The State of State Shale
Gas Regulation: Appendices
Nathan Richardson, Madeline Gottlieb,
Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman
JUNE 2013
Table of Contents
Appendix 1. Previous Work on Shale Gas Regulation .............................................................. 1
Appendix 2. Federalism: Division of Authority among Levels of Government
Regulating Shale Gas Activities............................................................................................... 6
A2.1 Interstate Regulation: River Basin Commissions ...................................................................... 6
A2.2 Federal Regulation ................................................................................................................................ 7
A2.2.1 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................. 7
A2.2.2 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................... 8
A2.2.3 Other Regulatory Authority ....................................................................................................... 9
A2.2.4 The Federal Government as Landowner .............................................................................. 9
A2.2.5 The Federal Regulatory Role: Summary ............................................................................... 9
A2.3 Local Regulation .................................................................................................................................. 10
Appendix 3. Further Statistical Analyses .................................................................................... 11
A3.1 Number of Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 12
A3.2 Type of Regulation .............................................................................................................................. 14
A3.3 Stringency Method 1 .......................................................................................................................... 15
A3.4 Stringency Method 2 .......................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 4. Tables of State Regulations ..................................................................................... 17
Appendix 5. State Regulatory Data ............................................................................................... 49
© 2013 Resources for the Future.
Resources for the Future is an independent, nonpartisan think
tank that, through its social science research, enables
policymakers and stakeholders to make better, more informed
decisions about energy, environmental, and natural resource
issues. Located in Washington, DC, its research scope comprises
programs in nations around the world.
THE STATE OF STATE SHALE GAS REGULATION:
REPORT APPENDICES
Nathan Richardson, Madeline Gottlieb, Alan Krupnick, and Hannah Wiseman1
Appendix 1. Previous Work on Shale Gas Regulation
The literature contains no comprehensive survey of US oil and gas statutes and regulations that
apply to shale gas development. Several other authors have begun to explore aspects of shale gas and
associated regulation, however, and their work forms a foundation for this project.
Several publications have explored regulation of shale gas development descriptively without
assessing the adequacy of regulation. American Law and Jurisprudence of Fracing,2 a law firm
publication, describes regulations in 18 states, focusing primarily on regulations specific to hydraulic
fracturing (if any), drilling and casing regulations, and recent revisions to state oil and gas law. The
report briefly describes local regulations within some of these states, and the authors identify the state
agencies tasked with writing and enforcing oil and gas and environmental policies. Although primarily
descriptive, the report also makes predictions about the likelihood of future regulation, anticipating
that if states continue to modify their regulations to create robust oversight at the state level, “federal
oversight of fracking will be diminished.”3
Other papers have offered similarly broad, descriptive comparisons of shale gas regulation. The
Texas Wesleyan Law Review published a 2012 Survey on Oil and Gas that summarizes case law,
legislative action, and regulatory action at the state and local level in eight states, for example.4 For
each state addressed, the survey describes agencies and their authority over oil and gas and recent
legal developments—including updates specific to hydraulic fracturing. Terry W. Roberson similarly
explores recent moratoria, regulations, and legislative and regulatory developments relating to
hydraulic fracturing in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas,5 and Rebecca Jo Reser and David T. Ritter
1
Nathan Richardson is a resident scholar at Resources for the Future (RFF). Madeline Gottlieb is a research assistant at RFF. Alan
Krupnick is a senior fellow and director of RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy. Hannah Wiseman is an assistant professor
of law at Florida State University. This work is funded by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and this report was
developed by RFF’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy (CEEP) as part of a larger initiative, Managing the Risks of Shale Gas:
Identifying a Pathway toward Responsible Development. Updated findings are published at www.rff.org/shalegasrisks. Read the
executive summary and full report at www.rff.org/shalemaps.
2
Thomas E. Kurth, Michael J. Mazzone, Mary S. Mendoza, and Christopher S. Kulander, American Law and Jurisprudence on
Fracing—2012 (n.p.: Haynes & Boone, LLP), accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.haynesboone.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Attorney%20Publications/CURRENT_RMMLF%20Fracing%202012%20Pa
per_Formatted.pdf.
3
Kurth et al., American Law and Jurisprudence, 187.
