May 2014 • Issue 49

The

PIOGA pressThe monthly newsletter of the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association

(Continues on page 38)

(Continues on page 2)

®

The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRCC)has raised a wide range of concerns about a major pack-age of changes proposed by the Department of

Environmental Protection to its oil and gas regulations, recom-mending that the department take another look at many parts ofthe proposal and go through a second round of comment-and-review before the rules are finalized.

The five-member IRCC is an oversight panel that analyzesrules and regulations proposed by state agencies with regard tostatutory authority, legislative intent, public interest, economic orfiscal impact and clarity. Regulations must have IRRC approvalbefore becoming final.

The public-comment period closed March 14 on DEP’s pro-posed amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78, Subchapter C,altering existing requirements governing surface activities associ-ated with oil and gas well development (April PIOGA Press,page 1). The IRRC then had 30 days in which to review andcomment on the rulemaking. The commission issued its 19 pagesof comments on April 14. The IRRC’s comments are directed tothe Environmental Quality Board, or EQB, the entity that pro-poses regulations on behalf of DEP (EQB and DEP are usedinterchangeably in this article).

The IRCC opened its comments by acknowledging that DEPhad an imposing task in devising a set of regulations that coverthe gamut of oil and gas surface activities, address the manystatutory changes made by the Act 13 of 2012 and meet the crite-ria of the Regulatory Review Act. The commission also noted thelarge volume of comments on the proposed regulations, comingfrom legislators, local governments, federal agencies, oil and gasinterests, and environmental groups—many of whom had oppos-ing viewpoints on the same provisions. The IRRC then offeredthis advice as a prelude to the balance of its comments:

Through these comments, we encourage EQB to continue itsefforts to strike the appropriate balance of protecting the

IRCC raises concerns about Chapter 78 oil and gas rulemakinghealth, safety, environment and property of Pennsylvania cit-izens while allowing for the optimal development of the oiland gas industry in Pennsylvania. Input from legislators andinterested parties should continue to be included as EQBmoves forward with this proposal. We also ask EQB to con-tinue to consult with the Oil and Gas Technical AdvisoryBoard (TAB), created by Act 13, as it develops the final-form regulation. In addition, we recommend EQB issue anAdvance Notice of Final Rulemaking to help facilitate thereaching of consensus on the issues this proposal presents.

A summary of the bulk of the IRRC’s comments follows.Many of the commission’s points echo the concerns raised inPIOGA’s own comments. The IRRC’s comments are very sensi-tive to the burden the proposed regulations would impose on theoil and gas industry, and they question whether DEP is properlyasserting its authority in many provisions. One person who hasbeen deeply involved in the issue on the industry’s behalfobserved, “It’s obvious that the IRRC gets it.”

Proper comparison shows PA oneof the highest oil & gas tax statesBy Don Nestor, PIOGA Tax Committee Chairmanand Kevin Moody, Vice President & General Counsel

The March 17 report by the Independent Fiscal Office(IFO) entitled “Natural Gas Extraction: An Interstate TaxComparison” began with a statement that “Pennsylvania is

the only state with significant natural gas production that doesnot impose a traditional severance taxbased on the volume or market value ofgas production.” Section 3 of that reportstates, “Many taxes and fees, such assales and use taxes, are not easily quan-tified and do not lend themselves tointerstate comparisons.”

It is simply not true that the signifi-cant costs of state sales taxes are noteasily quantified. The scope of the salestax exemption for oil and gas operationsis universally defined by the “direct

Babich, Hoover join PIOGA board . . . . . . . . . 5House passes lease-recording bill . . . . . . . . . 6New legislation of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Support PIOGA’s PAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7EPA definition change could cause trouble . . 9Permit fee increase finalized. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Exemption 38 compliance demonstrations . . 13DCNR issues gas-development report . . . . . 15Community environmental projects. . . . . . . . 16Protecting yourself from Lyme disease. . . . . 20Impact of proposed PSM change . . . . . . . . . 22April Spud Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Coming up short in impact fee reporting . . . 31PEEP teacher-training update . . . . . . . . . . . 32Shell updates cracker plant progress . . . . . . 33Candidates and severance taxes . . . . . . . . . 34EPA seeks input on HF chemicals . . . . . . . . 35Ruling sought on small LNG plants . . . . . . . 35Member Profile: Sooner Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . 36PIOGA Member News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Oil & Gas Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Calendar of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46New PIOGA members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46PIOGA contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Page 2 The PIOGA Press

Tax report: Continued from page 1

use” standard. The degree of statutory directives concerningapplication of the direct use standard varies from state to state.The amount of administrative discretion in applying the directuse standard is greater in states like Pennsylvania—with a lessprescriptive statute—than in states like West Virginia with itsmore specific statutory provisions concerning what tangible per-sonal property and services are directly used and what are not.By not allowing for the significant added sales tax paid by thosewho drill wells in Pennsylvania compared to other states, theIFO has incorrectly concluded that oil and gas state taxes arelowest in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue has interpreted(through regulations) Pennsylvania’s less prescriptive statute tosignificantly restrict use of the “Direct Use in Natural GasProduction Exemption” from state sales tax. It may be more orless for a particular well, but on average as much as 50 percentof the cost of a new unconventional gas well drilled inPennsylvania is subject to 6-percent sales taxes of approximately$250,000 per well (assuming an $8.3 million well cost). The IFOcompares Pennsylvania oil and gas taxes to several other states,including West Virginia, which does have a severance tax andalso a 6-percent sales tax. The IFO should have included salestaxes in its analysis, and, if it did, its conclusion would have tobe adjusted for the fact that West Virginia exempts ALL costs ofwell drilling and production from sales taxation. These additionalPennsylvania sales taxes are also paid in the year of investmentrather than—as severance taxes—over the assessment periodequal to the life of the well, which could be 20 to 30 years.

The IFO also failed to recognize that West Virginia’s 5-per-cent severance tax is effectively 4.25 percent due to a safe harborallowance of 15 percent of the sales price at the sales meter tocalculate the net value of the gas at the well head.

Comparing the approximate added sales tax paid on aPennsylvania well plus the local impact fee to total oil and gastaxes in other States, Pennsylvania ranks as one of the higher-taxstates on the oil and gas industry rather than the lowest, andshows that the comparison to West Virginia in particular isflawed. ■

CorrectionAn article on page 38 of the April issue mistakenly describedBradley Smith of Steptoe & Johnson as a former chairman ofthe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Correctly, he waswith the Federal Election Commission.

February 2014 Page 3May 2014 Page 3

RLA Premier Conference Center 28 Meeting Rooms

Full Service – One Price

Expectations Exceeded

� Customized Meeting Packages

� Retreat-like Setting � Ergonomic Furniture Design � State-of-the-art Technology � Executive Style Food

Service

For inquires or a personal tour, call

724-741-1024 info@theRLA.org

Regional Learning Alliance at Cranberry Woods 850 Cranberry Woods Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066

www.theRLA.org

Page 4 The PIOGA Press

February 2014 Page 5May 2014 Page 5

Babich, Hoover join PIOGA board

Mary Anna Babich of Dawood Engineering and JimHoover with Phoenix Energy Productions, Inc. havebeen named to the PIOGA Board of Directors. They

fill the unexpired terms of Cathy Kirsch of Oil & GasManagement, Inc. and Frederick Fesenmyer of Minard Run OilCompany, both of whom resigned recently.

Hoover is president of Phoenix Energy Productions, whichprovides engineering services to the oil and gas industry. Underhis leadership, Phoenix supervised the drilling and completion ofthe first onshore gas well drilled in the province of Nova Scotia,since 2002 has funded and managed annual limited partnershipsthat have drilled more than 60 wells in the Appalachian Basin,supervised the drilling and completion of the Marcellus Shale discovery well in 2003, and in 2010 became the firstPennsylvania oil and gas company to successfully complete hori-zontal natural gas production wells in the traditional UpperDevonian sandstone reservoirs of Pennsylvania.

Prior to working at Phoenix, Hoover held positions at CNGProducing Company, Peoples Natural Gas Company, Apollo GasCompany and Delta Drilling Company. He is a 1974 graduate ofIndiana University of Pennsylvania with a BS in geology andcompleted the executive MBA program at the University ofPittsburgh in 1988.

After receiving a BA in chemistry and minors in mathematicsand management from Seton Hill College, Babich entered theenvironmental consulting arena, where she assisted clients withrenewable energy projects located on landfills and was the fieldremediation project manager for a natural gas company. In 2008,she entered the industry as the supervisor of permitting forEXCO Resources. In 2009, she took the position of directorwater resources at EQT Production Company. Currently, she isdirector of environmental services at Dawood Engineering, is thepresident of the Appalachian Chapter of Women’s EnergyNetworking and is also a finalist for the 2014 WashingtonCounty Chamber of Commerce ATHENA Awards.

Babich is an active member of PIOGA’s EnvironmentalCommittee participated in the PIOGA Chapter 78 task force.She was the former chair of the Marcellus Shale Coalition’sWater Resources Subcommittee, Environmental StewardshipCommittee and Pre-drill Database Committee. She was also amember of Governor Rendell’s Gas Migration andEnvironmental Task Force.

In addition to welcoming these two new directors, PIOGAextends its gratitude for the service of Fred Fesenmyer and CathyKirsch. Fesenmyer served for many years as chairman of thePennsylvania Oil & Gas Association prior to the 2010 mergerwith the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania toform PIOGA. ■

Mary Anna Babich Jim Hoover

Serving the Oil & Gas Industry for over 90 years.

MRC CORPORATE OFFICE

Austintown, OH 330-799-1100 Bradford, PA 814-368-8145 Buckhannon, WV 304-472-3565 Carrollton, OH 330-627-0259 Columbus, OH 614-475-4033 Corbin, KY 606-523-9640 Horseheads, NY 607-739-8575 Hurricane, WV 304-562-5724 Indiana, PA 724-349-6823 Williamsport, PA 570-748-5276 Norton, VA 276-679-6452 Wooster, OH 330-264-0077

Page 6 The PIOGA Press

House passes lease-recording bill

By a vote of 195-2, the House of Representatives on April30 approved amended legislation addressing the record-ing of blanket lease assignments—a practice that has

been a point of contention in some counties with a large amountof oil and gas activity.

As originally introduced in March 2013, House Bill 942would have prohibited the transfer of multiple properties withone instrument, except for mortgage assignments. The legislationcame in response to the January 2012 Commonwealth Courtdecision in Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Golden, in which theWayne County recorder of deeds refused, based upon an internalpolicy against multiple blanket assignments, to record four multi-ple-lease assignments of 211 total leases that Chesapeake hadsubmitted (February 2012 PIOGA Press, page 24)..

Commonwealth Court ruled that a county recorder of deedsmust accept and record any document that meets the relevantstatutory requirements. The court also rejected the WayneCounty recorder’s argument that Chesapeake’s multiple-leaseassignments were not in a format that allowed each of the prop-erty owners to be indexed as parties and to link the original leas-es in the office computer system. Commonwealth Court indicat-ed that state law does not require that the assignments be indexedas to anyone other than the assignor and assignee in the transac-tion.

As introduced, HB 942 would have required a separate filingfor each lease, along with individual transaction and recordingfees, thereby prohibiting multiple blanket assignments. Butbefore being considered by the full House, the bill’s primarysponsor, Representative Sandra Major (R-Susquehanna), offeredan amendment that largely revised the measure to:

• Narrow the scope of the bill to apply only to oil and gaslease assignments.

• Direct the recorder of deeds to index all gas leases. • Give the recorder of deeds discretion to refuse to accept an

oil or gas deed that contains of 50 or more leases.• Stipulate the types of information required in order to file a

gas lease with the county recorder of deeds, including the namesof the lessors, prior recording information for the leasehold andidentification of the properties involved.

• Authorize the recorder of deeds to impose an additional feeof $6 to index each lease.

Prior to this amendment, legislative leaders had beeninformed of industry’s concerns that the bill unfairly singled outthe oil and gas industry and would require all counties to engagein the time-consuming practice of indexing thousands of names,a practice that is not required now and is voluntary. Industry alsosuggested viable alternative procedures, but they were notreflected in the amendment.

As of this writing, HB 942 had not been assigned to commit-tee in the Senate, and its likelihood of passage in that chamber isunknown. ■

New legislation of interest

Hardly a week goes by when we don’t see notices of intro-ductions of legislation of interest to the industry. Here isa quick look at a few of the bills that have been offered

recently by our state senators and representatives. It is by nomeans a comprehensive list!

House Bill 2175, sponsored by Representative Kathy Rapp(R-Warren), establishes the Pennsylvania Grade CrudeDevelopment Advisory Council. The council would be chargedwith examining current Department of Environmental Protectionoil and gas regulations and policies and their impact on the con-ventional oil and gas industry; developing a regulatory schemethat provides for environmental oversight and enforcementspecifically applicable to conventional operators to help ensurethe industry’s long-term viability; and issuing a report with itsfindings and recommendations within 180 days.

Introduced April 10, HB 2175 was referred to the HouseCommittee on Environmental Resources and Energy. A compan-ion bill, Senate Bill 1310, was introduced March 28 by SenateAmos Hutchinson (R-Venango) and assigned to the SenateEnvironmental Resources and Energy Committee.

SB 1349, sponsored by Senator Edwin Erickson (R-Delaware), creates a severance tax on all natural gas productionat the rate of 4 percent of the gross value of the gas severed atthe wellhead. The revenue collected by the tax will be depositedinto the Severance Tax for Education Fund, which will be dedi-cated to funding public education. The bill was referred to theSenate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee onApril 28.

SB 1359, offered by Senator Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny), wouldeliminate the Act 13 impact fee and institute a severance tax of25 cents per Mcf that would rise with increases in the price ofgas. The existing funding distribution formula will remain thesame for the first $200 million. All additional funding would bedirected to the General Fund. The legislation also would:

• Require a driller of an unconventional well to provide noticeto property owners and municipalities within 5,000 feet of thewell site prior to the drilling permit application being submittedto DEP.

• Use the edge of the well pad, instead of the bore hole, as theboundary to begin all measurements for required distances fornotification.

• Establish setbacks from the edge of the well pad of 1,500feet from buildings, 2,500 feet from drinking water sources,1,000 feet from exceptional value water sources and 500 feetfrom any other body of water. It also eliminates DEP’s ability towaive these requirements and prohibits drilling with the bound-ary of a wetland.

• Add proximity to water sources, including trout streams andwetlands, as conditions for DEP to consider when reviewing awell application, and would further allow the department to denyor condition the permit based on seven possible impacts.

• Require that potential damage to ecosystems and wildlife bea consideration in the approval process for water managementplans.

• Require that an operator that pollutes a public or private

Support the companies that support yourassociation with their advertising

February 2014 Page 7May 2014 Page 7

drinking water supply meet a higher standard than current lawfor replacement water.

