Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

Texas is in the middle of one of the most severe droughts in recorded history. The population of the state is growing rapidly, and projections are that such growth will continue. Much of Texas is arid semi-desert, with limited rainfall in normal years. Will water become the limiting factor in Texas' growth?

With water so much on everyone's minds, I thought it would be a good idea to review some basic facts about water. The following information is from a presentation made by Tom Mason, former General Manager of the Lower Colorado River Authority, who is now a shareholder at my firm, Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody.

Water on earth:

-- 97% is in the oceans

-- 3% is fresh water

-- 69% of fresh water is ice - glaciers and icecaps

-- 30% of fresh water is groundwater

-- .3% (three tenths of one percent) of the world's fresh water is contained in rivers and lakes

Last month, Texas' water planning agency, the Texas Water Development Board, published Texas' 2012 Water Plan. This plan was developed through a complex planning process involving 16 regional planning groups. The plan lists 562 recommended water supply projects and strategies to meet the State's expected water demands for the next 50 years. Estimated costs of those projects: $53 billion.

Most significant aspects of the Texas Water Plan:

Conservation. Twenty-five percent of the "new water" proposed by the plan is by conserving existing supplies. About 2/3 of that conservation is from agriculture, most of the rest municipal. Conservation is possible: San Antonio has reduced per capita water consumption by more than 40% over the last 26 years  -- in part because a federal court ordered the city to limit withdrawals from the Edwards Aquifer due to environmental concerns. San Antonio engaged in educaton compaigns, new water pricing (the more you use the higher your rate), low flow toilets, repairs of leaky pipes, outdoor water restrictions. Farmers conserve by laser leveling of fields, changes in crops, more efficient irrigation equipment.

New Reservoirs. Texas' water plan proposes that 17% of "new water" supplies will come from new reservoirs. But there are not many good reservoir sites left in Texas. New dams are very expensive, hard to permit, and few federal dollars are available for such projects. Landowners resist use of eminent domain for reservoirs. Most of the new reservoirs proposed are "off-channel" reservoirs, which will capture heavy flood flows in very large ponds and release them when needed.

Groundwater. 9% of new water supplies are projected to come from development of groundwater resources. About 60% of all water use in Texas now comes from groundwater. Regulation of groundwater development in Texas is handled by groundwater districts. There are now some 96 such districts, and each has its local governing board and sets its own rules. Many districts are underfunded and understaffed. There is now great uncertainty over the powers and limits of groundwater regulation that these districts can impose. With such decentralized management and legal uncertainty, it is difficult to predict how groundwater will meet Texas' future water supply needs.

Water Reuse. The water plan derives 10% of its "new water" for Texas' future from reusing treated sewage effluent. Again, the increased use of treated effluent has caused legal uncertainty: who owns water once it has been treated for reuse?

Desalination. 3.5% of "new water" in the Texas Water Plan is from desalination. The cost of water from desalination is now 2 to 7 times more than river water or groundwater.

Water is a big energy user. The State of California uses almost 20% of its total energy production to treat and move water. The City of Austin's water utility is the single largest customer of the City's electric utility. Energy production is also one of the largest water users, although much of the water used for electric generation is returned to rivers and streams after use.

Water and energy remain two of the biggest challenges for Texas, our nation and the world.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued proposed rules to cut down on emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane from well drilling and production sites. The rules were issued pursuant to a settlement of a suit by environmental groups alleging that EPA was not enforcing air emissions laws against the E&P industry.

Among other things, the proposed rules would require installation of vapor recovery units on storage tanks at wellsites and other E&P facilities to prevent emission of VOCs. The EPA has calculated that the rules would cost the industry $754 million, but that the gas and condensate captured by the vapor recovery units would be sold for $783 million. The rules would apply to oil and gas wells, natural gas processing plants, compressor stations and pipelines.  Similar emissions control requirements have been recommended by the New York Department of Environmental Protection in its study of the impact of Marcellus Shale drilling in New York.

For more information about the proposal on EPA's website, go here.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been engaged in a comprehensive review of the potential environmental impacts of development of the Marcellus Shale in New York since 2008. The DEC is the regulatory agency in New York responsible for issuing drilling permits and regulating oil and gas exploration and production. The DEC had previously studied the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing in 1992, at which time it issued a Generic Environmental Impact Statement recommending certain safeguards in that practice. In 2009, the DEC issued for public comment a "Draft Supplemental Generic Impact Statement" analyzing the impact of hydraulic fracturing of horizontal Marcellus wells. As a result of comments received, the DEC has issued a revision of that draft report, which will be finalized later this year and again issued for public comment. During this study, New York has imposed a moratorium on issuance of any permits for horizontal wells in the Marcellus Shale.