4
See Edward S. Rennick, “California,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 473; Martha Phillips Whitmore, “Colorado,” Texas
Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 479; Keith B. Hall, “Louisiana,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 511; David L. Seamon,
“Maryland,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 527; Stephen R. Brown, “Montana,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012):
541; Gary Holland, “Tennessee,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 619; Bruce M. Kramer, “Texas,” Texas Wesleyan Law
Review 18 (2012): 627; Andrew Graham and Cole Delancey, “West Virginia,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 18 (2012): 675.
5
Terry W. Roberson, “Environmental Concerns of Hydraulically Fracturing a Natural Gas Well,” Utah Environmental Law Review 2
(2012): 67, 88–96.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
1
summarize fracking-specific regulatory and legislative developments in Texas.6 Professor Ross Pifer,
in turn, offers a thorough description of Pennsylvania’s regulatory response to the rapid rise in
Marcellus Shale development, including regulations and policies that apply to most stages of the
development process in Pennsylvania and an analysis of Department of Environmental Protection
enforcement efforts.7 Pifer also makes some normative proposals for a “comprehensive proactive
approach to Marcellus Shale issues,” suggesting that the General Assembly should “establish a
framework” for collecting information and reviewing existing laws and “comparable laws in other
states.”8 Michelle Kennedy surveys local attempts at regulating drilling and fracking in New York and
Pennsylvania and courts’ responses to those efforts.9 Several Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation
publications also describe recent developments in federal, state, and local laws that apply to shale gas
development.10
A second area of the literature has begun to normatively address shale gas regulation. In a
publication prepared for the US Department of Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council—a
nonprofit association of state regulators—argued in 2009 that existing regulation of shale gas
development was effective and that regulation should remain at the state level. 11 This publication also
explores the content of state regulations, summarizing the numbers and/or percentages of states
studied by the Ground Water Protection Council that have implemented various regulations to protect
groundwater during the drilling and fracking process, such as required minimum depths of casing
below groundwater or cementing standards. The report does not specify the location or content of the
regulations, however,12 and it sometimes does not specify which states have implemented the
regulations that it summarizes.
The State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) has conducted
state-specific analyses of hydraulic fracturing and related regulations and, based on these analyses,
has proposed several regulatory changes in states. STRONGER is a public–private institution that
voluntarily analyzes the effectiveness of states’ regulatory regimes for oil and gas and recommends
improvements based on a set of core guidelines.13 It has completed individualized reviews of
regulatory regimes for hydraulic fracturing in approximately six states and an initial review in North
6
Rebecca Jo Reser and David T. Ritter, “State and Federal Legislation and Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing,” The Advocate (Texas)
57 (2011): 31, 34–35.
7
Ross H. Pifer, “What a Short, Strange Trip It’s Been: Moving Forward after Five Years of Marcellus Shale Development,” University
of Pittsburgh Law Review 72 (2011): 615, 635–644.
8
Pifer, “What a Short, Strange Trip,” 659.
9
Michelle L. Kennedy, “The Exercise of Local Control over Gas Extraction,” Fordham Environmental
Law Review 22 (2011): 375.
10
Rebecca W. Watson and Nora R. Pincus, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Supply Protection—Federal Regulatory Developments,”
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2012, no. 3): paper no. 6; R. Timothy Weston and Stephen J. Matzura,
“Acquisition of Water for Energy and Mineral Development in the Eastern United States,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation,
institute (2012 no. 3): paper no. 2A; Colin G. Harris and Ivan L. London, “There’s Something in the Air: New and Evolving Air Quality
Regulations Impacting Oil and Gas Development,” Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, institute (2012, no. 58): 6-1; Bruce M.
Kramer, “A Short History of Federal Statutory and Regulatory Concerns Relating to Hydraulic Fracturing,” Rocky Mountain Mineral
Law Foundation, institute (2011, no. 5): paper no. 2.
11
Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources (Washington, DC:
US Department of Energy, May 2009), 5–6,
http://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/state_oil_and_gas_regulations_designed_to_protect_water_resources_0.pdf.
For the percentage of states studied that have regulations requiring “surface casing below deepest ground water,” see page 19.
12
Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations, 21, describing cement verification methods required in
Alaska, Michigan, and Ohio but not citing to the regulations that require these methods.