• Amend how trade secrets are handled by DEP in relation topublic access.

• Clarify that doctors would have immediate access to any andall information that might be related to a patient’s condition, andthat the doctor is free to share that information with the patient, acounty or state department of health, or other health agency orassociation.

• Provide that first responders may obtain the drilling reportinformation for any well to which they are responding in anemergency, including proprietary information with regard to

hydraulic fracturing chemicals.• Increase bonding requirements.• Increase criminal penalties related to violations of the Oil

and Gas Act.• Delete Chapter 33 (Local Ordinances Relating to Oil and

Gas Operations) to restore zoning and land use decisions tomunicipalities.

• Impose a moratorium on any additional leasing of state for-est land for two years.

The bill was referred to the Senate Environmental Resourcesand Energy Committee on April 30. ■

PAC support neededWithout a doubt, the oil and natural gas industry is facing some of the most significant challenges ever in theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have challenges in the marketplace, pricing and transportation costs, aswell as a regulatory environment that is getting worse almost daily. Virtually every day we are seeing more leg-islative challenges as we face a litany of questions from legislators and calls for even further oversight of ourindustry.

If that is not enough, gubernatorial candidates and legislators are calling for a severance tax. As the industrystruggles to stay alive in Pennsylvania and compete for capital against other U.S. shale plays, the addition of agross tax from anywhere from 4 percent to as high as 10 percent could ultimately drive a stake through the heartof the industry here in the Keystone State.

We do have legislators supportive of the industry in Harrisburg. We need to support those folks as they supportus. PIOGA has a political action committee fund that is never funded at levels we should expect. We need yourpersonal financial support to fund our PAC. We get requests for contributions daily from representatives andsenators. The cold, hard fact is that these folks do need support and it is far easier to get their attention if youare supporting them.

I ask you to please consider contributing to the PAC fund at as high a level you are personally comfortable tohelp YOUR association help YOU in Harrisburg.

Please make your check out to PIOGA PAC and mail to PIOGA, 115 VIP Drive, Suite 210, Wexford, PA 15090. Nocompany checks; only personal checks can be accepted. Minimum contribution is $50. A form for use in submit-ting your check is available on our website, www.pioga.org; click on Members at the top of the page and thenscroll down to the Membership Matters section.

Lou D’AmicoPresident & Executive Director

Physical and Hedging Expertise for the O&G Industry

Art Cipriani Frank Kronz Phill Sabol

www.asset-risk.com Phone: 412-886-1800

Houston Pittsburgh Chicago Denver

Page 8 The PIOGA Press

February 2014 Page 9May 2014 Page 9

Proposed definition of ‘watersof the United States’ wouldbring significant changesto oil and gas activities

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)on April 21 issued a proposed rule that, if promulgated,

would significantly expand the agencies’ jurisdiction over“waters of the United States.” Although the EPA has asserted thatthe proposed rule would not expand the types of waters thatwould be jurisdictional, the private sector (including the oil andgas industry and other industries) have widely disagreed withthis assertion. Rather, the proposed rule is expected to have seri-ous repercussions on stream/wetland permitting, spill reporting,remediation and spill response planning associated with the con-struction, operation and modification of oil and gas facilities,including well pads, compressor pads and pipelines. The publiccomment period for the proposed rule is open until July 21.

How did we get here?Eleven subparts of federal regulations impose requirements

based on the existence of, or proximity to, a “water of the UnitedStates,” also referred to as a “navigable water.” The agenciesissued the proposed rule to clarify the definition of “waters of theUnited States” following interpretations of this term in a series ofUnited States Supreme Court cases, including the seminalRapanos v. United States in 2006 and several subsequent guid-ance documents.

Those cases and guidance documents generally outlined twotests to determine whether a water was a “water of the UnitedStates.” The first, more straightforward test focused on whetherthe water was a traditional navigable water, relatively permanentwater or connected to a relatively permanent water. The second,more subjective test was whether the water had a “significantnexus” to a waterbody traditionally recognized as a water of theUnited States by significantly affecting the chemical, physical orbiological integrity of the downstream traditional navigablewater. The majority of the discussion in the cases and guidancefocused on the factors involved in evaluating “significant nexus.”Despite this guidance, the application of the “significant nexus”test on a site-specific basis continues to be confusing to industryand others and is an item of debate with permitting agencies.

What does the proposed rule change?The proposed definition identifies seven categories of jurisdic-

tional waters. While the wording of many of these categories issubstantially the same as previously contained in federal regula-tions, newly added definitions of several key terms would broad-en the scope of jurisdiction. In particular, the agencies have pro-posed definitions for “tributary,” “neighboring,” “floodplain” and“riparian area,” as well as “significant nexus.” The agencies havealso proposed to formalize several limited exclusions from thedefinition of water of the United States.

Tributary. The agencies’ definition of “tributary” includesany water with a bed, bank and ordinary high water mark(OHWM) and specifically includes all perennial, intermittent and

ephemeral streams and wetlands, lakes andponds. Rather than requiring a significantnexus to be demonstrated for waters withouta relatively-permanent flow, the proposedrule concludes that any water meeting thedefinition of a “tributary” would have a sig-nificant nexus, without any further examina-tion.

As a result, the “tributary” definitionwould likely result in longer reaches beingjurisdictional, with jurisdiction starting fur-ther upstream. The proposed rule alsoallows the tributary to continue, even ifthere are “breaks” in the tributary or thestream segment flows underground for aperiod of time. This definition expands thelikelihood that a tributary would be foundand that the tributary length would belonger than typically delineated using theprior guidance. The definition would alsorequire evaluation of a larger area to deter-mine whether a tributary would be impactedwithin the limit of disturbancebecause a bed, bank or OHWMmay not be apparent within thefootprint itself.

Adjacent water. In the prior guidance documents, wetlandsadjacent to certain waters were considered to be jurisdictional,with “adjacent” defined as “bordering, contiguous or neighbor-ing.” The proposed definition of “adjacent water” would beexpanded to all types of waters, rather than only wetlands.Further, the agencies added a definition of “neighboring” thatwould greatly expand the scope of the term to mean any watersin the floodplain or riparian area of a water of the United Statesor any water with a shallow subsurface or confined surfacehydrologic connection to a water of the United States. Like atributary, adjacent waters would be considered to have a signifi-cant nexus to a water of the United States, without demonstratinga significant nexus on a case-by-case basis.

The new definitions associated with adjacent waters wouldsignificantly expand the scope of waters subject to federal regu-lation to beyond waters that were previously considered to bejurisdictional. In addition, rather than clarifying the scope ofjurisdictional waters, the proposed definition of “neighboring,” iffinalized, is expected to open the door to subjective interpreta-tions and debate with the agencies.

Significant nexus and other waters. Although a focus ofprevious case law and guidance, the “significant nexus” test setforth in the proposed rule would only apply to determinations ofwhether a water (other than those included in the six defined cat-egories), either individually or in combination with other similar-ly situated waters in a watershed, would have a significant effecton the chemical, physical or biological integrity of a water of theUnited States.

Given the broad definitions of “tributary” and “adjacentwaters,” few waters would be expected to fall within the categoryof “other waters.” However, this category would act as a broad“catch-all” for waters that, on their own, would not be consid-ered to have a significant nexus (and therefore, would not bejurisdictional). Such a subjective standard would leave the door

Lisa M.Bruderly, Esq.

Jean M.Mosites, Esq.

Authors:

Page 10 The PIOGA Press

open for arguments that many more remote waters (includingmanmade waters) could be considered to be jurisdictional.

ExclusionsIn addition to identifying waters that meet the “waters of the

United States” definition, the proposed rule also identifies watersthat would be excluded from the definition. These non-jurisdic-tional waters would include gullies, rills, certain criteria-specificditches and ponds, and groundwater that is drained through sub-surface drainage systems. While these exclusions, on their face,may seem broad, they would be limited to specific activities. Forexample, ditches would be excluded, so long as they: (1) wereexcavated in uplands, drained only uplands and did not haveperennial flow; or (2) did not contribute flow (directly or indi-rectly) to a jurisdictional water.

These exclusions would have limited utility in the context ofreal-life oil and gas applications. For example, ditches aroundwell pads that convey groundwater, in addition to surface runoff,would, arguably, no longer be draining only upland areas andmay no longer be exempt. As a result, these exclusions should beclosely examined before being applied.

How do these changes affect oil and gas activities?The proposed rule would have significant effects on the

design, construction, operation, and maintenance of oil and gasfacilities, especially with regard to stream/wetland delineationand permitting, spill reporting and spill response planning.

Stream/wetland identification and permitting. With regardto stream/wetland determinations, the expanded definition wouldenlarge the scope of delineations to ensure that less apparent fea-

tures, such as shallow subsurface hydrologic connections, wouldbe considered and evaluated.

As more waters were considered to be jurisdictional, moreimpacts would be expected to be identified. Although operatorsin Pennsylvania generally rely on the Pennsylvania StateProgrammatic General Permit (PASPGP-4) for federal wetlandand stream permitting, the increased identification of impacts tojurisdictional waters may exceed the PASPGP-4 eligibilitythreshold, such that an individual permit would be required.

Preparation of an individual (joint) permit application requiressignificant time and effort, including the preparation of a restora-tion/mitigation plan. Issuance of the permit itself may take a yearor more. Such delays have serious consequences to the oil andgas industry, by postponing the construction of a well pad, accessroad, or other oil or gas facility and potentially compromising anoperator’s ability to hold a lease, develop a unit or keep a rigoperational.

At future sites, operators would need to evaluate and revisesite design and construction processes to minimize the creationof new waters of the United States, including evaluating ways tomodify current drainage ditch systems around well pads. Atexisting sites, operators would need to evaluate existing drainageditches and in-ground impoundments to determine whether theywere now jurisdictional and whether site modifications or expan-sions would require permitting.

Other significant consequences. The proposed rule’s impactwould expand beyond evaluations of wetlands and streams.Because the proposed rule would revise the definition of “watersof the United States” in 11 subparts of federal regulations, rulespertaining to spill reporting and remediation, SPCC plan applica-bility and NPDES permitting would also be affected. For exam-ple, where a cleanup would impact waters that were not previ-ously considered to be jurisdictional, permitting may be required.In other instances, the proposed rule would affect the require-ment to have a SPCC plan by increasing the likelihood that anoil discharge could reasonably be expected to enter a navigablewater (i.e., water of the United States).

What can be done?The public comment period for the proposed rule currently is

open until July 21, and many believe this period will be extend-ed. Companies are encouraged to provide policy, legal and/orscientific arguments regarding this proposed rule, through indi-vidual comments or trade organization efforts. ■

f rom explorat ion to marketReliable Resources...SM

CEC is a reliable resource in the expanding energy industry, delivering integrated engineering, ecological and environmental

Midstream markets.

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.www.cecinc.com | 800-365-2324

E x p e r i e n c eWell sites and impoundments, dams Gathering and transmission pipeline projects Compression, fractionation and other infrastructure facilities

WINNERNortheast

2013

Northeast Oil & Gas AwardsEngineering Company of the Year

Well Site Service ProsFISHING SERVICES & TOOLSRENTAL EQUIPMENT COMPLETION & SLICKLINE SERVICESAPI CERTIFIED MACHINE SHOPS ACCOMMODATIONS PIPE RECOVERY & WIRELINEPRESSURE CONTROL SERVICES

www.BlueDotInc.com | 304.842.3829

February 2014 Page 11May 2014 Page 11

Pre-Drilling Water Supply Inventory and Sampling

Post-Drilling Complaint Resolution and Investigations

Gas Well Permitting for Conventional and

Unconventional Plays

Development of High Capacity Groundwater Supply Wells

Soil & Groundwater Contamination Investigations

Assistance with Water Sourcing

Water Management Plan Preparation

SPCC/Control & Disposal Plans

Pre-Drilling Water Supply Inventory and Sampling

Post-Drilling Complaint Resolution and Investigations

Gas Well Permitting for Conventional and

Unconventional Plays

Development of High Capacity Groundwater Supply Wells

Soil & Groundwater Contamination Investigations

Assistance with Water Sourcing

Water Management Plan Preparation

SPCC/Control & Disposal Plans

Disposal Well Permitting

Erosion & Sedimentation Control Planning

Fresh Water Determination Studies

Soil and Groundwater Remediation

Stray Gas Migration Investigations

Hydrogeologic Studies

Expert Witness Testimony

Wetland Delineation and Aquatic Surveys

Disposal Well Permitting

Erosion & Sedimentation Control Planning

Fresh Water Determination Studies

Soil and Groundwater Remediation

Stray Gas Migration Investigations

Hydrogeologic Studies

Expert Witness Testimony

Wetland Delineation and Aquatic Surveys

Oil and Natural Gas Development ServicesOil and Natural Gas

Development Services

Meadville PAHouston PAWaverly NY

Visit us online at: www.moody-s.com

Groundwater & Environmental Professionals Since 1891Groundwater & Environmental Professionals Since 1891

Page 12 The PIOGA Press

The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC)has given final approval to a request to increase well per-mit fees for unconventional wells to help fund the Depart -

ment of Environmental Protection oil and gas program.The regulation approved by the IRRC on May 1 increases the

fee for unconventional horizontal wells by an average of $1,800and unconventional vertical wells by approximately $1,300. Thewell permit fee for conventional wells remains unchanged at$100.

The new fee structure takes effect 30 days after the final regu-lation is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

The well permit fee for conventional and unconventionalwells alike was $100 until October 2009, when DEP initiated asliding scale for unconventional wells based on the length of thewell bore. On average, the fee has been $3,200 for non-verticalunconventional wells and $2,000 for vertical unconventionalwells. The rulemaking switched back to a flat fee of $5,000 fornon-vertical wells and $4,200 for vertical unconventional wells.

In proposing the increase, DEP indicated the higher fees arenecessary to support current oil and gas program activities and tofund additional staff where needed. The department’s oil and gasprogram is funded entirely by permit fees, impact fee revenue,fines and penalties, and bond forfeitures. At least every threeyears, DEP is to provide and analysis of permit fees and, if nec-essary, recommend changes to ensure that the oil and gas pro-gram remains self-sustaining.

DEP provided the IRCC with an analysis showing that since2010 there has been a 22-percent decrease year-over-year in the

number of unconventional well permit applications received,while at the same time the total number of Marcellus Shale wellsdrilled and overseen by the oil and gas program increased by23.5 percent.

“This increase in workload coupled with declining permit rev-enues creates a situation where the incoming permit revenue isinsufficient to cover the current operational costs of the program,not allowing any room for flexibility in terms of future staff andresource needs,” DEP wrote. “Without additional revenue tocover future program expenses, including additional staff andtechnology, the department’s ability to provide high quality com-pliance assistance, ensure timely permitting, provide adequateinspection and enforcement operations, and leverage existingtechnology to streamline inspection and permitting activities willbe compromised.”