The Marcellus extends over a huge area from West Virginia through Pennsylvania and covers a substantial part of New York State. Potential Marcellus reserves in New York are huge, and exploration companies have leased huge areas in New York for exploration. New York landowners have watched impatiently as wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania, while environmental activists in New York have opposed any drilling in that state.

The most recent version of the New York DEC's study and recommendations is several hundred pages and provides a thorough study of the potential impacts of drilling Marcellus wells on the environment, including impacts on groundwater, surface water, air quality and wildlife. The report proposes many revisions to DEC's existing regulations concerning the construction of well pads, the drilling and casing of horizontal wells, the handling and disposal of frac fluids and chemicals, the disposal of returned frac water and drill cuttings, the use of best available technology to reduce emissions from equipment during drilling and completion operations, and the protection of groundwater and surface water. The report discusses the current state of technologies for use of fluids other than fresh water for hydraulic fracturing and for the recycling of frac water. The authors also discuss recent incidents in Pennsylvania of groundwater and surface water contamination from drillsites and their cause. There is a comprehensive summary of the geology of shale formations and water resources in New York.

Continue reading "New York Issues Revised Study of Fracing in the Marcellus" »

WSJ Weighs In On Fracing Controversy

The Wall Street Journal gives its opinion on the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, siding with the industry: "The shale gas and oil boom is the result of U.S. business innovation and risk-taking. If we let the fear of undocumented pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate as a second-class industrial power."

Powell Shale Digest Issues Report on Eagle Ford

The Digest reported on wells drilled so far in Eagle Ford fields in Texas. Enough information is now publicly available to begin to see where the play is headed, and where it's most successful.

The counties with highest oil and gas production are Dimmit, Karnes, Webb and La Salle. The counties with the best results per well are Karnes and DeWitt:

Baker Hughes' oil rig count reached 1,000 for the first time since it began tracking oil and gas rigs separately in 1987. 843 oil and gas rigs are currently located in Texas. 

 

Continue reading "Recent News: EPA Fracing Study, Report on Eagle Ford, Frac Water Recycling, Range v. EPA, " »

A study group sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has issued a report, The Future of Natural Gas, the fourth in a series of MIT multidisciplinary reports examinging the role of various energy sources and the effects of carbon dioxide emissions restraints.  The full 170-page report can be found here. The report analyzes the relative carbon footprint of natural gas compared to other fuels and the environmental impact of the development of shale gas reserves, among other topics. Here are some excerpts:

Major conclusions of the report:

• "There are abundant supplies of natural gas in the world, and many of these supplies can be developed and produced at relatively low cost."
• "The role of natural gas in the world is likely to continue to expand under almost all circumstances, as a result of its availability, its utility and its comparatively low cost."
• Natural gas is "one of the most cost-effective means by which to maintain energy supplies while reducing CO2 emissions."

Regarding gas's carbon footprint, the report concludes that "Among the fossil fuels, it has the lowest carbon intensity, emitting less CO2 per unit of energy generated than other fossil fuels. It burns cleanly and efficiently, with very few non-carbon emissions. Unlike oil, natural gas generally requires limited processing to prepare it for end use."

Regarding potential natural gas supply:

• "The mean projection of [worldwide] remaining recoverable resource [of natural gas] in this report is 16,200 Tcf, 150 times current annual global natural gas consumption .... Of the mean projection, approximately 9,000 Tcf could be developed economically with a natural gas price at or below $4/Million British Thermal units (MMBtu) at the export point."
• "The mean projection of recoverable shale gas resource in this report is approximately 640 Tcf, with low and high projections of 420 Tcf and 870 Tcf, respectively. Of the mean projection, approximately 400 Tcf could be economically developed with a natural gas price at or below $6/MMBtu at the wellhead."

Continue reading "New MIT Study, "The Future of Natural Gas," Touts the Future of Natural Gas Shale Development" »

Fracking has become more and more a topic in the general media and part of the state and federal environmental energy agenda, with new stories appearing daily. A sample:

Secretary of Energy Steveb Chu has appointed an advisory panel, officially called the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's subcommittee on natural gas, to study the environmental issues around hydraulic fracturing and shale gas production.  Members of the subcommittee are John Deutch, former head of the CIA during the Clinton administration, in the Department of Energy during the Carter administration, now a professor at MIT, and former board member of Schlumberger, Ltd.; Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates Chairman; Susan Tierney, Chair of the board of the Energy Foundation; Stephen Holditch, chair of the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Texas A&M; Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund; Kathleen McGinty, former head of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection; and Mark Zoback, geophysics professor at Stanford University. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, has charged the subcommittee to make recommendations on ways to improve safety of fracking in 90 days, and offer advice to other agencies within six months on how they can better protect the environment from shale gas drilling.  http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/164057-overnight-energy-fracking . Beginnings of the subcommittee's work have not shown promise: at the first meeting of the committee, Dusty Horwitt of the Environmental Working Group said its chairman John Deutch should resign because of his former ties to Schlumberger and Cheniere Energy. On the other side, Republicans including Darrel Issa (R-Calif), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, have said that Chu's subcommittee is composed primarily of Democratic appointees hostile to drilling interests. 