13
State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), “Hydraulic Fracturing Guidelines” (n.p.: STRONGER,
February 8, 2010), accessed May 10, 2013,
http://67.20.79.30/sites/all/themes/stronger02/downloads/HF%20Guideline%20Web%20posting.pdf.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
2
Carolina14—a state that has just begun to receive applications to drill and hydraulically fracture
wells.15 The STRONGER reviews do not address regulations that apply to all stages of the drilling and
fracking process, and some are more detailed than others; all, however, assess state programs based
on hydraulic fracturing guidelines written by STRONGER.
As an example of STRONGER findings, in the organization’s review of Ohio’s regulatory program in
2011, it notes that the state’s well permit application reviews “include an evaluation of potential
pathways for contamination of groundwater” and “are appropriate and commendable.”16 It also
concludes that the state’s requirements for casing and cementing plans “provide a strong incentive to
prevent or correct problems that could lead to groundwater contamination.”17 Further, STRONGER
believes that the state receives adequate information from electric well logs to determine whether a
well failure occurred during fracking.18 Its assessment of the adequacy of Ohio’s standards for surface
pits is vaguer, indicating simply that “[r]egulatory standards exist for pit construction, freeboard, and
timeframes for closure.”19 In other areas, STRONGER recommended improvements, including that the
Ohio Department of Mineral Resources Management require spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids to be
directly reported to staff, that the Department consider whether it is receiving all needed information
about fracking chemicals from operators, that the state continue to evaluate availability of water for
fracking, and that the state continue to encourage flowback water recycling.20
Federal and state groups have also produced several recommendations for improved regulation.
The Shale Gas Production Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board recommends the
growth of “public information about shale gas operations” through a publicly accessible portal; better
communications among state and federal regulators; reductions in ozone precursor, methane, and
other air pollutants “as quickly as practicable;” additional methane leakage studies; and “[e]limination
of diesel use in fracturing fluids,” among other recommendations.21 The Governor’s Marcellus Shale
Advisory Commission in Pennsylvania thoroughly explored federal, state, and local regulations;
executive orders; and other guidance to shale gas developers in the state. Based on this review, the
Commission recommended increasing penalty amounts for civil violations of the state’s Oil and Gas
Act, authorizing “conditioning of a well permit based on its impact [on] public resources,” extending
presumed industry liability for water contamination within 2,500 feet of the well, tracking and
reporting of disposal and wastewater, and other requirements, many of which were later
implemented.22
Several law professors explore regulations and make recommendations for improvements in
published or forthcoming articles in legal journals. David Spence describes the impacts noted so far,
14
“What Is the State Review Process?” STRONGER, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.strongerinc.org/.
Clean Energy and Economic Security Act, bill draft 2011-RIxfz-28 (v.17), March 19, 2012 (proposed, 2012 Reg. Sess., 2011 Gen.
Assembly), accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/EPI-LRC/FINAL%20-%202012%20LRC%20Energy%20Policy%20Issues%20Report.pdf. See also Elizabeth Turgeon, “’Goin’ To Carolina In My Mind:’”
Prospects and Perils for Natural Gas Drilling in North Carolina,” North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology 13 (2011): 147,
describing North Carolina’s current law, the comprehensive study of “oil and gas resources present in the Triassic Basins and in any
other areas of the State” required by the North Carolina legislature, and pending legislation.
16
STRONGER, Ohio Hydraulic Fracturing State Review, (Oklahoma City, OK: STRONGER, 2011), 5, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/11/oil/pdf/stronger_review11.pdf.
17
STRONGER, Ohio, 13.
18
STRONGER, Ohio, 14.
19
STRONGER, Ohio, 13.
20
STRONGER, Ohio, 13, 15, 18.
21
Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second Ninety Day Report (Washington, DC: US
Department of Energy, 2011), 4, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/111811_final_report.pdf.
15
22
RICHARDSON ET AL.
3
explores the current regulatory structure, and analyzes where the locus of regulatory authority should
be, concluding that federal regulation should, for the most part, be limited to impacts that cross state
boundaries.23 In a forthcoming reply, Professor Michael Burger explores exemptions for certain oil and
gas and shale gas activities from the SDWA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and suggests
certain considerations that may justify federal regulation.24 Hannah Wiseman describes potential risks
of shale gas development at most stages of the process based on violations of state environmental laws
at well sites; she then explores the regulations that apply to each stage and suggests that gaps remain.