DEP estimates the fee increase will yield an additional $4.68million annually, based on projections of 2,600 unconventionalpermit applications per year.

When the IRRC first considered the DEP proposal lastSeptember, the commission asked the department to provide abetter justification of the need to change permit fees and to clari-fy the definition of a conventional well (December PIOGA Press,page 7). The latter issue was raised in formal comments byPIOGA in response DEP’s original proposal, which defined aconventional well as “a bore hole drilled or being drilled for thepurpose of or to be used for the production of oil or gas from aconventional formation.”

PIOGA provided a more detailed definition, to ensure that

Leader in Pit Liners, Frac Tank Liners & Pads

Stock readily availableFrac Tank Liners

• Large prefabricated one-piece liners • Durable, economic, and proven • No on-site seaming required • Superior resistance to brine, frac fluids, and chemicals

Other Products • Frac Tank Pads • Well Pad Liners • Pit Liners • Secondary Containment

ONE-DAY SHIPPING TO MARCELLUS AND UTICA

OH PANew distribution center in

Weirton, WVWV

LayfieldGroup.com/OilandGas

Call Layfield 304.975.2507

MARCELLUS / UTICA SHALE FORMATIONS

Unconventional well permit fee increase finalized

February 2014 Page 13May 2014 Page 13

DEP advises of compliancedemonstrations required forExemption 38

Several unconventional producers and the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection recently partici-pated in a conference call regarding implementation issues

associated with Exemption No. 38 as specified in DEP’sDocument No. 275-2101-003, Air Quality Permit Exemptions,amended August 10, 2013. One of the participants provided thefollowing brief summary of the call:

Operators have until May 27, 2014, to submit any delin-quent compliance demonstrations or extension requests forwells subject to the new conditional Exemption 38 (i.e.,operations that commenced after August 10, 2013). The180-day clock for demonstration of the tank compliancebegins upon tank installation, pouring foundations fortanks, etc. The department is well aware that even thoughthe tanks may be on site, there may not be any productiontaking place or emissions being emitted for quite sometime. The default compliance demonstration DEP isexpecting is the same as what is required by SubpartOOOO. If operators plan to use another method for com-pliance they will need to submit a protocol for departmen-tal approval. DEP has also given us the option to stream-line and combine the tank and well submittals by sendingin a request for extension. For instance, if we have a tanksitting on site for 180 days but the wells feeding that tankhave not been completed, DEP will accept an extensionrequest until such time as we can gather enough productiondata to perform the emission calculations. In this scenario,operators could then submit the well demonstration in con-junction with the tank demonstration.

DEP’s interpretation of Exemption No. 38 is apparentlybased on an internal department guidance for inspectors, titled“Air Quality Permit Exemptions – Category No. 38 CurrentInternal Implementation Instructions,” and dated August 15,2013, which specifies the need to submit a compliance demon-stration within 180 days after well completion or installation of asource. The compliance demonstration submittal requirement isnot explicit in Exemption No. 38 or in the “FurtherQualifications Regarding Plan Approval Exempted Sources”found on page 12 of Document No. 275-2101-003, Air QualityPermit Exemptions.

Regardless, DEP is expecting that all sources that have usedExemption No. 38 will submit the associated compliance demon-stration on or before May 27. The Air Quality/EmissionsSubcommittee of PIOGA’s Environmental Committee suggeststhat a conservative approach is that all affected sources complywith DEP’s request.

The explicit requirement in Exemption 38 is to have your

secondary and tertiary recovery wells and disposal injectionwells would be considered conventional. DEP included PIOGA’srevised definition in the version of the regulations approved bythe IRRC on May 1. ■

demonstration of compliance (i.e., supporting data and emissionscalculations) completed within 180 days after the well comple-tion or installation of a source. However, if submittal of thisinformation in a report to DEP cannot be completed by May 27,a request for extension of such reporting should be made.Additionally, the subcommittee believes that the compliancereporting requirement should be questioned in the submittal let-ter accompanying the report or extension request. A template forsuch a cover letter for the submittal is available. It is suggestedthat the approach described here be reviewed with your internalmanagement team and/or counsel prior to submittal.

Contact Ron Cusano of Schnader Harrison Segal & LewisLLP at rcusano@schnader.com or 412-577-5203 with any ques-tions. Copies of the instruction guidance, DEP Document No.275-2101-003 and cover letter template mentioned above areavailable in the Members section of PIOGA’s website under the“Membership Matters” heading. ■

OIL & GA S

www.hdrinc.com

Facilities and Infrastructure Services

Environmental Services

Construction Services

Support Services

Forward Thinking

Pittsburgh 412.497.6000

Page 14 The PIOGA Press

Pennsylvania | West Virginia | Virginia | North Carolina

Responsible Attorney, Ronald W. Schuler | 1.800.967.8226 | www.spilmanlaw.com | This is an attorney advertisement.

Searching for truemidstream experience?

In the race to build out the midstream infrastructure in the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays, finding a law firm with comprehensive capabilities is imperative. With no room for delays or cost over-runs,

midstream clients depend on Spilman for knowledgeable, responsive attorneys and predictable, reasonable costs.

S P I L M A N

M

M

S

A

I

D

T

R

E

BCF, CNG, Compression, Condemnation, Decompression, Distribution, Easement, Fractionation, Gathering Agreement, Infrastructure, LNG, Middlemen, Midstream, Off Loading, Open Season, Pricing Volatility, Regulations, Right of Way, Shale, Spilman, Storage, Supply, Transmission

February 2014 Page 15May 2014 Page 15

By Nicole JacobsEnergy In Depth (energyindepth.org)

Pennsylvania Department ofConservation and Natural Resources(DCNR) Secretary Ellen Ferretti

announced April 16 the release of thedepartment’s first Shale Gas MonitoringReport. In the report’s findings, DCNRfound shale development not to have anysignificant impacts on groundwater, whilealso minimizing surface impacts in the stateforest system. According to SecretaryFerretti, “the breadth and depth of this report demonstrates thatshale gas production on state forests is being carefully managed.”

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has 1.5 million acres ofstate forest that overlie the Marcellus Shale, and currently thereare 673,000 acres leased for Marcellus development. Theseinclude both areas which required DCNR-issued leases and areaswhere the minerals were privately held. To ensure surface distur-bances were kept to a minimum, DCNR placed lease restrictionsin regards to surface development.

“Modern shale-gas leases restrict surface disturbance in sensi-tive areas and limit overall surface disturbance to approximately2 percent of the acreage within the lease tract,” the report stated.

Of those areas that already have been developed, DCNR hasprovided water testing as well as providing continuous watermonitoring at 10 locations in multiple watersheds. The findingsof these tests showed no significant impact to water quality:

• “Initial water monitoring results have not identified any sig-nificant impacts due to shale-gas development” (page 6).

• “This is based on one round of field chemistry samplingthroughout the shale-gas region and over a year of operation for10 continuous monitoring devices in key watersheds” (page 6).

Since 1947, when Pennsylvania began leasing state forests,the Commonwealth has generated a steady stream of incomefrom oil and gas leases and royalties. From 1947 to 2008,Pennsylvania received over $153 million from leasing and royal-ties. The Shale Gas Monitoring Report found in just four years,leasing and royalties grew to $735,910,166—representing a stun-ning 279-percent increase in revenue for Pennsylvania. Amongthe revenue-related findings:

• “The shale-gas period (through 2012, for the purposes ofthis report) has provided $582,250,644 in revenue” (page 10).

• “The pre-shale-gas period of oil and gas activity provided atotal income to the Commonwealth of approximately$153,659,522” (page 10).

• “Royalty income is just beginning to come to DCNR fromthe hundreds of new shale-gas wells on state forest land” (page10).

• “Steady revenue growth from gas extraction is expected tocontinue for the next decade as the full development of the leasescomes to a conclusion” (page 10).

In addition to limited surface disturbance, revenue for theCommonwealth and no significant impact to water quality,Marcellus Shale development is also providing many other bene-fits to Pennsylvania and the nation:

• “There has been a marked decrease in several major air pol-

lutants, such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides and carbon diox-ide. This is due, in part, to the increased use of naturalgas for power generation, the shutdown of several majorfacilities and the installation of air pollution controlequipment” (page 7).

• “Approximately 15 percent of all shale gas producedin Pennsylvania comes from state forest lands. This gas issold and distributed across the eastern and MidwesternUnited States to service energy markets on a daily basis”(page 9).

It is clear Marcellus Shale development is a providingnumerous benefits for the Commonwealth, from improv-ing air quality to providing significant public revenues.

This report reiterates that shale development is carefully man-aged by the DCNR and will continue to provide not only envi-ronmental benefits, but also help keep revenues strong, which inturn benefits all Pennsylvanians. ❐

DCNR report shows the benefits of developing Pennsylvania state forests

More details about DCNR’s reportDCNR’s shale gas monitoring program began full implemen-

tation in 2011 after Governor Corbett approved the hiring of a15-member dedicated monitoring team and the department metwith advisory committees, began developing monitoring proto-cols, and started building a variety of tools such as tracking andmapping databases. DCNR’s program monitors for a broad setof values, including water, wildlife, plants, invasive species, inci-dents, air, landscapes, soils, revenue, energy, recreation, com-munity engagement, forest health, timber products and infra-structure. The 265-page report discusses each of these aspectsin detail.

Data collection and field implementation for the programstarted in earnest in 2012. The department began compiling thereport in 2013. The department’s data collection is ongoing andincludes a public survey seeking reactions to the report andasking how often it should be updated. Among the report’sinsights:

• Water is the resource that most people cite when express-ing concerns about shale gas production. Although incidentshave occurred, the monitoring data shows that water quality hasnot been affected due to this activity.

• Approximately 1,486 acres of state forest were convertedthrough 2012 to facilitate gas development, a number that islower as a result of a management decision to place this activitywithin or adjacent to existing infrastructure or existing distur-bances where it is more noticeable to the public, but requiresless forest disturbance.

• Invasive species are a concern as areas of disturbancetend to create conditions conducive to invasion of unwantedplant species or pests. The report clearly shows that invasivespecies need to be carefully managed and controlled. DCNRleases require that companies address invasive species.

• Recreational experiences and expectations vary by user.Some recreationists prefer solitude and a more wilderness-typeexperience, whereas others such as motorized vehicle enthusi-asts are happy with a less primitive and more developed experi-ence. The monitoring data shows a trend from the more remoteexperience to a semi-primitive experience. This bears closescrutiny to ensure that a wide variety of recreational experi-ences are available on the state forests in the future.

Page 16 The PIOGA Press

DEP provides new guidance oncommunity environmentalprojects in lieu of civil penalties

Recently revised guidance issued by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) concern-ing use of community environmental projects (CEPs) in

lieu of civil penalties warrants the attention and consideration ofcompanies facing potential enforcement actions.

DEP has the authority to assess civil penalties for violationsof the Commonwealth’s environmental protection laws, such asthe Clean Streams Law,1 Air Pollution Control Act2 or SolidWaste Management Act.3 Depending on the level of harm creat-ed, the regulated entity’s compliance history and a number ofother criteria, these civil penalties can range from a few hundredto millions of dollars.

Often the entity subject to DEP’s civil penalty action willqualify for a program allowing it to work with the department todevelop an environmental project, known as a community envi-ronmental project, which would satisfy a portion of its liability.While the CEP program has been in place for some time, thedepartment released new guidance on April 19 for DEP staff touse when considering proposals for a CEP in lieu of civil penal-ties.4 DEP is likely signaling a renewed interest in the CEP pro-gram and its application to civil penalty actions. For significantcivil penalty actions, the option of a CEP under these new guide-lines is once again worth considering.

A CEP is defined by the department as a “project which sub-

stantially improves, protects, restores orremediates the environment, or whichimproves, protects or reduces risks to thepublic health or safety.” While the depart-ment may inform the regulated entity thatCEPs are an option, the policy states DEP“will not actively solicit or compel the per-son or regulated entity to perform a CEP....”Thus, it falls upon the regulated entity to becreative in proposing projects as alternativesto the traditional fines.

Regardless of when the CEP is proposed,the department will first calculate theamount of the proposed penalty withoutconsidering a CEP. In other words, thedepartment will determine the entire penaltyin economic terms and then consider reduc-ing that penalty by the “value” of the CEP.

Generally, DEP will not consider CEPsto supplant fines where the violations wereintentional, willful, the result of gross negli-gence, where the harm to the environmentor to public health was unusuallyextreme, or where the regulated entityhas a poor compliance record. But, thepolicy does allow for exceptions wherethe environmental benefits are sufficient to outweigh these otherconcerns. Entities cannot get credit for actions already requiredby law or as a condition of a permit. While the CEP can supplantfines owed the department, it cannot substitute for the obligation

ernstseed.comsales@ernstseed.com800-873-3321814-336-5191 (fax)

ResponsibleReclamationAn opportunity to restore diversity

David J.Raphael

Brigid R. Landy

Authors:

February 2014 Page 17May 2014 Page 17

• FOCUSED ON IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES

• DEDICATED TO AN EXPERIENCED WORKFORCE

• PLEDGED TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

• LEADING THE INDUSTRY IN CNG EQUIPMENT

• COMMITTED TO SAFETY AND TRAINING

The Cementing Professionals

O-Tex Pumping provides unrivaled primary and secondary cementing and specialty pumping services to America’s Energy Industry. In doing so, we strive to promote all qualities that are uniquely American. From new technologies to an experienced work force, we are proud to be “Running on America’s Fuel”.

INVESTING IN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

724.256.9280

To learn more about our commitment to energy independence, visit our website today! www.otexpumping.com

Page 18 The PIOGA Press

to become compliant with the violated regulations.The proposed project should be conducted in the same “geo-

graphic area, airshed, or watershed where the violation occurredunless the project is intended to have a regional or statewide ben-efit.” When possible, the policy also encourages the improvementbe to the environmental medium actually impacted by the harm,be it air, water or land. These restrictions imply DEP is not look-ing to allow offenders to do less through the program to satisfytheir obligation, but is simply redirecting those resources fromthe state coffers to tangible environmental improvements in theregions impacted by the violation.

Another theme of the policy is that the benefits of the projectmust “flow to a community or the general public rather than theperson or regulated entity.” Recognizing such projects mayreceive press coverage, the policy states a “CEP may provide theperson or regulated entity with certain ancillary benefits, likemedia publicity, provided that the project primarily and substan-tially benefits the public health or environment.” Also, if the enti-ty actively publicizes the CEP, “it will state that the project isbeing undertaken as part of the settlement of an enforcementaction.” If DEP approves the CEP, as part of the agreement theentity must agree to verify “that no costs associated with theproject have been deducted as a business expense or charitablededuction for the purpose of federal, state, or local taxes.”