Continue reading "Discussion and Debate Increase on Environmental Hazards of Fracking" »

Researchers at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University have written an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences titled "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing," which finds "systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction" in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York. The article has already elicited a strong response from the industry. To my knowledge, this is the first scientifically based study finding a correllation between the drilling of shale wells and the contamination of aquifers.

 

Continue reading "Duke University Researchers Find Correlation Between Marcellus Shale Drilling and Methane-Contaminated Drinking Water" »

The April issue of Discover, published by Kalmbach Publishing Co., contains an article on the potential environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in gas shales, "Fracking Nation," by Linda Marsa. Much of the article simply repeats allegations being made by environmental groups and landowners of alleged groundwater contamination by shale wells. But the article mentions four newer topics and recent allegations being made by opponents of shale gas development:

 

Continue reading "Hydraulic Fracturing Controversy Makes Discover Magazine" »

The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a decision of the Austin Court of Appeals holding that the Texas Railroad Commission must consider traffic issues in deciding whether to issue a permit for an injection well to Pioneer Exploration, Ltd. in Wise County. In its decision, the Court held that, in considering whether issuance of the permit was "in the public interest," the RRC need not consider the adverse impact on roads and traffic caused by truck traffic to and from the injection well.

Continue reading "Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Citizens Complaining of Injection Well" »

The EPA has issued its draft plan to study the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water in the U.S. Two state regulatory authorities have absolved frac'ed wells from responsibility for contaminating drinking water in Colorado and Texas. Maryland's top einvornmental regulator urged lawmakers to impose a two-year moratorium on frac'ing, as Maryland's legislature considers additional laws to regulate the practice. Meanwhile, the boom in shale gas drilling continues.

 

Continue reading "More About Hydraulic Fracturing in the News" »

Here is the closing statement of Range Resources filed with the Texas Railroad Commission after its hearing on complaints that Range's Barnett Shale wells in Parker County have contaminated groundwater.  It provides a good summary of the events to date and the evidence produced at the hearing.  Range Production Company Closing Statement.pdf

Here is a link to a summary of the Range dispute prepared by Gene Powell, Editor of the Powell Barnett Shale Newsletter.

Josh Fox's movie Gasland has been nominated for an academy award for best documentary. Gasland, widely criticized by the oil and gas industry, alleges that hydraulic fracturing is the cause of contamination of underground water resources across the country. (See my previous post about controversy surrounding the movie here.) The nomination, and the Fox's movie about the alleged dangers of frac'ing, have made him into a celebrity.

In response to the Oscar nomination, Energy in Depth, a website sponsored by oil and gas associations including the Independent Petroleum Association, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners' Association, the Independent Oil & Gas Association, and Colorado OIl and Gas Association, has published a letter (Energy In Depth letter.pdf) addressed to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In the letter, Energy in Depth calls the film an "expression of stylized fiction" not meeting the Academy's criteria for a documentary. The letter says that the movie misstates the law and the rules, mischaracterizes the frac'ing process, and "flat-out makes stuff up."

Josh Fox does not take this lying down. He has published a detailed rebuttal of Energy in Depth's letter.  Josh has own his own website, www.gaslandthemovie.com, and his own facebook page about the movie and the frac'ing debate, and he was even awarded the Yoko Ono "Grant for Peace." Clearly, he is enjoying his celebrity. Josh's rebuttal is no small refutation. It runs to 38 pages and contains responses from his "amazing team of experts," including Ron Bishop, PhD, lecturer in chemistry and biochemistry at SUNY Oneonta, Anthony Ingraffea, PhD, the D.C. Baum professor of engineering at Cornell,and Weston Wilson, a retired EPA engineer.  Energy in Depth's letter to the Academy is not likely to lessen Josh's time in the limelight and may actually increase his chances of grabbing that Oscar.