She recommends that states more closely review differences among regulation and update their
regulations closer to the standards of the “leader” states where differences in geology and climate do
not justify differences.25 She also suggests that the federal government should continue investigating
the need to further regulate aspects of the development process where the government already has
authority, such as the regulation of flowback wastewater disposal under the Clean Water Act (CWA).26
Joshua Fershee also explores risks and suggests that EPA should require compliance with API “best
practices for hydraulic fracturing.”27 Robert Freilich and Neil Popowitz explore local aspects of
regulation, generally suggesting that local control over shale gas development is needed and
suggesting effective strategies for local control.28 John Nolon conducts a similar analysis for New York
but does not propose where authority should lie; instead, he explores the many challenges that lie
ahead in deciding, and clarifying, which governments should have authority over shale gas
development.29
A variety of student notes and comments in legal journals discuss limited regulatory issues in the
fracking area from a normative perspective—often suggesting improved regulation in single states or
for narrow portions of the shale gas development process. Several projects address the legal
frameworks for water withdrawals for fracking. For Pennsylvania, one student proposes centralized
state permitting of withdrawals based on a “precise, scientific standard.”30 In Louisiana, where the
legislature passed a temporary law (Act 955) allowing the state to sell certain amounts of water from
state-owned water bodies to fracking operators, a student explores this and other state water law and
argues that the act fails to adequately consider environmental impacts.31 Another note thoroughly
explores the state’s water laws, including Act 955, and argues that further clarification of the laws is
needed to govern water withdrawals by the many fracking companies that do not own riparian water
rights.32 Finally, some student-authored articles address shale gas regulation more broadly. One
23
David Spence, “Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy Production,” University of Pennsylvania Law
Review 161 (2012): 431.
24
Michael Burger, “Fracking and Federalism Choice” (response), University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 161 (2013): 150,
accessed May 10, 2013,
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/lawreview/articles/volume161/issue2/Burger161U.Pa.L.Rev.150(2013).pdf.
25
Hannah Wiseman, “Risk and Response in Fracturing Policy,” University of Colorado Law Review 84 (forthcoming 2013), accessed
May 10, 2013, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017104.
26
Wiseman, “Risk and Response.”
27
Joshua P. Fershee, “The Oil and Gas Revolution, Learning from the Hydraulic Fracturing Experiences in North Dakota and West
Virginia,” Texas Wesleyan Law Review 19 (2012): 23.
28
Robert H. Freilich and Neil Popowitz, “Oil and Gas Fracking: State and Federal Regulation Does Not Preempt Local Government
Regulation,” Urban Law 44 (2012): 533.
29
John R. Nolon and Victoria Polidoro, “Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides?” Urban Law 44
(2012): 507.
30
Michael Dillon, “Comment: Water Scarcity and Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania: Examining Pennsylvania Water Law and
Water Shortage Issues Presented by Natural Gas Operations in the Marcellus Shale,” Temple Law Review 84 (2011): 201, 242–43.
31
Robert Fleming, “Comment: Hydraulic Fracturing, Louisiana Water Law, and Act 955: An Irresistible Economic Force Meets an
Immovable Legal Object,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 24 (2011): 363, 397–98;
32
Laura Springer, “Comment: Waterproofing the New Fracking Regulation: The Necessity of Defining Riparian Rights in Louisiana’s
Water Law,” Louisiana Law Review 72 (2011): 225, 252–53.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
4
explores the many laws that apply to natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania and concludes that
Congress and the states over the Marcellus should “facilitate the formation of a Marcellus Shale
Compact and Commission,” which would streamline and simplify regulation while also minimizing
environmental effects.33 Another student note explores the extent to which states have implemented
comprehensive regulations to address fracking, concluding that state regulations provide “extensive
environmental protections” and that federal regulation would overlap with or void state rules and
would be expensive.34
Finally, a growing body of scientific and other literature—only briefly reviewed here—assesses
the potential impacts of development and, in some cases, proposes regulatory efforts to address these
impacts. A team of Duke scientists has published two articles on potential migration of methane35 and
brine36 into groundwater as a result of drilling and fracking for gas in the Marcellus shale. These
authors suggest “that systematic and independent data on groundwater quality” should be collected
before drilling operations begin in a region, and that certain areas of the Marcellus Shale should be
monitored “to test potential mechanisms of enhanced hydraulic connectivity,”37 which they believe
could contribute to brine entering shallow groundwater. They also propose that regulation may be
“needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction.”38 Terry Engelder concludes in
another scientific publication that brine from gas wells does not migrate to aquifers, although he
makes no proposals as to whether regulation or monitoring should occur.39 Another study has
explored the potential for spills in the Marcellus Region and the impacts of these spills,40 concluding
that, under “best-case risk management,” contaminated water volumes “would equate to several hours
flow of the Hudson River.”41 The authors propose additional steps to “reduce the potential for
contaminated fluid release from hydraulic fracturing.”42 Another study that broadly assesses the
impacts of shale gas development on health concludes that “testing of air and water prior to drilling
and at regular intervals after drilling has commenced” is essential to fully assess shale gas risks.43 It
also suggests that exposure to drilling and fracking chemicals could be “minimized with strict safety
standards and careful inspection” but concludes that current state agency staffing levels are
inadequate, thus making monitoring difficult.44
33
Laura C. Reeder, “Note, Creating a Legal Framework for Regulation of Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale
Formation,” William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 34 (2010): 999, 1015–20; 1022–23.