The themes mentioned above are also reflected in the list ofexamples provided by the department of acceptable and unac-ceptable projects:

Acceptable projects include:1. Remediation of contaminated sites.2. Restoration of land or water resources not owned by the

person or regulated entity.

3. Purchase or donation of land for a local park, state park orforest land, or for some other public environmental purpose.

4. Programs that advance the department’s environmental edu-cation goals.

5. Assistance to a municipality in the establishment or imple-mentation of a household hazardous waste or small quantity gen-erator collection program.

6. Assistance to a municipality or nonprofit organization forthe cleanup of illegal roadside dumping sites of solid wastes.

7. Assistance to the local emergency response agency for aspecific need.

Unacceptable projects include:1. Projects on property owned by the person or regulated enti-

ty.2. Contributions to an organization that does not focus on

environmental, public health or community development issues.3. Performance of projects not directly related to public health

and safety or the environment.4. Payments to an environmental organization for general pur-

poses as opposed to a specific project.5. Payments that are necessary for compliance.6. General educational or public environmental awareness

projects that are not an integral part of a specific project other-wise acceptable under this guidance.

In developing a CEP, the policy encourages regulated entitiesto “communicate and coordinate with members of the public,local non-profits (i.e. watershed groups) or governmental bodies(i.e. County Conservation Districts) to help identify ‘shovel-ready’ projects for consideration.” While it is up to regulatedentities to quantify the expected benefits of their proposed CEP,they are permitted to “utilize available resources, such as consul-

It’s time to try

MAXIMATOR ®

s time to tryService is our

# 1 Priority!

Stocking location in

Fairview PA

Maxpro Technologies814-474-9191

fraciron

www.MaxProTech.com

Hydrostatic Testing

February 2014 Page 19May 2014 Page 19

tation with DEP” in assessing the project.The entity facing violations must submit a detailed description

of the proposal to the appropriate regional office. The proposalmust, at a minimum:

• Identify the entity subject to enforcement action.• Describe the violation or violations.• Provide a detailed description of the project, including the

project location, plan for implementation and monitoring, costand resource allocation, and proposed benefits to public health,safety, and the environment.

• List any partners and outreach activities.The department’s policy directs the program actually taking

the enforcement action be the first to review the proposal forcompleteness and for the benefits it would provide. Followingthis initial review, the department staff will provide their evalua-tion and recommendation to senior staff along with the follow-ing:

1. The initial proposed penalty without regard to a CEP.2. An evaluation of the proposed CEP.3. A recommendation regarding the final penalty amount tak-

ing into consideration the CEP, if deemed acceptable.Finally, once the CEP is deemed acceptable to DEP staff, the

“type, scope and schedule” must be incorporated into a legallyenforceable agreement, such as a Consent Order and Agreement.The guidance calls for the agreement to set forth requirementsfor regular reporting on the progress of the CEP, and containstipulated penalties for failure to implement it. The departmentmay oversee the project, or arrange for third-party oversight.

DEP’s guidance explicitly states that the CEP policy is not

intended to alter existing mining or oil and gas programs thatallow operators to reclaim abandoned mine land or plug aban-doned wells. It also does not remove the statutory obligation cre-ated under the Air Pollution Control Act that when a fineassessed under the act is at least $50,000, 25 percent of the finewill be returned to the municipality in which the violationoccurred.5

The CEP program provides businesses operating in Pennsylvaniasome flexibility in satisfying penalties assessed by the depart-ment It is a creative program that gives industry the opportunityto utilize expertise and resources already at its disposal to con-duct remediation projects that benefit the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania while satisfying its obligations to the department.DEP’s renewed interest in this program is encouraging, makingthe program worthy of industry’s future consideration. ■

1 35 P.S. § 691.605.2 35 P.S. § 4009.1.3 35 P.S. § 6018.605.4 “Policy for the Consideration of Community Environmental Projects inConjunction with Assessment of Civil Penalty,” Document No. 012-4180-001,published April 19, 2014.5 35 P.S. § 4009.2(a.1)(1).

www.safety-law.com

The Law Office of Adele L. Abrams PC focuses its practiceon defending employers in MSHA, OSHA and EPA litigationnationwide. Our 10 attorneys include Certified Mine SafetyProfessionals and Certified Industrial Hygienists who canevaluate citations, represent your company in settlementconferences, and be strong advocates for you in litigation.We provide safety training (MSHA Part 46 and 48), safetyand health audits, and program development and reviewservices. Our attorneys are admitted in PA, OH, MD, MI, DC,MT and SC, and many federal courts.

DDon’t go it alone …. call the pros!

301-595-3520

MSHA, OSHA orEPA Woes?

Page 20 The PIOGA Press

Safety Committee CornerSafety Committee Corner

Digging Out Potential SavingsDigging Out Potential SavingsDigging Out Potential Savings

Side by Side Side by Side Side by Side

With YouWith YouWith You

Into the FutureInto the FutureInto the Future

Adrianne Vigueras

Vice President Energy Division

avigueras@ecbm.com

888-313-3226 ext. 1335

WWW.ECBM.COM

Insurance Brokers & Consultants

Ticked offAvoiding tiny vampiresto protect your healthBy James R. Daley, PMPDirector of Environmental ServicesNGE (Novel Geo-Environmental, LLC)

What has eight legs, a two-year lifecycle, is only as largeas a sesame seed and can cause debilitating illness? Ifyou guessed deer ticks, also known as black-legged

ticks, you’re absolutely correct and likely have an awareness ofLyme disease.

Just as our shale plays are named for where they outcrop,Lyme disease is named for Lyme, Connecticut, where in 1975 anoutbreak of rheumatoid arthritis was discovered in children. Thisoutbreak was eventually tied to a bacterium carried by deer ticks,and nearly all cases of Lyme disease still occur in the northeast-ern states.

Looking at data from the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) for the years 2004 through 2012, anywherefrom 13 percent to 20 percent of all confirmed cases of Lymedisease occurred in Pennsylvania, with about 3,200-5,000 con-firmed cases in each of those years. Even though these numbersraise concern themselves, the CDC estimates that only 10 per-cent of cases are reported to it, meaning that on average there arelikely 41,000 cases of Lyme disease in Pennsylvania per yearand during the nine-year time period evaluated, with a reported

37,346 cases, about 373,000 people likely contracted Lyme dis-ease in Pennsylvania. That’s nearly the population of Pittsburghand Scranton combined!

The risk to workers in the outdoors is so great that theNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)has issued a list of “at risk occupations” which should soundpretty familiar to those involved in oil and exploration and pro-duction: construction workers, forestry workers, brush clearing,land surveying, oilfield workers and utility line workers.Essentially, all personnelinvolved in off-road seis-mic testing, land acquisi-tion, geotechnical drilling,site planning, permittingstudies, land surveying,clearing and grubbing,E&S control installation,routing studies, andinspections in vegetatedareas, especially alongvegetated edges, are mostat risk for being bitten byinfected ticks and con-tracting Lyme disease.

It is interesting thatLyme disease still pre-dominates easternPennsylvania and is muchless prevalent in southwestern PA. In a five-year period begin-ning in 2007, some of the counties in central and westernPennsylvania had 300-730 confirmed cases of Lyme disease, butthe wet gas areas of Washington and Greene counties had only23 and 2 cases, respectively.

Deer ticks have complex two year lifecycle with two stagesthat require a blood meal to get to the next stage. Adult deerticks lay eggs on the ground in the spring. The eggs hatch andappear as larvae during the summer, when they feed on smallmammals and oftentimes pick up the spirochete bacterium(Borrelia burgdroferi) that causes Lyme disease, thus becomingcarriers for the disease. (Note: Deer ticks can carry other infec-tions as well.) After this initial feeding, the larvae are inactiveuntil the next spring, when they become nymphs, which seek ablood meal, also feeding on small animals (or humans). Duringfall and early the next spring the adults feed and mate on largermammals, oftentimes deer but also humans, and the females layeggs, completing the two-year lifecycle. As you can see in Figure1, showing deer ticks at each life stage, they are extremely smallas larva, about the size of a poppy seed, and even as adults onlythe size of an apple or sesame seed. They do expand when theyengorge themselves on a blood meal, but inspecting yourself,your pets or your clothing certainly requires a keen eye and thor-ough scan, including in skin folds and in the hair.

The number of deer ticks actually carrying the spirochete bac-terium varies by location, but can be remarkably high. RetiredColonel Grey D. Berrier, garrison commander at Fort IndiantownGap near Annville, Pennsylvania, recently wrote that during

Figure 1 (source: www.cdc.gov/lyme)

February 2014 Page 21May 2014 Page 21

2008 and 2009, the troop medical clinic tested hundreds of deerticks removed from soldiers after being afield and found that 50percent of the ticks tested positive for the bacterium.

Because of proactive tick removal after potential exposures,few soldiers actually contracted Lyme disease. In fact, studiesshow that the transmission rate to humans for ticks removedwithin 24 hours of being bitten was 0 percent, 12 percent forremoval within 48 hours, 79 percent for removal within 72 hoursand 94 percent within 96 hours. Clearly, a thorough examinationafter being outdoors in vegetated areas and removal of any ticksfound is vital to avoid contracting Lyme disease. Most sourcessuggest removal within the first 36 hours will virtually eliminateany chance of contracting Lyme disease.

Removal is accomplished by cleaning the tick and areaaround the bite with alcohol, grasping the tick with tweezes asclose as possible to the skin and pulling outward, trying toensure the barbed mouthparts come out with the tick, followedby another cleaning with alcohol. Many people believe thatremoved ticks should be placed in a jar to show to medical per-sonnel should Lyme disease symptoms develop.

Early symptoms are flu-like but can advance to stiff joints andarthritic symptoms. Left untreated, debilitating joint damage andnervous system damage can occur.

There is oftentimes a red rash at the bite site that spreads out-ward but clears up in the middle, leading to a bullseye shapedrash many people associate with Lyme disease. Such a rash inthree to 32 days certainly is a characteristic, but the NationalInstitutes for Health says this rash only appears in 70-80 percentof all cases. Other studies have indicated that maybe only half ofthe people with confirmed Lyme disease recall seeing this bulls-eye rash.

Figure 2 shows how to properly remove deer ticks usingtweezers, getting the tweezers as close to the skin as possible to

be able to remove themouthparts cleanly.

Given that the likelihoodof exposure to deer ticks ishigh in outdoor occupations,and the consequences of anundetected and untreatedinfection can be severe, pre-vention is the primarydefense, followed by timelydetection and removal ofticks.

The simplest form ofprevention is avoiding areas

where ticks may reside, which means avoiding well-vegetatedareas in the northeastern states. As NIOSH has determined, thereare many at risk outdoor occupations that require work in areaswhere ticks reside. Therefore, the next line of defense is longpants, bloused into boots to avoid an opening for ticks to crawlup legs, and long-sleeved shirt tucked in at the waist. When pos-sible, light colors are suggested to aid in detecting ticks on cloth-ing.

Proper repellents are a key element in Lyme disease preven-tion. Many outdoor enthusiasts have been applying DEET (N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide) routinely as an insect repellant, andmost experts recommend applying repellants with 20-30 percentDEET content to skin. DEET has been found to be very safe,likely used in billions of applications,but there are have been a few deathseven with proper usage (all females)and a number of deaths from inten-tional ingestion as documented by theAgency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet). For outdoor sportsand recreation, DEET can be appliedto the skin and to standard outdoorclothing. Like wise, it can be appliedto the skin of at risk workers; howev-er, DEET should never be applied toflame-resistant (FR) clothing.

The U.S. Forest Service, recogniz-ing the need to protect firefightersfrom ticks and mosquitos (the latterdue to concern about West NileVirus), commissioned studies on FRclothing treated with DEET and acontact insecticide, permethrin that is applied to clothing, butnever to skin. These tests, conducted by The MissoulaTechnology and Development Center, found that DEET reducedthe flame resistance of Nomex clothing, but that permethrin didnot negatively impact FR clothing. A summary of this study isavailable at www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm05512327. Study highlights published on the Forest Servicewebsite are shown in Figure 3.

Additional information on Lyme disease and its prevention isavailable via a 12-page booklet available at www.cdc.gov/lyme/resources/brochure/lymediseasebrochure.pdf and via an OSHA e-tool for logging at www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/logging/manual/tick_disease.html. ■

Figure 2—proper tick removal (source: www.cdc.gov/lyme)

If you remove a tickquickly (within 24hours), you can greatlyreduce your chances ofgetting Lyme disease.

Forest Service research highlights:• DEET mosquito repellant reduced the flame resistance of NOMEX

clothing worn by wildland firefighters.• MTDC recommends that firefighters avoid applying DEET mosqui-

to repellant to their Nomex firefighting clothing.• Firefighters can apply DEET mosquito repellant to their skin, fol-

lowing manufacturer's recommendations.• Firefighters can apply permethrin, an insecticide, to their Nomex

clothing without destroying the clothing's flame resistance.

Figure 4 - Highlights of U.S. Forest Service Research on Insect RepellentImpacts on Fire Resistance

Prevent LymeDisease!

Wear repellent

Check forticks daily

Shower soonafter beingoutdoors

Call your doctorif you get a

fever or rash

Page 22 The PIOGA Press

Proposed changes for the PSMstandard may substantiallyaffect the oil and gas industry

Last August, President Obama signed Executive Order13650–Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,which directed multiple federal agencies to coordinate and

improve regulatory efforts related to chemical safety and securi-ty. The executive order specifically directed the OccupationalHealth and Safety Administration (OSHA), EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security toenhance information collection and sharing; modernize regula-tions, guidance and policies; and identify best practices specificto chemical safety and security.

Consistent with the executive order’s directive, OSHA initiat-ed a Process Safety Management (PSM) rulemaking effort inDecember, whereby the agency requested public comment andinput on possible changes to the PSM standard (March PIOGAPress, page 28). OSHA’s request for information contained abrief explanation of a number of proposed revisions being con-sidered for the PSM standard. Some of the proposed revisionsinclude the elimination of the current PSM exemption for certainoil and gas operations by expanding PSM coverage into welldrilling and servicing operations; resumed enforcement of thePSM standard for covered oil and gas production facilities; andexpansion of covered chemicals triggering PSM compliance.OSHA’s request for information also included a proposal forincorporating an additional Management System Element intothe PSM standard.

If all, or even a few, of OSHA’s proposed changes are imple-mented, the PSM standard would be substantially expanded interms of scope, application and compliance requirements. Oiland gas companies, which previously were not required to com-ply with the PSM requirement, could face increased and newregulatory requirements under the revised PSM standard.