Clearly, the controversy over frac'ing is not going away soon. The Washington Post reported on Monday that the county commissioners of Garrett County, Maryland, denied a permit to Carrizo Marcellus Inc. to drill a well in the county, citing concerns about pollution from frac'ing, and the State of Maryland recenlty declined to issue permits to Chief Oil & Gas and Samson Resources to drill in Garrett County, opting to wait for improved drilling technology to protect the environment, even though, according to a spokesman for the Maryland energy department, 1800 gas wells have been frac'ed in neighboring Virginia with no reports of well water contamination.  The controversy has even reached Texas, where Range Resources is in the middle of a fight with the EPA over alleged contamination of groundwater in the Barnett Shale. If the industry wants to fight with Hollywood, it will have to do better than Energy in Depth's effort.

 

Last week, a hearing was held before examiners at the Texas Railroad Commission to determine the source of water well contamination in Parker County. The Environmental Protection Agency had previously entered an emergency order finding that Range Resources was responsible for charging rural water wells with natural gas in Parker County, a finding that Range has vehemently denied. The Railroad Commission called the hearing after the EPA issued its order, to receive facts and testimony on the source of the contamination.

I have posted previously about this controversy, here, here, and here.

Range contends that the water wells are contaminated from gas migrating from a shallow gas-bearing formation just below the water table, the Strawn formation.  The EPA's order says that it did an isotopic fingerprint analysis of the gas found in the water wells matched the gas from Range's nearby wells producing from the Barnett Shale.

Range hired its own experts to do an analysis of gas from the water wells. They concluded that the gas came from the shallow Strawn sands, and that the "fingerprint" of the gas was inconsistent with gas produced from the Barnett Shale. They said the Strawn gas contains high levels of nitrogen not found in the Barnett Shale gas. Nitrogen levels of the gases were apparently not tested by the EPA. Range's expert report can be found here.

EPA representatives declined to attend the hearing. Instead, EPA filed suit in federal district court in Dallas seeking to enforce its emergency order. See copy of complaint here: Range complaint.pdf 

Range sought to depose EPA personnel involved in the investigation for the RRC hearing, but EPA has opposed Range's effort. It removed the motion for subpoena to federal district court in Austin. Last week, Judge Lee Yeakel ordered EPA to produce a representative to answer questions about the investigation. "I think we're dealing with parallel proceedings here [of the EPA and Railroad Commission] that are of extreme significance and will be significant around the country, based on the amount of publicity that [natural] gas and groundwater is getting in virtually every publication and every media outlet that there is," Yeakel said. "This has become a hot-button issue in the country." The RRC has held the record open in its hearing so that the EPA witness's testimony can be included in the record.

Range has also filed an appeal of the EPA emergency order with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

In light of the rash of cases being filed by landowners in the Barnett Shale alleging groundwater contamination, the Range-EPA fight may have significance well beyond the water wells involved in the case. Range appears resolved to prove that it is not responsible for the contamination. The case could be the first in Texas, and maybe the first in the nation, to finally have a court determine whether there is any merit to allegations of groundwater contamination being caused by fracing of wells.

Dallas attorney Windle Turley has filed three lawsuits in federal court in Dallas on behalf of landowners alleging contamination of their groundwater by Barnett Shale Wells: one on behalf of Jim and Linda Scoma of Johnson County, against Chesapeake, filed last June; one on behalf of Doug and Diana Harris, against Devon Energy, and one on behalf of Grace Mitchell against Chesapeake and Encana. The suits contend that plaintiffs' groundwater has been contaminated by drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations. A copy of the Harrises' suit can be viewed here.  Turley says more such suits will follow. Turley's website has a page dedicated to such suits, which says that, "when hydro-fracking occurs, it is possible for the property owner's groundwater to become contaminated and/or for gases to be forced into the groundwater. When this happens, the oil company may be liable to the property owner for property damages and injuries. ... The Turley Law Firm is very concerned over the damage done and future risk to property and individuals in the Barnett Shale area, and is filing damage suits on behalf of property owners." Groundwater contamination lawsuits may become new fertile ground for plaintiffs' attorneys.

Range Resources has written to Al Armendariz in EPA's Dallas office again asserting that it is not responsible for the groundwater contamination in Parker County.  Range's letter can be viewed here:  12-27 Armendariz letter.pdf  For my previous posts on this controversy, go here and here.

Range met with EPA staff on December 15, and it says that, as a result of the meeting, Range and EPA agree that "hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett Shale cannot be the cause of natural gas occurring in the domestic water wells identified by the EPA."  Range also made clear in the letter that, while it was complying with the requirements of EPA's order, it did not believe that the EPA had authority to issue its order, since Range was not responsible for the pollution and the order was issued "without any prior notice or opportunity for Range to present important objective facts."