34
Matt Willie, “Comment: Hydraulic Fracturing and ‘Spotty’ Regulation: Why the Federal Government Should Let State Control
Unconventional Onshore Drilling,” Brigham Young University Law Review 2011 (2011): 1753, 1762–66, 1777–76.
35
Stephen G. Osborn, Avner Vengosh, Nathaniel R. Warner, and Robert B. Jackson, “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water
Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (2011): 8172,
8176.
36
Nathaniel R. Warner, Robert B. Jackson, Thomas H. Darrah, Stephen G. Osborn, Adrian Down, Kaiguang Zhao, Alissa White, and
Avner Vengosh, “Geochemical Evidence for Possible Natural Migration of Marcellus Formation Brine to Shallow Aquifers in
Pennsylvania,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (2012): E3626, E3626, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/03/1121181109.full.pdf.
37
Nathaniel R. Warner et al., “Geochemical Evidence for Possible Natural Migration,” 6.
38
Stephen G. Osborn et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking Water,” 8172, 8176.
39
Terry Engelder, “Capillary Tension and Imbibition Sequester Fracturing fluid in Marcellus Gas Shale,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences E 109 (2012): 3625, E2625.
40
Daniel J. Rozell and Sheldon J. Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas Extraction from the Marcellus Shale,”
Risk Analysis 32 (2011): 1382, 1384, accessed May 10, 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.15396924.2011.01757.x/pdf.
41
Rozell and Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk,” 1391.
42
Rozell and Reaven, “Water Pollution Risk,” 1391.
43
Michelle Bamberger and Robert E. Oswold, “Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health,” New Solutions 22 (2012): 51,
68.
44
Id at 70.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
5
Appendix 2. Federalism: Division of Authority among Levels of Government
Regulating Shale Gas Activities
The question of shale gas regulatory federalism—that is, which level of government is best
equipped to regulate risks—is complex and highly controversial. Although the issue is ripe for study, it
is not our purpose to do so here. The following sections, therefore, briefly discuss shale gas regulation
by authorities other than states to put the earlier discussion of state-level regulation in context.
A2.1 Interstate Regulation: River Basin Commissions
To coordinate regulation on matters of joint concern, multiple states may enter into interstate
compacts or agreements. Under the Constitution, such agreements require the consent of Congress.45
A common form of such compacts is the creation of new governmental bodies (agencies or
commissions) with regulatory authority in the relevant area. These commissions derive their
authority from that of the states that form the compact, and that authority is limited by the terms of
the compact. More than 150 such compacts have been created in the past 70 years.46
For regulation relevant to shale gas development, the most significant interstate compacts are
RBCs. These bodies are created by states that share a river basin or watershed, and are invested with
authority to manage that resource and/or prevent environmental damage. Powers granted to RBCs
vary, however.47 The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, for example, lacks
independent regulatory authority, and exists primarily for coordination among states.48 Some RBCs do
have independent authority, however. For regulating shale gas development, only two—the Delaware
and Susquehanna RBCs—have independent authority. These RBCs have been characterized as “the
‘high point’ of well-established integrated surface water/groundwater management arrangements.”49
Both the Delaware and Susquehanna RBCs have authority to issue regulations, require permits,
and impose fines for noncompliance.50 This authority is significant for shale gas development for two
reasons. First, much of the Marcellus shale play lies underneath land in the Delaware or Susquehanna
basins and is therefore subject to RBC authority. Second, shale gas operations require significant water
withdrawals and may require disposal of wastewater—both of which are regulated by the RBCs.