For example, as the current PSM standard exempts oil and gascontractors engaged in well drilling and service operations, thesecontractors are not required to comply with the PSM standardduring well drilling and servicing operations. But, if OSHA’ssuggested changes are implemented, all onshore contractorsworking with threshold quantities of hazardous chemicals wouldbe required to be PSM compliant regardless of whether the con-tractor’s chemical use was project specific or intermittent.OSHA’s proposed changes would also result in oil and gas pro-duction and transmission facilities, which technically fall underthe current PSM standard but which OSHA had previouslyexcluded from enforcement, being required to fully implementall PSM program elements.

Ultimately, OSHA’s proposed changes would result in oil and

gas operators, production facilities, transmission facilities, andonshore contractors being required to develop and maintain amanagement system specific to chemical operations that containsat a minimum: written procedures for identifying workplacechemical and process hazards and associated operations; record-ed workplace hazard assessments; records of consistent employ-ee training on hazard assessments, chemical accident preventionplans and chemical records; substantiated review of the estab-lished workplace hazard assessment and response systemthrough PSM program audits and reports; documented imple-mentation of written operating procedures for chemical process-es; and demonstrated continuous improvement efforts.

As OSHA’s proposed changes could significantly impact oiland gas operations, oil and gas companies should keep a criticaleye on OSHA’s PSM standard and be aware of the potentialeffect changes to the PSM standard might have on their day-to-day operations.

During OSHA’s brief information request period, which endedon March 31, a number of chemical distributors, manufacturers,and oil and gas companies commented on the proposed regula-tions. A number of commentators came out in strong support ofenhancing the current PSM regulations. The Chemical SafetyBoard and the National Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth, for example, both encouraged strengthening safety regu-lations due to recent evidence of an increase in oilfield fatalitiesover the past decade.

A large majority of the commentators, however, noted theimportance of the PSM standard along with the continued evalu-ation of methods for improving chemical safety and security, butsuggested that instead of enhancing PSM requirements, OSHAshould improve outreach efforts, compliance assistance andeffective enforcement of the current PSM standard. A number ofoil and gas companies and industry associations’ commentsspecifically challenged OSHA’s ability to regulate process safetymanagement at oil and gas facilities, as some of these facilitiesalready face a significant amount of regulation under theDepartment of Transportation and through state and local agen-cies. Some industry associations also reported that becauseOSHA’s PSM standard was designed for large industry facilitieswith relatively stable workforces, smaller oil and gas companieswith varying work assignments and temporary workforces maybe financially incapable of meeting the PSM standard’s require-ments and could become severely impacted financially ifrequired to do so. (Editor’s note: Also see the April PIOGAPress, page 30, for more industry comments.)

Even though OSHA has yet to respond to the comments madeduring the request for information session, because OSHA isoperating under a specific executive directive to modernize cur-rent chemical safety regulations, the agency is expected to moveforward with a formal rulemaking session and plans to publishnew PSM regulations within the next 18 months. Oil and gascompanies should therefore prepare for and plan to actively par-ticipate in OSHA’s notice and public comment period, whichcould be just around the corner.

For a comprehensive and full analysis of the potential changesto the PSM standard and how these changes may impact yourbusiness or to receive assistance with drafting an official com-ment, contact any of the attorneys in Burns White LLC’s Energyor Occupational Health and Safety Practice Groups at 412-995-3000. ■

Spread the word!••••••••••••••••••••Shouldn’t you be advertising your products and services here?Contact Matt Benson (814-778-2291, matt@pioga.org) formore information.

May 2014 Page 23

DO IT ONCE. DO IT RIGHT.

MULTI-STAGE COMPLETIONS

www.packersplus.com

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery… or is it?”

Only Packers Plus delivers proven, reliable

and repeatable results. We have extensive

experience to run your jobs efficiently and

effectively. Contact us today and let us

help you maximize your assets.

Page 24 The PIOGA Press

Aiello Bros Oil & Gas Inc 1 4/21/14 083-56307 McKean Hamilton TwpAirdale Oil & Gas LLC 1 4/4/14 121-45250 Venango Cornplanter TwpAnadarko E&P Onshore LLC 1 4/30/14 081-21363* Lycoming Pine TwpARG Resources Inc 1 4/29/14 047-24810 Elk Highland TwpBranch John D 3 4/1/14 123-47504 Warren Warren City

4/9/14 123-47506 Warren Warren City4/22/14 123-47507 Warren Warren City

Cabot Oil & Gas Corp 9 4/16/14 115-21650* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/16/14 115-21651* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/16/14 115-21652* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/16/14 115-21653* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/16/14 115-21654* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/16/14 115-21655* Susquehanna Auburn Twp4/30/14 115-21666* Susquehanna Jackson Twp4/30/14 115-21667* Susquehanna Jackson Twp4/30/14 115-21668* Susquehanna Jackson Twp

Cameron Energy Co 1 4/1/14 123-47327 Warren Sheffield TwpChesapeake Appalachia LLC 9 4/23/14 015-22864* Bradford Tuscarora Twp

4/23/14 015-22865* Bradford Tuscarora Twp4/23/14 015-22866* Bradford Tuscarora Twp4/28/14 113-20262* Sullivan Colley Twp4/28/14 113-20238* Sullivan Colley Twp4/3/14 131-20399* Wyoming Braintrim Twp4/3/14 131-20400* Wyoming Braintrim Twp4/3/14 131-20401* Wyoming Braintrim Twp4/19/14 131-20384* Wyoming Windham Twp

Chief Oil & Gas LLC 4 4/3/14 015-22766* Bradford Wilmot Twp4/3/14 015-22765* Bradford Wilmot Twp4/17/14 081-21428* Lycoming McNett Twp4/17/14 081-21429* Lycoming McNett Twp

CNX Gas Co LLC 8 4/7/14 059-26420* Greene Center Twp4/7/14 059-26421* Greene Center Twp

4/7/14 059-26422* Greene Center Twp4/4/14 125-27246* Washington East Finley Twp4/4/14 125-27247* Washington East Finley Twp4/5/14 125-27249* Washington East Finley Twp4/5/14 125-27250* Washington East Finley Twp4/6/14 125-27251* Washington East Finley Twp

Devonian Resources Inc 4 4/1/14 053-30234 Forest Harmony Twp4/10/14 053-30235 Forest Harmony Twp4/15/14 053-30237 Forest Harmony Twp4/24/14 053-30229 Forest Harmony Twp

Dominion Trans Inc 1 4/28/14 035-21296 Clinton Leidy TwpEM Energy PA LLC 1 4/1/14 019-22172* Butler Allegheny TwpEQT Production Co 22 4/2/14 059-26369* Greene Morgan Twp

4/2/14 059-26370* Greene Morgan Twp4/2/14 059-26371* Greene Morgan Twp4/2/14 059-26372* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26352* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26353* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26354* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26355* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26356* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26357* Greene Morgan Twp4/30/14 059-26187* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26188* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26189* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26190* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26191* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26192* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26193* Greene Morris Twp4/30/14 059-26195* Greene Morris Twp4/22/14 059-26482* Greene Washington Twp4/22/14 059-26483* Greene Washington Twp

Spud Report:April

The data show below comes from the Department ofEnvironmental Protection. A variety of interactive reports are

OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

available at www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/oil_and_gas_reports/20297.

The table is sorted by operator and lists the total wells report-ed as drilled last month. Spud is the date drilling began at a wellsite. The API number is the drilling permit number issued to thewell operator. An asterisk (*) after the API number indicates anunconventional well.

February 2014 Page 25May 2014 Page 25

Page 26 The PIOGA Press

DIRECTIONAL SURVEY PLUS

February 2014 Page 27May 2014 Page 27

4/24/14 125-27339* Washington Carroll Twp4/20/14 125-27345* Washington E Bethlehem Twp

Gas & Oil Mgmt Assoc Inc 4 4/11/14 123-47532 Warren Mead Twp4/16/14 123-47531 Warren Mead Twp4/22/14 123-47533 Warren Mead Twp4/28/14 123-47540 Warren Mead Twp

Hilcorp Energy Co 2 4/22/14 073-20443* Lawrence Mahoning Twp4/23/14 073-20440* Lawrence Mahoning Twp

Howard Drilling Inc 3 4/7/14 083-56314 McKean Wetmore Twp4/24/14 083-56313 McKean Wetmore Twp4/29/14 083-56312 McKean Wetmore Twp

Kastle Resources Enterprises 1 4/29/14 039-25785 Crawford Conneaut TwpKCS Energy Inc 1 4/21/14 123-47171 Warren Pleasant TwpLendrum Energy LLC 2 4/15/14 053-30415 Forest Harmony Twp

4/22/14 053-30414 Forest Harmony TwpMead Oil LLC 1 4/24/14 123-47277 Warren Sheffield TwpMinard Run Oil Co 2 4/2/14 083-56461 McKean Foster Twp

4/17/14 083-56462 McKean Foster TwpNoble Energy Inc 4 4/11/14 125-27132* Washington West Finley Twp

4/11/14 125-27067* Washington West Finley Twp4/14/14 125-27070* Washington West Finley Twp4/16/14 125-27069* Washington West Finley Twp

NTS Energy LLC 4 4/14/14 121-45623 Venango Cranberry Twp

4/17/14 121-45614 Venango Cranberry Twp4/22/14 121-45617 Venango Cranberry Twp4/28/14 121-45607 Venango Cranberry Twp

Penneco Oil Co Inc 1 4/29/14 059-26368 Greene Jackson TwpPennEnergy Resources LLC 4 4/9/14 007-20411* Beaver New Sewickly Twp

4/10/14 007-20412* Beaver New Sewickly Twp4/10/14 007-20413* Beaver New Sewickly Twp4/11/14 007-20414* Beaver New Sewickly Twp

Range Resources Appalachia 9 4/12/14 003-22278* Allegheny Fawn Twp4/12/14 003-22279* Allegheny Fawn Twp4/12/14 003-22280* Allegheny Fawn Twp4/11/14 125-27220* Washington Buffalo Twp4/11/14 125-27092* Washington Buffalo Twp4/11/14 125-27091* Washington Buffalo Twp4/11/14 125-27090* Washington Buffalo Twp4/11/14 125-27221* Washington Buffalo Twp4/3/14 125-27333* Washington Donegal Twp

RE Gas Dev LLC 5 4/21/14 019-22194* Butler Jackson Twp4/21/14 019-22201* Butler Jackson Twp4/22/14 019-22202* Butler Jackson Twp4/22/14 019-22204* Butler Jackson Twp4/23/14 019-22203* Butler Jackson Twp

Redmill Drilling 1 4/2/14 019-22180* Butler Winfield Twp

OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

Bituminous knows oil and gas.

When times get tough, Bituminous has been there. For more than 70 continuous years, Bituminous has offered high-quality insurance protection and services – with the stability you need and deserve.

If you’re looking for broad insurance coverage for your business at competitive rates, look no further

We’re more than a bit better…we’re a lot better.

Rock Island, Illinois 61201 1-800-475-4477www.bituminousinsurance.com

Bob Gregory, CPCU, Branch Manager, Pittsburgh1-800-253-1232 or 412-937-9000

What YOU do is what WE protect.™

Page 28 The PIOGA Press

Rice Drilling B LLC 4 4/7/14 125-27318* Washington Somerset Twp4/7/14 125-27319* Washington Somerset Twp4/7/14 125-27320* Washington Somerset Twp4/7/14 125-27321* Washington Somerset Twp

Seneca Resources Corp 10 4/25/14 047-24792* Elk Jones Twp4/25/14 047-24794* Elk Jones Twp4/27/14 047-24793* Elk Jones Twp4/27/14 047-24795* Elk Jones Twp4/29/14 047-24791* Elk Jones Twp4/30/14 047-24796* Elk Jones Twp4/1/14 117-21690* Tioga Blossburg Boro4/2/14 117-21689* Tioga Blossburg Boro4/3/14 117-21693* Tioga Blossburg Boro4/5/14 117-21695* Tioga Blossburg Boro

SLT Production LLC 5 4/1/14 123-47443 Warren Sheffield Twp4/7/14 123-47446 Warren Sheffield Twp4/16/14 123-47449 Warren Sheffield Twp4/23/14 123-47441 Warren Sheffield Twp4/29/14 123-47442 Warren Sheffield Twp

Southwestern Energy Prod Co 7 4/28/14 015-22728* Bradford Herrick Twp4/29/14 015-22729* Bradford Herrick Twp4/1/14 015-22890* Bradford Stevens Twp

4/1/14 015-22770* Bradford Stevens Twp4/1/14 015-22889* Bradford Stevens Twp4/7/14 015-22795* Bradford Stevens Twp4/8/14 015-22796* Bradford Stevens Twp

Stateside Energy Group LLC 1 4/29/14 083-56458 McKean Lafayette TwpTalisman Energy USA Inc 1 4/15/14 115-21628* Susquehanna Choconut TwpTitusville Oil & Gas Assoc Inc 4 4/14/14 053-30388 Forest Harmony Twp

4/16/14 053-30387 Forest Harmony Twp4/18/14 053-30642 Forest Harmony Twp4/22/14 053-30386 Forest Harmony Twp

TNT Oil Co 2 4/1/14 123-47492 Warren Conewango Twp4/7/14 123-47489 Warren Conewango Twp

Trimont Energy LLC 4 4/16/14 121-45573 Venango Cranberry Twp4/23/14 121-45576 Venango Cranberry Twp4/26/14 121-45580 Venango Cranberry Twp4/30/14 121-45579 Venango Cranberry Twp

Universal Resources Holdings 2 4/15/14 123-47190 Warren Brokenstraw Twp4/18/14 123-47206 Warren Brokenstraw Twp

XTO Energy Inc 4 4/16/14 019-22214* Butler Jefferson Twp4/16/14 019-22213* Butler Jefferson Twp4/16/14 019-22215* Butler Jefferson Twp4/16/14 019-22216* Butler Jefferson Twp

OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY OPERATOR WELLS SPUD API # COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

February 2014 Page 29May 2014 Page 29

Page 30 The PIOGA Press

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 500 Grant Street Suite 4900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412.904.7700

Columbus Washington Cleveland Cincinnati Akron Houston Pittsburgh

Higher standards make better lawyers.®

For more information on our work in oil and gas, visit vorys.com/shale.

OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS

KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES.

on a national level, setting standards and helping producers and midstream companies

throughout the country. We’ve negotiated pipeline safety issues on behalf of the IPAA.

We’ve helped develop guidelines to review and assess oil and gas regulatory programs.

helping to create them. Which, of course, helps our clients — wherever they may be.

February 2014 Page 31May 2014 Page 31

“PA Independent Oil and Gas Association”

Largest

HDPE PipeStocking Distributor

in the EasternUnited States

Your HDPE Specialists: Fabrication • Fusion • Pipe I1-800-353-3747 • www.leesupply.com

QualityPEOPLE • PRODUCTS • SERVICE

Since 1954

SoilStabilization

Local governments fail to account for $17 million in impact fee money

Municipal and county governments across the state havefailed to account for how $17 million in natural gasimpact money was spent, according to a recent report

by Marie Cusick of National Public Radio’s StateImpactPennsylvania.

