocking. The wealth management divisions of banks are branching out into what has been traditionally the turf of lawyers. One such bank is S&T Bancorp, based in Indiana, PA.
When drilling is concentrated in one area, some problems are bound to crop up.
The “best of the rest” – stories that caught MDN’s eye that you may be interested in reading:
Read More “Marcellus & Utica Shale Story Links: Thursday, Oct 13, 2011”
Dr. Shikha Sharma, an assistant professor at West Virginia University and the lead researcher of a new WVU study looking at the source of methane found in water supplies (see this MDN story), says those who think that hydraulic fracturing is the cause of methane found in their water supply may be wrong. And she can prove it—scientifically.
Read More “WVU Prof: Methane in Water Supplies is Not from Fracking”
We have a new development in the ongoing case from Susquehanna County, PA where a lower court upheld the “Dunham rule” declaring oil and gas are not part of mineral rights. The Dunham rule, a PA law precedent that’s been in place since 1882, was challenged by PA Superior Court (see this MDN story), threatening to overturn dozens if not hundreds of leases and deeds in Pennsylvania. The landowners in the case have now appealed directly to the PA State Supreme Court in an effort to lay this to rest and have the Dunham rule upheld.
Read More “Shale Gas Mineral Rights Case Appealed to PA Supreme Court”