The Delaware RBC has very broad authority, possibly due to its creation in the early 1960s, before
independent environmental legislation (most notably the CWA) gave the federal government
significant regulatory authority.51 Specifically, the Delaware RBC Compact requires any “project having
a substantial effect on the water resources of the basin” to obtain advance approval (in practice, a
45
Compact clause.
“Understanding Interstate Compacts,” Council of State Governments—National Center for Interstate Compacts, accessed May
10, 2013, http://www.cglg.org/projects/water/CompactEducation/Understanding_Interstate_Compacts--CSGNCIC.pdf.
47
Reeder, “Creating a Legal Framework,” 1017.
48
See Joseph W. Dellapenna, “Transboundary Water Allocation in the Twenty-First Century: Colloquium Article: Interstate Struggles
over Rivers: The Southeastern States and the Struggle over the 'Hooch,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 12 (2005):
828, 840 n58, “To a lesser extent, the Potomac basin also features a rather more developed system of interstate cooperative water
management than is found in most other compacts, although strictly speaking it only requires consultations and has no decisionmaking authority.”
49
Weston, R. Timothy, “Harmonizing Management of Ground and Surface Water Use,” University of Denver Water Law Review 11,
no.2 (2008): 239.
50
Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer,
(Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, and National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2009), accessed
May 10, 2013, http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/epreports/shale_gas_primer_2009.pdf.
51
Weston, “Harmonizing Management of Ground and Surface Water Use,” 281.
46
RICHARDSON ET AL.
6
permit) from the RBC.52 The RBC has used this authority to impose an indefinite moratorium on shale
gas development in the basin.53 Yet, two of the four states covered by the Delaware RBC (New York
and New Jersey) have moratoria of their own, and in the other two states (Pennsylvania and
Maryland), areas with shale gas development potential are largely or completely outside the Delaware
basin. The Delaware RBC’s moratorium has very limited independent effect.
Shale gas development is ongoing in the Susquehanna River basin. The Susquehanna RBC’s
authority over development is more limited than that of the Delaware RBC, applying only to water
withdrawals and consumptive use.54 All such uses of water for oil and gas development require a
permit issued by the Susquehanna RBC. The Susquehanna RBC does not regulate water quality—this
is left to state regulatory agencies and the federal government. 55
A2.2 Federal Regulation
The federal government has broad regulatory authority relevant to shale gas development,
especially for protection of surface water quality and air quality, as described below.
A2.2.1 Water Quality
The CWA prohibits discharge of any pollutant into US waters without a permit.56 This gives EPA
substantial authority to regulate disposal and treatment of oil- and gas-related fluids and wastes.
Permits (through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) are required for any such
disposal. Current regulations prohibit discharge of any untreated wastewater from shale gas
operations—these wastes cannot be disposed of in US waters except via permitted treatment
facilities.57 EPA has announced plans to develop a “pretreatment standard” governing shale
wastewater by 2014.58
52
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Compact, §3.8, “No project having a substantial effect on the water resources of the
basin shall hereafter be undertaken by any person, corporation or governmental authority unless it shall have been first submitted
to and approved by the commission …. The commission shall approve a project whenever it finds and determines that such project
would not substantially impair or conflict with the comprehensive plan and may modify and approve as modified, or may
disapprove any such project whenever it finds and determines that the project would substantially impair or conflict with such
plan. The commission shall provide by regulation for the procedure of submission, review and consideration of projects, and for its
determinations pursuant to this section.”
53
“Natural Gas Drilling Index Page,” DRBC, accessed May 10, 2013, http://www.nj.gov/drbc/programs/natural/, “The
commissioners at their May 5, 2010 meeting unanimously directed staff to develop draft regulations on well pads in the shales for
notice and comment rulemaking and postponed the DRBC’s consideration of well pad dockets until regulations are adopted. The
special meeting scheduled for Nov. 21, 2011 to consider adoption of draft natural gas development regulations was postponed to
allow additional time for review by the five DRBC members. The commissioners continue to work through some unresolved issues
and no new date has yet been announced for a vote on the draft regulations.”