Nearly half the townships and boroughs receiving Act 13impact fee money and a quarter of the counties did not submitrequired reports to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission(PUC). The forms, which document how last year’s impact feemoney was spent, were due on April 15.

Although the PUC is charged with collecting the forms, itdoes not have the authority to audit them. The state AuditorGeneral’s office has expressed interest in examining how themoney is being spent, but it hasn’t committed to it yet.

Act 13 specifies 13 categories of permissible spending—rang-ing from road and infrastructure projects, to emergency pre-paredness and tax reductions.

Last year was the first time local governments were requiredto submit the reports, and many reportedly were confused aboutthe process. The PUC had hoped to streamline submissions withan electronic filing system, but it hasn’t happened yet. Many ofthe forms are handwritten and some contain mathematical errors,according to Cusick’s report.

About 1,500 local and county governments receive impact feemoney.

The accompanying numbers from the PUC show how thefunds last year were spent by local governments. ■

Local impact fee spendingPublic Infrastructure Construction $24,789,409

Storm Water/Sewer Systems $2,296,077

Emergency Preparedness/Public Safety $14,035,948

Environmental Programs $951,212

Water Preservation and Reclamation $7,296

Tax Reductions $580,401

Housing $280,000

Information Technology $1,844,399

Social Services $1,335,792

Judicial Services $959,481

Capital Reserve Fund $34,249,804

Career and Technical Centers $110,000

Planning Initiatives $35,019

Amount Not Reported $17,491,130

Total $98,965,969

Page 32 The PIOGA Press

PIOGA’s final PEEP (Pennsylvania Energy Education Program) teach-the-teachers event for the 2013-14 school was held April 14at Hillcrest Intermediate School in Westmoreland County. More than 35 educators from Washington and Westmorland counties signedup for this session. The teachers’ areas of focus ranged from science to social studies to language arts to technology and math.Although this session had been rescheduled several times due to weather, it turned out to be our largest assembly to date.

In this inaugural year we had nearly 70 teachers attend our workshops. An educator on average will reach 90 students a year (fewerin elementary, more in middle and high school). Based on those numbers PEEP has now help generate over 6,000 energy-aware citi-zens this school year. There is still much work to be done as there are currently over 2 million students in Pennsylvania in grades K-12(ages 5-18). If you would like more information or would like to contribute to the PEEP program, contact Dan Weaver atdan@pioga.org or 724-933-7310 ext. 30.

PEEP update

May 2014 Page 33

Well Pad Site DesignPipeline Route Design

Compressor & Metering Station SitesWater Withdrawal & Impoundment Permitting

Land Surveying Roadway & Bridge Engineering

Environmental ServicesConstruction Management & Inspection

1500 Sycamore Rd., Suite 320Montoursville, PA 17754570-368-3040www.mctish.com

Additional OfficesAllentown, PAPittsburgh, PA

PIOGA Outreach News

Shell cracker plant updateShell Chemical Appalachia LLC held a pair of well-

attended informational sessions last month in Aliquippato update the public as the company continues toexplore the possibility of building a petrochemicalcomplex near Monaca in Beaver County.

Shell had 29 employees on hand. They fielded ques-tions about the proposed site in Potter Township alongthe Ohio River, what the plant could produce, and whatimpact it might have on the economy, the environmentand public safety. Informational table were set up,including one showing the anticipated location of theplant's buildings on an aerial map and another with abanner detailing the time line of the project's phases.

Page 34 The PIOGA Press

Oil and gas resources on DEP’s website

Penn State Extension, which generates a wide range of nat-ural gas-related material, recently posted a two-part webseries explaining the public resources available online

from the Department of Environmental Resources Office of Oiland Gas. Although geared for a general audience, the two articlesoffer an easy-to-understand outline of the information DEPmakes available.

The first part, posted April 20, discusses the “static” informa-tion, such as reports, current and proposed regulations, technicalinformation and industry resources.

That is followed by an April 28 article summarizing the vari-ous interactive reports on the DEP site, such as permitting, com-pliance and spud data. There are also three new reports:

• Oil and Gas Well Formations, showing on a county basiswhich wells target which formations, including both convention-al and unconventional.

• Oil and Gas Well Pad Report, providing detail on pads with-in selected counties and municipalities.

• Oil and Gas Mapping, a tool that allows users to search andview on a map specific types of wells by county (JanuaryPIOGA Press, page 38).

The articles include links to all of the resources discussed. Tofind the posts, go to http://extension.psu.edu/natural-resources/natural-gas/news/2014/04. ■

Primary time: What the Democraticcandidates say about a severance tax

If you hadn’t noticed, elections for Pennsylvania governortake place this year. Tom Corbett is running unopposed forreelection on the Republican side. Among Democrats, the

field has been whittled down to four candidates in the primaryelection that will take place on Tuesday, May 20.

Corbett, of course, remains strongly opposed to imposing aseverance tax on the natural gas industry—and increased taxes ingeneral—but it’s an entirely different story among those lookingto unseat him. Here’s a brief glimpse at where the Democratsstand on the severance tax issue. If you are reading this beforethe May 20 primary, it’s good information to share with friends,family and coworkers.

State Treasurer Rob McCord is campaigning for a severancetax with the highest rate—10 percent. He says he would “repealand replace,” the Act 13 impact fee, but would guarantee thatlocal governments receive the same amount they now get fromthe impact fee. Under McCord’s plan, the tax could not be usedas a post-production cost to reduce a royalty owner’s paymentbelow the state minimum 12.5 percent.

Former Department of Environmental Protection SecretaryKatie McGinty calls for a severance tax of 4.5 percent on thevalue of gas, combined with a separate rate based on the volumeof gas produced. All of the funds would go to K-12 education.The impact fee would be retained.

U.S. Representative Allyson Swartz wants a 5 percent sever-ance tax and said that she would retain the substance of the cur-rent impact fee

Businessman Tom Wolf also is proposing a 5 percent produc-

tion tax. A portion of the money from his severance tax could beused to take the place of revenue from the impact fee that bene-fits local governments. The severance tax money would also gofor schools, transportation and regulating the drilling industry.

On other energy-related issues, all four candidates wouldoppose a broad moratorium on natural gas drilling; support amoratorium on drilling in state parks, state forests and theDelaware River Basin; and oppose reducing local governments’zoning authority over drilling activity. The Democratic candi-dates also would require exploration companies to publicly dis-close chemicals used in well stimulation.

In addition, McCord wants a ban on open wastewater pits anda prohibition on discharge to waterways of drilling wastewaterthat is not treated to federal standards. He would also rescind Act13’s power of eminent domain by a company developing a natu-ral gas storage facility. Schwartz would seek to repeal a state lawthat allows forced pooling. ■

February 2014 Page 35May 2014 Page 35

Company seeks FERC rulingon small LNG units

Acompany that plans to use a small mobile liquefactionunit to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) has asked theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to

declare that it does not have jurisdiction to regulate the installa-tion and operation of such equipment.

Clearwater, Florida-based Strom hopes to use the so-called“LNG in a Box” unit made by GE, or a similar product, to lique-fy pipeline gas in Florida and export LNG from there toCaribbean markets. The company said the unit would not be sub-ject to FERC regulations because it is not a building, structure,fixture or improvement as defined by federal law. The projectwould need state and local permits, as well as some federal envi-ronmental permits.

Strom is the first company seeking to export U.S. LNG withsuch a unit. It would use ISO containers and small vessels toship the product. Other companies have proposed exportingsmall volumes of LNG to Caribbean or Latin American marketsby buying the fuel from existing liquefaction facilities that servepeak-shaving or other domestic needs.

GE’s mobile units can produce as little as 10,000 gallons perday—equivalent to 779,000 cubic feet/day of gas—but can beramped up to as much as 50,000 gallons/day. The units could tapdirectly into a gas trunk line, as they are designed handlepipeline quality gas.

Strom plans to seek authorization from the U.S. Departmentof Energy to export up to a gas equivalent of 28.2 Bcf/year tocountries that have free trade agreements with the U.S. and up to14 Bcf/year to non-FTA countries. ■

EPA taking comments on enhancingtransparency for stimulation chemicals

The federal Environmental Protection Agency announcedon May 9 that it will seek public comment on what infor-mation could be reported and disclosed for hydraulic frac-

turing chemicals and mixtures and the approaches for obtainingthis information, including non-regulatory means.

The EPA is also soliciting input on incentives and recognitionprograms that could support the development and use of saferchemicals in hydraulic fracturing. The inquiry is taking place viaan advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. (ANPR)..

The ANPR includes a list of questions for stakeholders andthe public to consider as they develop their comments. Followingthe 90-day comment period, the agency will evaluate the submit-ted comments as it considers appropriate next steps. An advancenotice of proposed rulemaking is intended to engage the publicand solicit comments and/or information from the public for theEPA’s consideration in addressing a particular issue, includinginformation that EPA could consider in developing non-regulato-ry approaches or a proposed rule.

Read the ANPR at www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/prepub_hf_anpr_14t-0069_2014-05-09.pdf. ■

DEP releases first oil & gas annual report

The Department of Environmental Protection recentlyreleased its first-ever Oil and Gas Annual Report, alongwith a video highlighting the work the agency’s oil and

gas program staff.The 2013 Oil and Gas Annual Report was created to provide

information and insight into how DEP’s oil and gas program isfulfilling the department’s mission to protect Pennsylvania’s air,land and water from pollution and to provide for the health andsafety of Pennsylvania citizens. Highlighted in the report isinformation on program structure and processes, permitting,inspections, compliance and enforcement, regulatory and policydevelopments, and program innovations.

In September 2011, in order to adequately regulate and moni-tor the quickly growing industry, the Bureau of Oil and GasManagement was elevated to the Office of Oil and GasManagement, making it a deputate-level program for the firsttime. Staffing was also significantly increased, with the programcurrently employing 202 individuals, 80 percent of whom areinvolved in engineering, scientific, permitting or inspection-relat-ed work.

DEP also released a video featuring unscripted clips of pro-gram staff sharing their experiences conducting the work of theoil and gas program across the state. The video was funded bythe Environmental Education Fund. Mandated by theEnvironmental Education Act of 1993, 5 percent of all pollutionfines and penalties collected annually by DEP is set aside forenvironmental education.

The video and report are at www.dep.state.pa.us; click on the“Oil and Gas Annual Report” button on the homepage. ■

Page 36 The PIOGA Press

Sooner Pipe, L.L.C.

Sooner Pipe is the supply chain leader in oil country tubulargoods (OCTG) distribution logistics and pipe handling servic-es. Sooner was founded by Henry Zarrow in 1937 and wasacquired by Marubeni- Itochu in 2013.

Sooner owns five locations to serve and support oil and gasshale drilling areas throughout the USA. A new pipe yard andservice facility was opened in 2010 in Montoursville for theMarcellus and Utica shale plays. Other facilities includeMidland, Texas; Godley, Texas; Searcy, Arkansas; and AZTerminal, Crosby, Texas (Gulf Coast). There are also morethan 90 stocking locations across the U.S. Sooner is committedto growth through acquisitions, facility expansions and “bestin-class” systems.

Sooner plays a “strategic” role,becoming an integral part of ourcustomers’ business. Sooner is inconstant communication withcustomers (engineers, asset man-agers, procurement, etc.) andvendors. Sooner representsthrough mill distribution, includ-ing USS, TMK- Ipsco, Tenaris,Boomerang, VAM, Hydril,ULTRA, Energex, and otherinternational steel mills and pre-

mium threaders in the industry.

Sooner’s yard services include: threading, thread inspection,bucking on and off, cleaning and re-doping threads, chromepipe storage, cutting , logistics, nondestructive testing, drifting,sandblasting, marker joints, rig prep and rig returns, floatequipment installation, storage, crating, bundling and bolster-ing , use of rail spurs, cleaning, recoating, pipe storage, logis-tics, and inventory control.

Sooner offers flexibility in inventory control, open orderrevisions, mix and spot purchases.

We offer strategic locations with key logistical support andservices, with the experience and ability to adapt to change.Visit our website, www.soonerpipe.com.

PIOGA Member Profile

Sooner’s Mountoursville pipe yardand service facility opened in 2010.

May 2014 Page 37

PIOGA Member Profiles

Introduce your company and tell other members what youoffer to Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry. The guidelinesfor making a PIOGA Member Profile submission are as fol-

lows:• Include a brief history of your company. When and where

was it founded, and by whom? Is the company new to the oiland gas industry in general or to Pennsylvania?

•Describe the products and services you offer specificallyfor the oil and gas industry. Do you have a product in particu-lar that sets your company apart from the competition, or anew product you would like to make the industry aware of?

•If applicable, tell how the business been positively impact-ed by Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry? Have you expand-ed, added employees or opened new locations?

•Include a website address and/or phone for readers touse.

•Your submission may be a maximum of 400-450 wordsand should be provided as a Word document. Use minimal for-matting—bold and italic fonts are OK, as are bulleted or num-bered lists. Your submission is subject to editing for length,clarity and appropriateness.

• Include your company logo or a photo. Images must behigh-resolution (300 dots/pixels per inch or higher) and in anycommon graphics format. Please include identifications for anypeople or products in a photo. Send image files separately, notembedded in your document.

Email material to Matt Benson at matt@pioga.org. Yoursubmission will be confirmed on receipt, and we will use sub-missions in the order in which they are received. This is a freeservice to our member companies and publishing dates are atthe discretion of PIOGA. If you have questions or want to fol-low up on a submission, email Matt or call 814-778-2291.

Purchasers of Penn Grade & Utica Crude Oil

77 N. Kendall Ave.Bradford, PA 16701

814-368-1200

www.amref.com

Dan PalmerCrude Relationship Mgr PA / NY

814-368-1263dpalmer@amref.com

ISO 9001:2008 Certified

Supplying Quality Lubricants Refined UsingPenn Grade Crude Oil

WVU ‘AWARE’ is IADC Rig Pass/SafeLand USAaccredited

WVU-Safety and Health Extension’s “AWARE” pro-gram is now an accredited International Association ofDrilling Contractors (IADC) Rig Pass/SafeLand USA

course. AWARE is accepted as a SafeLand USA course by theIADC RigPass program, one of three accrediting organizationsrecognized by the SafeLand USA Advisory Committee.

The AWARE course maintains the standard 24 topics spreadover 13 interactive modules. Students are issued a unique bar-code and will receive a photo ID card that is maintained in theIADC training database. The AWARE course is picture- and dis-cussion-based with the requirement of students to receive anaverage 80 percent passing grade over a series of module teststotaling 100 questions. All AWARE instructors are approvedthrough the IADC RigPass program. Those interested in becom-ing an AWARE instructor must submit an application to WVU-Safety and Health Extension. Applications, more informationregarding the Train the Trainer course and a current list ofinstructors can be found at www.wvusafetyandhealth.org.

