May 1, 2010
Water withdrawal violated drilling permit
Kathy Mellott
kmellott@tribdem.com
This is not my work - but a great article
Source
http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x537291141/State-Water-withdrawal-violated-drilling-permit
ROCKWOOD — A Texas company is in violation of its permit for the drilling of a Marcellus Shale gas well because the company withdrew water from the Casselman River without approval, a state official said. Chief Gas & Oil, under a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection, recently opened a second natural gas extraction well site in Jefferson Township, Somerset County.
DEP spokeswoman Helen Humphreys said the company had been approved to pull water from the Casselman River for the drilling of its Saylor Well in Middle Creek Township, opened in 2009. But the permit did not include this latest endeavor. “They said they misunderstood,” Humphreys said. “They thought they were approved to remove water for these newer wells and they will be coming in to discuss this with us.”
Humphreys said the action is a violation, but said she is not in a position to discuss specifics about enforcement.
Well drilling operations have popped up across the state as gas and oil companies race to reach the rich underground natural gases found in the Marcellus Shale beds running under about two-thirds of Pennsylvania and in a number of other states.
The Saylor Well was completed last year. Drilling on the new well in Jefferson Township has been completed, but the fracking – use of water to fracture rock needed to gain access to the gas – is not yet done, said Chief Gas & Oil spokeswoman Kristi Gittins. The state was made aware of the permit violation after some Somerset County residents questioned the withdrawals by tankers using a boat docking site at Roberts Landing near Rockwood. Gittins said the company misunderstood that the permit was for a specific well.
“We were in violation to remove water from that source,” she said. “We made a mistake by withdrawing water for that particular well.” The violation is not expected to impact the Jefferson Township well development because the company has the water it needs through other approved sources, Gittins said.
Drilling is done primarily with air, but the water is needed for part of the fracking process, she said
The water haulers stirred the ire of locals after the tankers using Roberts Landing made access difficult for others attempting to use the launch.
At one point, large rocks positioned to push the tankers back were removed, said members of the Casselman River Watershed Association. Damage also resulted to the cement structure, said Roger Latuch, president of the watershed association. Roberts Landing was one of five docks built by volunteers with funding from a number of sources including private businesses, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and Somerset County Tourism grants, Latuch said.
For more of this article go to
http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x537291141/State-Water-withdrawal-violated-drilling-permit
Again not my work - great article
******
Grassroots Community based solutions for energy conservation, watershed management, alternative and renewable energy, biomass, stormwater management, land-based wastewater disposal, LEED-AP, Green Associate, continuing education training for professionals and water reuse, and outreach to Private Well Owners in the United States.
Blog Listings
Water Research - Private Well Owner Outreach Assistance
Showing posts with label marcellus shale permitting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marcellus shale permitting. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
PA House Bill 2213 Oil and Gas Legislation Pennsylvania
The following are my comments related to PA House Bill 2213 - the full text of the regulations can be found at the following website.
1.I like the provisions for inspections - but does the PADEP field staff have the training they need and do they have the tools and equipment to really inspect a cement seal that is 2000 feet down? Therefore, the bill should require certification by the driller and a third party inspection service- paid by the Gas Company.
2. Fees should cover the cost of inspections, additional water testing, responding to complaints, etc - the full cost of the program.
3. I am ok with the 2500 foot from the drilling pad, but there are no provisions for the horizontal leg of the well and the 6 month time frame is inadequate. Point groundwater moves slowing - less than 0.1 ft per year to 3 ft per day - I would recommend at least 1 year to 2 years may be better.
For the horizontal leg, the gas companies can create fractures out 100 to 400 feet from the horizontal leg. Therefore, the testing zone should be 2500 foot, plus at least 100 foot on either side of the horizontal leg of the well. This could be adjusted based on the final report for the well when the company reports the extent of the horizontal fracturing.
4. Section 4 - if the specific chemical composition can not be disclosed the trade name should be released, MSDS sheet, and volume of the chemical used. All this information should be disclosed in the permit application and in a well completion report that is submitted for each well in a timely manner.
This information should also be available at the municipality were the well is located- so the public has access.
5. Bonding requirements seem better. Also - I support that no blanket bonds be issued for the Marcellus Shale and each well not drilling pad should be considered as a well. Therefore, a drilling pad with 6 wells should be six bonds.
6. Local ordinances should be permitted to control or prevent installation of well, temporary structures, or permanant structures in floodplains. Plus local agency should control nuisance issues, road bonding, road use and access, and the accessory development that will likely occur, such as field offices, temporary septic permits, holding tanks, etc.
7. Regulations should apply to Marcellus Shale and other other formations where the development technique is depolyed.
Thanks Brian Oram, PG B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. 15 Hillcrest Drive Dallas, PA 18612 Thanks for your leadership
1.I like the provisions for inspections - but does the PADEP field staff have the training they need and do they have the tools and equipment to really inspect a cement seal that is 2000 feet down? Therefore, the bill should require certification by the driller and a third party inspection service- paid by the Gas Company.
2. Fees should cover the cost of inspections, additional water testing, responding to complaints, etc - the full cost of the program.
3. I am ok with the 2500 foot from the drilling pad, but there are no provisions for the horizontal leg of the well and the 6 month time frame is inadequate. Point groundwater moves slowing - less than 0.1 ft per year to 3 ft per day - I would recommend at least 1 year to 2 years may be better.
For the horizontal leg, the gas companies can create fractures out 100 to 400 feet from the horizontal leg. Therefore, the testing zone should be 2500 foot, plus at least 100 foot on either side of the horizontal leg of the well. This could be adjusted based on the final report for the well when the company reports the extent of the horizontal fracturing.
4. Section 4 - if the specific chemical composition can not be disclosed the trade name should be released, MSDS sheet, and volume of the chemical used. All this information should be disclosed in the permit application and in a well completion report that is submitted for each well in a timely manner.
This information should also be available at the municipality were the well is located- so the public has access.
5. Bonding requirements seem better. Also - I support that no blanket bonds be issued for the Marcellus Shale and each well not drilling pad should be considered as a well. Therefore, a drilling pad with 6 wells should be six bonds.
6. Local ordinances should be permitted to control or prevent installation of well, temporary structures, or permanant structures in floodplains. Plus local agency should control nuisance issues, road bonding, road use and access, and the accessory development that will likely occur, such as field offices, temporary septic permits, holding tanks, etc.
7. Regulations should apply to Marcellus Shale and other other formations where the development technique is depolyed.
Thanks Brian Oram, PG B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc. 15 Hillcrest Drive Dallas, PA 18612 Thanks for your leadership
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)