54
“Frequently Asked Questions: SRBC’s Role in Regulating Natural Gas Development,” Susquehanna RBC (SRBC), accessed May 10,
2013, http://www.srbc.net/programs/natural_gas_development_faq.htm, “SRBC has a limited but very important role in the
regulation of natural gas development, namely the regulation of water withdrawals and consumptive water uses. SRBC regulates all
withdrawals of surface water and groundwater and consumptive water uses within the basin for natural gas development in
certain tight shale formations. Prior approval from SRBC through an application process is required for water withdrawals and
consumptive uses for natural gas development.”
55
Id., “In the Susquehanna basin, water quality regulations fall in the domain of our sovereign member states, New York,
Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the federal government. Since the states had already assumed responsibility for regulating water
quality, SRBC consciously chose not to regulate water quality to avoid what would be an obvious duplication. SRBC has an active,
long-standing role in monitoring and assessment of water quality in the basin, and much of this would be used to support
recommendations made by the project review program.”
56
Clean Water Act (CWA).
57
“Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry,” EPA, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/shale.cfm, “Currently, wastewaters associated with shale gas extraction are
prohibited from being directly discharged to waterways and other waters of the US. In order to meet this prohibition, some of the
RICHARDSON ET AL.
7
The CWA also gives EPA authority to regulate risks to surface water from stormwater runoff and
discharge.59 The act, however, explicitly exempts oil and gas operations from these requirements
under some conditions.60
The CWA applies only to surface water, however. The SDWA gives EPA authority to protect
groundwater resources (or surface waters that are also drinking water supplies).61 The SDWA gives
EPA authority to regulate underground fluid injections, but the 2005 Energy Policy Act specifically
excluded fracking operations and fluids (except diesel fuel) from this grant of authority.62
Underground injection of wastes, however, remains regulated under the SDWA.63
In short, EPA has substantial, primary authority under the CWA over the surface water impacts of
shale gas development—both wastewater disposal and stormwater. Its authority over underground
drilling activity, and in particular fracking operations, is much more limited, and primary regulatory
authority lies with the states.
A2.2.2 Air Quality
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has substantial authority to regulate threats to air quality that
threaten public health and/or welfare. The CAA is a complex statute, with different regulatory
schemes for different classes of pollutants, and for different classes of sources. Many of these schemes
require substantial cooperation between EPA and states.64 Oil and gas operations may release toxic
pollutants regulated as hazardous air pollutants or higher-volume pollutants regulated via National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—or precursors of these pollutants. For hazardous air
pollutants, EPA has authority to regulate directly.65 For NAAQS pollutants, EPA sets national standards
and reviews state plans to meet those standards.66
EPA may also issue new source performance standards (NSPS), which all new or modified
emissions sources in the relevant category must meet.67 In 2012, EPA finalized NSPS for the oil and gas
sector specifically aimed at reducing toxic pollutants and volatile organic compounds.68 These
regulations, which are the first such standards to apply explicitly to hydraulic fracturing, require the
use of “green completion” during flowback to minimize emissions.69
The 2012 NSPS are the only exercise of CAA authority over shale gas operations to date, but EPA
has substantial authority in this area and may regulate further in the future. Although EPA claims that
its recently issued NSPS will reduce methane emissions,70 a group of states has petitioned EPA to
shale gas wastewater is reused or re-injected, but a significant amount still requires disposal. Some operators reinject the
wastewater into disposal wells. Other shale gas wastewater is transported to public and private treatment plants, which may not
be equipped to treat this type of wastewater, resulting in the discharge of pollutants to rivers, lakes or streams where they can
impact drinking water or aquatic life.”
58
Id.
59
CWA.
60
CWA 402(l)(2).
61
SDWA.
62
SDWA.
63
40 CFR Part 144.
64
See, e.g., Clean Air Act (CAA) §110.
65
CAA §112.
66
CAA §108, §110.
67
CAA §111.
68
EPA, “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Reviews,” Federal Register 77 (2012): 49490.
69
Id., 49492.
70
Id., asserting that the regulations will reduce methane emissions from the sector by one million tons in 2015.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
8
specifically target methane with NSPS.71 Although it is unclear whether EPA will do so, it undoubtedly
has the authority under the CAA.72
A2.2.3 Other Regulatory Authority
Other statutes give EPA or other federal agencies regulatory authority that is or may be relevant to
shale gas development, as shown by the following examples.