PIOGA Member NewsThe Reschini Group Launches Mobile App

The Reschini Group has launched a mobile app for Androidand iPhone/iPad that provides information and resources forbusiness owners on the subjects of healthcare reform and theAffordable Care Act. The purpose of the app is to provide busi-ness owners and HR professionals with relevant, timely, usefulinformation amidst the uncertainty and changes in the healthcareinsurance and employee benefits industry. The information thatThe Reschini Group posts on the app are generally related toemployee benefits, workplace trends, healthcare reform, andchanges in the Affordable Care Act. The app also surveys usersregarding their organization's plans regarding benefits.

“This industry is a rapidly-changing one," said Joe Reschini,president of The Reschini Group. "It is important to us that wemake every effort to help keep our clients and colleagues abreastof the changes that may affect them and their businesses.” Learnmore at www.reschini.com.

Blanton and Cusano earn LEED accreditation

Schnader announces that attorneys Kevin S. Blanton andRonald S. Cusano have earned the LEED Green Associate cre-dential from the U.S. Green Building Council. A LEED profes-sional credential signifies the designee as a leader in the fieldand an active participant in the green building movement, andthe design, construction, operation and maintenance of buildingsand neighborhoods that save energy, use fewer resources, reducepollution, and promote healthier environments.

Blanton concentrates his practice on real estate matters, withan emphasis on the representation of institutional and privateinterests in complex real estate acquisitions, development, leas-ing and financing transactions. Cusano counsels real estate devel-opers and other clients concerning environmental and land-useapprovals required for development, including wetlands permits,storm water management and erosion and sedimentation controlplans. ■

Page 38 The PIOGA Press

General commentsStatutory authority. In its December 2013 ruling in

Robinson Township, et. al v. Commonwealth, the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court ruled the well location restrictions and waiverprocess found in Act 13 are unconstitutional (January PIOGAPress, page 1). In light of the ruling, the IRCC asked the EQB toexplain its authority to regulate well location restrictions, partic-ularly as they relate to setbacks, waivers and impact analyses forwell permits.

Clarity and lack of ambiguity. At least six laws and nineother chapters of DEP regulations were cited as the authority forthis set of rules. The IRCC points out that commenters expressedconcern that “certain provisions of the regulation adopt conceptsor requirements from all of these laws, and the regulations prom-ulgated thereunder, and impose those requirements upon the oiland gas industry, even though those laws may not be applicableto the oil and gas industry.” The EQB was told to explain theapplicability of the referenced laws and regulations.

Whether the regulation is supported by acceptable data.The IRRC expressed concern over DEP’s admission that harddata was not the basis for the regulations, particularly in light ofthe many conflicting public comments that say the regulationsare too stringent or don’t go far enough or are unnecessary orlack flexibility.

“Since the regulation is not based on data, we ask EQB toexplain how it determined that the numerous standards beingproposed are appropriate and why it believes those standardsstrike the appropriate balance between environmental protectionand the optimal development of the oil and gas resources of thisCommonwealth,” the commission wrote.

Need for the regulation. The IRRC states that it is clear thatthe Oil and Gas Act of 2013 (Act 13) prompted the need for

many regulatory changes related to unconventional wells, butDEP has not explained why it is necessary to impose more strin-gent regulations on the conventional oil and gas industry too.“Has EQB witnessed an increase in environmental mishaps orviolations from conventional well operators? What problem isEQB attempting to correct through this proposal with respect toconventional wells?” the IRRC asked.

Economic or fiscal impacts. The fiscal analysis accompany-ing the regulations indicates the proposal will cost the regulatedcommunity between $79.6 million and $102.8 million, withapproximate savings of $22 million. The commission, however,notes that industry believes the costs are greatly underestimated,especially for conventional operators. The Pennsylvania GradeCrude Oil Commission calculated that first-year compliancecosts for the conventional industry alone could range from $567million to upward of $1.5 billion.

The IRRC said it is concerned by such a large disparity inestimates and that “(t)here appears to be a basic misunderstand-ing of what this proposal will require and when those require-ments will become effective. The commission urged the depart-ment to consult with representatives of both facets of the indus-try to gain a better understanding of what will be required, whenit will be required and what it will cost to comply with the regu-lations.

Flexibility for small businesses. The Regulatory Review Actrequires agencies to consider methods of reducing the impact ofa proposed regulation on small businesses. The IRRC agreedwith many of the commenters, including PIOGA, that DEP hasnot sufficiently considered how the agency could lessen the bur-den of the rules for small businesses. The department was direct-ed to provide the required regulatory flexibility analysis for eachsection of the regulations.

Clarity for conventional operators. The IRRC indicatedthere is merit in requests by commenters for separate chapters

IRCC Chapter 78 comments: Continued from page 1

RPX Composites

100 BBL - 500 BBL Brine Water Tanks Ladders & Walkways Gun Barrel Separators Double-Wall Tanks for Containment Custom Configurations Well Enclosures & Fiberglass Fabrications Delivery to Your Well Site or Yard Onsite Service

Doug Mohney (814) 743-6194

dmohney@reparex.net www.reparex.net/FRP-tank.html

895 Acorn Road Commodore, PA 15729

Fiberglass tanks are a

corrosion-proof lifetime solution for

your wastewater

handling needs.

February 2014 Page 39May 2014 Page 39

for conventional and unconventional operators to help alleviateany misunderstandings about effective dates, which rules applyto conventional operations and the costs associated with variousprovisions. The final regulation should clearly identify the effec-tive date for each provision, what provisions, if any, are subjectto grandfather clauses and which sections apply to conventionalor unconventional wells, or both, the commission said.

Section-by-section commentsHighlighting concerns about many specific sections of the

proposed regulations, the IRRC first questions the definitions of“approximate original conditions,” “body of water,” “gatheringpipeline,” “mine influenced water,” “oil and gas operations,”“process or processing,” “regulated substance” and lists a num-ber of words that should be defined.

Section 78.15—application requirements. The sectionincludes references to wells, well sites and access roads, and theIRCC asked whether the requirements pertain to all activitiesincluded under the definition of “oil and gas operations.”

The commission’s comments also note concerns about certainrequirements in the well permit application, including how dis-tance standards are to be measured; whether certain waters,streams and wetlands should be added to the list of naturalresources to be protected; a lack of clarity in the term “corridor”;confusion over the term “other critical communities” and DEP’sauthority to define “other critical communities” as “species ofspecial concern”; and whether a 15-day time frame is sufficientfor public resource agencies to provide comments to DEP,including whether the period refers to 15 calendar days or busi-ness days. Additionally, the IRRC pointed to the vagueness of

the terms “probable harmful impacts” and “probable harmfulimpact” used in two subsections.

Section 78.51—protection of water supplies. The IRRCasked DEP to explain the reasonableness of procedures usedwhen making notification of claims of water pollution, includingwhether neighboring landowners and land-management agenciesshould be notified. The commission also requested the depart-ment to explain its authority for including “well site construc-tion” on the list of activities that trigger pollution reporting andinvestigation activities, and DEP was asked to explain why theactivities included in the list adequately protect public health andsafety. Additionally, DEP was directed to explain why pollutionfrom well site construction should be exempt from the presump-tion of liability under Section 3218(c) of Act 13.

Paragraph (d)(2) of the regulations implements a new provi-sion of Act 13 that specifies that restored or replaced water mustmeet Pennsylvania safe drinking water standards or be compara-ble to the quality of the water supply before it was affected ifthat water exceeded those standards. PIOGA was among thecommenters that raised concerns about the reasonableness andcost of such requirements, questioning whether the proposal goesbeyond what was envisioned by the legislature. The IRCCrequested an explanation of how DEP will enforce the require-ment to comply with the intent of the General Assembly and Act13.

Section 78.52—predrilling or prealteration survey. Therebuttable presumption of water supply damage can be voided ifa landowner or water purveyor refuses to allow an unconvention-al operator access to conduct a predrilling or prealteration watersurvey. The IRRC suggested incorporating a time frame for

www.fmctechnologies.com

Frac Flowback

Cased HoleWireline

Fiber OpticLogging

FMC Technologies Completion Services, Inc.2170 Washington Road, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317 Phone: 724.916.4852

Completionswithout Compromise

Page 40 The PIOGA Press

response by the landowner or water purveyor and also requestedclarification when the landowner or water purveyor is deemed tohave refused access.

Section 78.52a—abandoned and orphaned well identifica-tion. The IRRC questioned where DEP derives the authority torequire operators to locate abandoned and orphan wells in prox-imity to the vertical and horizontal sections of a wellbore prior tohydraulic fracturing. The commission asked the department todemonstrate that this requirement aligns with the intent of Act 13and the legislature, and why it is reasonable, how it protects pub-lic health and the environment, and how the benefits outweighthe costs.

Additionally, the IRCC pointed to the need to clarify therequirements that operators submit a questionnaire to landownersregarding identification of abandoned and orphan wells.

Section 78.55—PPC plans. Commenters suggested allowingconventional operators to prepare a single preparedness, preven-tion and contingency (PPC) plan covering multiple sites as a wayof lessening the impact of the regulation. The IRRC askedwhether such a change would allow for adequate environmentalprotection, and if so, encouraged DEP to amend the proposal.Operators must provide PPC plans to the landowner and the Fishand Boat Commission on request; the IRRC asked whether DEPhad also considered extending this to requests from local govern-ments.

Section 78.56—temporary storage. Many commentersexpressed concern about the security requirements for pits, tanksand approved storage structures. The IRRC asked DEP to explainhow these requirements reasonably and adequately balance pro-

tection of public health and the environment against the financialimpact on the oil and gas industry. Similarly, the commissionrequested that the department explain how its pit liner require-ments balance health and environmental protection against coststo the industry.

The IRRC also pointed to new requirements for pit-wallslopes that will dramatically increase the size of pits, and againasked the department to justify the benefits and costs of the rule.

Section 78.57—control, storage and disposal of productionfluids. The IRRC requested clarification that the intent ofSection 78.57c is not to exclude the use of centralized impound-ments, and to ensure that all containment provisions align withthe intent of the legislature and the standards created by Act 13.

Subsection (e) contains new language addressing the removalof underground or partially buried storage tanks, a requirementmany commenters highlighted as unnecessary, unjustified andextremely expensive. The IRRC directed DEP to explain howthis provision aligns with legislative intent and Act 13, anddemonstrate how the anticipated benefits outweigh costs.

Section 78.58—onsite processing. Commenters recommend-ed that the requirements of this section should align with theSolid Waste Management Act to simplify compliance require-ments and avoid conflicting management standards betweenDEP’s oil and gas program and solid waste management pro-gram. The IRRC asked DEP to ensure these provisions do notconflict, and again directed the department to explain the balancebetween environmental protection and industry costs.

Section 78.59a—impoundment embankments. The com-mission highlighted concerns raised by industry commenters thatthe new requirements of this section are much more stringentthan the design criteria for residual waste or hazardous wasteunder the Solid Waste Management Act, and that DEP greatlyunderestimated the costs of compliance, among other issues.DEP was asked to justify the benefits of the requirements for thisprovision as well as for impound requirements under Sections78.59b and c.

Section 78.59b—freshwater impoundments. This sectionattracted considerable attention from the IRRC. In subsection(d), addressing security for impoundments, the commission ques-tioned the timeline for implementation as well as DEP’s equatingthe presence of a person to a fence and which can better preventdamage or access.

Under subsection (f), restoration of freshwater impoundments,the IRRC asked for clarification of how the provision is to be

implemented and to what standards the site is to berestored. The commission also asked for more clarityregarding the appropriateness of the two-year restorationextension.

DEP was asked whether subsection (f) provides ade-quate precautions for restoring impoundments that heldmine-influenced water, and under subsection (g) if thestandards are sufficiently stringent for storing mine-influ-enced water. A subparagraph of (g) requires the operator todemonstrate that the escape of mine-influenced waterstored in an impoundment will not result in air pollution,but concerns were raised by the IRRC that regulation of airquality falls under the jurisdiction of another DEP pro-gram.

Section 78.59c—centralized impoundments. TheIRRC noted that centralized impoundments generated “sig-

February 2014 Page 41May 2014 Page 41

nificant interest” from the regulated community, but three provi-sions in particular were highlighted for further review and justifi-cation by DEP: allowing operators to direct leak collection fromfailed impoundment systems back into the same failed system;requiring an authorized representative of a liner manufacturer tosupervise liner installation; and whether a security provisionshould be included similar that required for temporary storage.

Section 78.62—disposal of residual waste pits. The com-mission questioned why DEP is now prohibiting solid waste gen-erated by the hydraulic fracturing of unconventional wells frombeing disposed of at the well site and, under § 78.63(a)(1), dis-posal of residual waste via land application.

Section 78.64a—containment systems and practices atunconventional well sites. Act 13 lists six specific substancesthat must be stored in containment systems; DEP broadened thescope to include “all regulated substances, including solid wastesand other regulated substances in equipment or vehicles.” Thedepartment was asked to explain how that expansion is consistentwith Act 13 and legislative intent, and whether the costs to indus-try justify health and environmental benefits.

In the same vein, the applicable section of Act 13 does notrequire secondary containment, as does subsection (f) of the reg-ulations when it comes to storing additives, chemicals, oils orfuels. The IRRC also expressed confusion over whether the stan-dards for containment systems also apply to secondary contain-ment.

Subsection (j) mandates that stormwater that comes into con-tact with regulated substances within the secondary containmentbe managed as residual waste. The IRRC asked the departmentto explain its rationale for this requirement if the stormwater isnot discharged.

Inspection reports and maintenance records under this sectionmust be available for DEP review at the well site. The IRRCagreed with a commenter who indicated it would be difficult tomaintain such records onsite and a more practical requirement isto have the records made available on request. The departmentwas directed to specify how long and where reports and recordsare to be kept.

Section 78.65—site restoration. Noting the disparity in com-ments between those who believe the requirements of this sec-tion conflict with Act 13 and those who think the provisionsdon’t go far enough, the IRRC asked that DEP demonstrate howthe proposed rules strike the proper balance between protectionof health and the environment and costs to the industry.

Section 78.66—reporting and remediating releases. Thissection again uses the previously questioned term “regulated sub-stances” and incorporates the concepts of Act 2 for the remedia-tion of spills and releases. The IRRC asked why the standards ofAct 2 are appropriate for active oil and gas operations.Additionally, the commission observed that the notificationrequirements here go beyond requirements elsewhere in the pro-posal for incidents that cause or threaten pollution.

In terms of remediation of releases, it was noted that a lack ofa statewide health standard for chloride would make this provi-sion costly and difficult to implement. Further, the alternativeremediation process provided in the proposed rules is more oner-ous that other Act 2 cleanups because of restrictive timetables forcompliance.

Section 78.68—gathering lines, horizontal drilling forpipelines, and temporary pipelines. Comments from the indus- An affiliate of The Pennsylvania State University Penn College operates on a nondiscriminatory basis.

ShaleTEC serves as the central resource for workforce development and education needs of the community and the oil and natural gas industry. Some May classes include:

PEC Basic SafeGulf/SafeLand OrientationGain a basic, awareness-level understanding of general safety information that an employee should know before entering a company facility and while performing assigned work duties. Meets API RP 75 & API RP T-1 requirements.

Fri., May 9, 7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Williamsport, PA, $225

Electrical Safety for Electrical Maintenance PersonnelUnderstand the essentials of industrial electrical safety, troubleshooting, installation, and how to meet OSHA and NFPA guidelines.

Wed. & Thurs., May 14 & 15, 8 a.m.-noon, Williamsport, PA, $225

Aerial Work Platform Safety OperationLearn the proper procedures and operation for common aerial work platforms. Meets OSHA and ANSI/SIA A92.2-A92.5 regarding aerial work platforms.

Tues., May 20, 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Montgomery, PA, $275

Trenching & Excavation Safety Competent Person TrainingLearn field applications to minimize the risks of injuries, accidents, and equipment failures. Hands-on training is used to demonstrate how to conduct a trench inspection, soil classification or installation, and use of protective systems such as shields and shoring.

Fri., May 23, 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Montgomery, PA, $250

Visit www.shaletec.org or call 570-327-4775 for a complete course listing, descriptions, and to register.

Page 42 The PIOGA Press

➤ Find out more:www.irrc.state.pa.us/regulation_details.aspx?IRRCNo=3042

try assert that the matters addressed in this section are extensive-ly covered by both federal and state law, so these particular regu-lations are not needed. The IRRC directed DEP to explain why itbelieves the regulations are needed in light of these otherstatutes.

Section 78.69—water management plans. Implementationrequirements related to water management plans for unconven-tional operators are seen as vague and should include specificreferences to Susquehanna River Basin Commission regulations.Also unclear are many aspects related to approval, renewal, sus-pension, revocation, denials and other aspects.

Section 78.70 and 78.70a—use of brine for dust control,road stabilization and ice control. The IRCC said it is unclearwhy DEP would place requirements related to road-spreading ofbrine under regulations addressing performance standards at oiland gas wells. Additionally, beneficial use of brine is subject toregulations under the Solid Waste Management Act, and the

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has allowed brineapplication on unpaved roads for years. The commission notedthat certain provisions—such as requiring the applicant to pro-vide the name of the each well and the associated geologic for-mation from which the brine was produced—appear to be unrea-sonable, particularly for local governments.

Section 78.73—well construction and operation. Newrequirements related to monitoring orphan and abandoned wellsduring hydraulic fracturing raise several red flags for the IRRC.First is the ambiguity whether the requirement applies to conven-tional operators, unconventional or both. Second, operators arerequired to visually monitor these types of wells if they “likely”penetrated a formation intended for stimulation. The term “like-ly” is vague, the IRRC observed. Third, the regulations assumethat landowners will allow operators access to monitor suchwells—but what happens when operators are denied access?Finally, an operator who alters an orphan or abandoned well byhydraulic fracturing must plug the well. The commission notesthat while Act 13 defines “alteration,” the regulations do not.

Section 78.122—well record and completion report.Although the DEP says this section addresses Act 13 require-ments, commenters pointed out several provisions that arebeyond the scope of the Oil and Gas Act. The department wasasked to provide a more specific citation of the parts of Act 13that this section is intended to implement. ■

February 2014 Page 43May 2014 Page 43

Extraordinary depth in mineral title

Dedicated to shaping energy law for the futurewww.steptoe-johnson.com

THE PROOFIS IN THE

NUMBERS

HIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT

7,000 mineral title opinions in multiple plays in 2013

200 energy attorneys cross-trained to understand title in 22 states

One of the largest due diligence teams nationwide

More than 100 years of experience in energy law

20 attorney Division Order Title Opinion Team

Leader in unitization permits filed in the Utica Shale

Top-ranked in energy law by Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America®, and AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Sharon O. FlaneryENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT CHAIR

Page 44 The PIOGA Press

Natural Gas Futures Closing PricesAs of May 9

Month PriceJune 2014 4.518July 4.527August 4.525September 4.508October 4.517November 4.559December 4.662January 2015 4.718February 4.701March 4.601April 4.113May 4.088

SourcesAmerican Refining Group: www.amref.com/Crude-Prices-New.aspxErgon Oil Purchasing: www.ergon.com/prices.phpGas futures: http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_NGBaker Hughes rig count: http://gis.bakerhughesdirect.com/ReportsNYMEX strip chart courtesy of Mid American Natural Resources,

manrenergy.com

Oil & Gas Trends

Pennsylvania Rig Count

CM HALL ASSOCIATES, INC.Manufacturer’s Representatives

Engineered Products for the Marcellus & Utica

Craig M. Hall

326 W. Pike Street PBV – Trunnion Ball Valves Canonsburg, PA 15317 USA CompressionOfc. 724.916.3070 Horizontal & Submersible PumpsCell: 724.747.6633 Kirk Key Interlockscraig@cmhallass.com GEA Heat Exchangers

www.cmhallass.com

February 2014 Page 45May 2014 Page 45

dsteffy@newprospect.comCell: (412) 667-9817

www.newprospect.com

NEW PROSPECT COMPANY

Office: (724) 742-1122Fax: (724) 742-4703

NEW PROSPECT COMPANY120 MARGUERITE DRIVE, SUITE 201 • CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, PA 16066

DANIEL R. STEFFYNE Business Development ManagerEngineering, Completions and Drilling Consultants

R.L. Laughlin & Co., Inc.“Providing Gas Measurement Services Since 1970”

t Site Automation t Electronic Chart Integration

t Meter Sales t Meter Installations

t Gas Analysis t Calibrations & Repairs

NOW SERVING YOU IN 3 LOCATIONS:

125 State Rt. 43 5012 Washington St., W.

Hartville, OH 44632 Charleston, WV 25313

330-587-1230 304-776-7740

2895 Maysville Pike

Zanesville, OH 43701

740-297-8061

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

$6.00

$6.50

1/1 1/15 1/29 2/12 2/26 3/11 3/25 4/8 4/22 5/6 5/20 6/3 6/17 7/1 7/15 7/29 8/12 8/26 9/9 9/23 10/7 10/21 11/4 11/18 12/2 12/1612/30

Per M

MB

tuNYMEX ANNUAL STRIP PRICE

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Page 46 The PIOGA Press

PIOGA EventsPIOGA Summer Picnic

June 16, Wanango Golf Club, RenoInfo: www.pioga.org/events/category/pioga-events

PIOGA Pig Roast, Equipment Show and ConferenceJuly 22-23, Seven Springs Mountain Resort, ChampionInfo: www.pioga.org/events/category/pioga-events

17th Annual Divot Diggers Golf OutingAugust 15, Tam O'Shanter Golf Club, HermitageInfo: www.ipaa.org/meetings-events/upcoming-meetings

Industry EventsDUG East

June 3-5, David L. Lawrence Convention Center, PittsburghInfo: www.dugeast.com

IPAA Midyear MeetingJune 18-20, The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, COInfo: www.ipaa.org/meetings-events/upcoming-meetings

IOGAWV Annual Oil & Gas Equipment ShowJuly 9-11, Buckhannon, WVInfo: events.iogawv.com

IOGANY Summer MeetingJuly 16-17, Peek'n Peak Resort,Findley Lake, NYInfo: www.iogany.org

IOGAWV Summer MeetingAugust 3-5, The Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, WVInfo: events.iogawv.com

OOGA Summer MeetingAugust 4-5, Zanesville Country Club, Zanesville, OHInfo: ooga.org/events

Shale Insight 2014September 24-25, David Lawrence Conv. Center, PittsburghInfo: www.shaleinsight.com

WV Oil & Gas ExpoOctober 1, Morgantown, WVInfo: www.wvoilandgasexpo.com

IOGANY Annual MeetingNovember 11-12, Hyatt Regency, Buffalo, NYInfo: www.iogany.org

IPAA Annual MeetingNovember 12-14, The Breakers, Palm Springs, FLInfo: www.ipaa.org/meetings-events/upcoming-meetings

Calendar of Events

➤ More events: www.pioga.org

New PIOGA members — welcome!

OOGA Oilfield ExpoDecember 2-4, IX Center, Cleveland, OHInfo: ooga.org/events

Alliance Consulting, Inc.3 Four Coins Drive, Suite 100, Canonsburg, PA 15317724-745-3630www.aci-wv.comProfessional Firm

Apex Energy Service, LLCP.O. Box B, Finleyville, PA 15332724-576-4640www.apexservice.usService Provider

A.V. Lauttamus Communications, Inc.1344 Cove Road, Weirton, WV 26062304-723-5555www.lauttamus.comService Provider

Bakner Manufacturing LLC200 Eagles Nest Drive, Suite 300C, Canton, GA 30115770-720-0997www.bakner.comService Provider

California University of PA250 University Avenue, California, PA 15419724-938-4710www.calu.edu/golandmanagementAssociate

Chesapeake Utilities Corporation909 Silver Lake Boulevard, Dover, DE 19904302-736-7676www.chpk.comPipeline

Earthwerks Energy Contracting4564 Highway 431, Heflin, AL 36264256-310-0898Service Provider

FirstPower Group, LLC8941 Dutton Drive, Twinsburg, OH 44087330-963-2076www.firstpowergroupllc.comService Provider

Flynn Energy Transport, Inc.364 Wickwire Way, Towanda, PA 18848-9278570-268-3880www.flynnenergy1.comService Provider

Indiana County Center for Economic Development801 Water Street, Indiana, PA 15701724-465-3876www.indianacountyceo.comAssociate

PIOGA Board of DirectorsGary Slagel (Chairman), Steptoe & Johnson PLLC (representing

CONSOL Energy)Sam Fragale (Vice Chairman), Chief Oil & Gas, LLCFrank J. Ross (2nd Vice Chairman), T&F Exploration, LPJames Kriebel (Treasurer), Kriebel CompaniesCraig Mayer (Secretary), Pennsylvania General Energy Co., LLCTerrence S. Jacobs (Past President), Penneco Oil Company, Inc.Mary Anna Babich, Dawood EngineeringThomas M. Bartos, ABARTA Oil & Gas Company, Inc.Stanley J. Berdell, BLX, Inc.Rob Boulware, Seneca Resources CorporationMike Cochran, Energy Corporation of AmericaDon A. Connor, Open Flow EnergyTed Cranmer, TBC ConsultingJack Crook, Atlas Resource Partners, LPRobert Esch, American Refining Group, Inc.Michael Hillebrand, Huntley & Huntley, Inc.Jim Hoover, Phoenix Energy Productions, Inc. Ron McGlade, Tenaska Resources, LLCJim McKinney, EnerVest Operating, LLCSteve Millis, Vineyard Oil & Gas CompanyGregory Muse, PennEnergy Resources, LLCStephen Rupert, Texas Keystone, Inc.Jake Stilley, Patriot Exploration CorporationGary M. Violi, Appalachian Well Services Inc.Burt A. Waite, Moody and Associates, Inc.Roger B. Willis, Universal Well Services, Inc.Thomas Yarnick, XTO Energy

Committee ChairsEnvironmental Committee

Paul Hart, Fluid Recovery Services, LLCKen Fleeman, ABARTA Oil and Gas Company, Inc.

Pipeline & Gas Market Development CommitteeBob Eckle, Appalachian Producer Services, LLCRon McGlade, Tenaska Resources, LLC

Health & Safety CommitteePat Carfagna, CONSOL Energy

Meetings CommitteeLou D’Amico, PIOGA

Tax CommitteeDonald B. Nestor, Arnett Foster Toothman, PLLC

Communications CommitteeTerry Jacobs, Penneco Oil Company, Inc.

Membership CommitteeVacant

StaffLou D'Amico (lou@pioga.org), President & Executive DirectorKevin Moody (kevin@pioga.org), Vice President & General Counsel Debbie Oyler (debbie@pioga.org), Director of Member ServicesMatt Benson (matt@pioga.org), Director of Internal Communications

(also newsletter advertising & editorial)Joyce Turkaly (joyce@pioga.org), Director of Natural Gas Market

DevelopmentDan Weaver (dan@pioga.org), Public Outreach DirectorDanielle Boston (danielle@pioga.org), Director of AdministrationChris Lisle (chris@pioga.org), Manager of Finance Tracy Koval (tracy@pioga.org), Administrative Assistant

Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association115 VIP Drive, Suite 210 • Wexford, PA 15090-7906724-933-7306 • fax 724-933-7310 • www.pioga.org

Northern Tier Office (Matt Benson)Mail: P.O. Box L, Mount Jewett, PA 16740-0554

Physical address: 167 Wolf Farm Road, Kane, PA 16735Phone/fax 814-778-2291

© 2014, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association

February 2014 Page 47May 2014 Page 47

Inland Tarp & Liner1600 North Main Street, Fostoria, OH 44830724-552-8101www.inlandtarp.comService Provider

J-W Power Company200 Georgetown Drive, Suite 301, Sewickley, PA 15143724-749-4745www.jwenergy.comService Provider

Leggette, Brashears, & Graham, Inc.P.O. Box 1745, Cranberry Twp., PA 16066614-595-9854www.lbgweb.comProfessional Firm

LevelCon4402 Gettysburg Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011717-761-8461www.libertyinc.netService Provider

M&M Pump and Supply Inc.1125 Olivette Executive Parkway, St. Louis, MO 63132314-395-8122www.mandumpump.comService Provider

Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc.1101 3rd Street SE, Canton, OH 44707330-456-3121www.midwestind.comService Provider

Mistras Group207 Jayhawk Drive, Jeannette, PA 15644724-374-5286www.mistrasgroup.comService Provider

Northeast Ohio Oilfield Service, Inc.P.O. Box 367, Garrettsville, OH 44231330-527-5377Service Provider

Powerhouse Equipment240 Creek Road, Delanco, NJ 08075856-764-3333www.powerhouse.comService Provider

Samson Exploration, LLC1300 Main Street, Suite 1900, Houston, TX 77002713-577-2038www.samsonco.comProducer

UBS Financial Services, Inc.2200 Georgetowne Drive, Sewickley, PA 15143724-799-2555www.ubs.com/team/sofrankowmgProfessional Firm

United Piping4510 Airport Road, Duluth, MN 55811-1523218-727-7676www.unitedpiping.usService Provider

115 VIP Drive, Suite 210Wexford, PA 15090-7906

Address Service Requested