The Endangered Species Act requires operators to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service and, in some cases, obtain an “incidental take” permit if development activity may
affect threatened or endangered species.73

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires firms to annually report
to EPA any releases of toxic chemicals; these are recorded and released to the public in the
Toxic Release Inventory.74 Currently, EPA excludes oil and gas operations from the Toxic
Release Inventory, but could revise this position in the future.75

The Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,
also known as Superfund) requires the reporting of any release of hazardous substances
exceeding specified limits within 24 hours and imposes liability for cleanup costs.76 Oil and gas
are specifically excluded from CERCLA—releases need not be reported to EPA.77 Other
substances used in shale gas operations may, however, be covered by CERCLA.
A2.2.4 The Federal Government as Landowner
In addition to its regulatory authority, the federal government also exercises control over shale gas
development practices in its role as a landowner. The BLM in 2012 proposed extensive rules for
hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands.78 These rules, which govern fracking on more than
700 million acres of land controlled by BLM, require fracturing fluid disclosure, impose well
construction standards, and regulate flowback water management practices.79
A2.2.5 The Federal Regulatory Role: Summary
The federal government’s role in shale gas regulation is modest and is capped by the authority
available under current law—federal authority to regulate to protect surface water and air quality, or
as a landowner, is extensive, but relatively limited in other areas. The federal government notably
lacks authority to regulate well construction, wastewater disposal, or other practices for protection of
groundwater, at least outside of federal lands. With the exception of underground injection wells for
oil and gas waste disposal, erosion and sedimentation controls and wastewater standards under the
CWA, and several other federal protections, states have full control over most stages of drilling and
71
State petition.
EPA established in 2009 that methane, along with other greenhouse gases, endangers public health and welfare. This
determination allows EPA to regulate methane as a pollutant under the CAA.
73
Endangered Species Act § 9.
74
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
75
Ground Water Protection Council and ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development, 41.
76
Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
77
CERCLA.
78
Bureau of Land Management, “Oil and Gas; Well Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on
Federal and Indian Lands,” Federal Register 77 (2012): 27691.
79
Id., 27692.
72
RICHARDSON ET AL.
9
fracking oil and gas wells. Even where federal authority is extensive, most environmental statutes
envision and require substantial cooperation between states and the federal government.
States’ traditional primacy in oil and gas regulation has persisted as shale gas development has expanded,
even in those states with little or no experience with conventional development. New regulations may
increase the federal role.
A2.3 Local Regulation
The authority of counties, cities, towns, townships, and other local governments over oil and gas
development varies substantially among the states. Due to the structure of the US Constitution, states
initially possess “police powers” to regulate public health, safety, and welfare. Courts over the years80
have construed police powers to include broad authority over land use, road use, aesthetics, and
activities with localized effects, which often include nuisances or mere annoyances. Most states have
delegated these powers to local governments through zoning enabling acts, yet the degree of
delegation varies widely. This has been important in the context of shale gas as municipalities have
attempted to assert control over development and its impacts—in some cases banning it.
States like Texas and New Mexico have tended to allow relatively detailed regulation of shale gas
development by municipalities. The Farmington, New Mexico, Code of Ordinances81 demonstrates this.
For potential visual and noise-based impacts, the city requires a minimum 6-foot fence around oil and
gas operations, drilling and completion only during daylight hours (with exceptions), compliance with
noise control standards, mufflers on internal combustion engines, and the prevention of mud and
other wastes from flowing into city “alleys, streets, lots or leases.”82 Farmington also has standards
that address potentially larger environmental concerns, requiring certain casing specifications (50 feet
into bedrock) and storage tanks that meet API specifications. Fort Worth83 and Arlington, Texas,84
have similar regulations and further require that oil and gas operators obtain environmental liability
coverage in the amount of $5 million per loss.
States like Pennsylvania have been slightly more aggressive in limiting local control over oil and
gas development. As drilling and fracking expanded within the state, Pennsylvania courts interpreted
the state’s prior preemption of municipal governance of oil and gas regulation85 to prohibit attempts at
broad local control of the location of and activities on well sites and access,86 and the state legislature
aimed to more clearly displace municipal authority in 2012 with Act 13.87 This act requires
municipalities to allow oil and gas development and associated facilities in most zones, although a
lower state court struck down these provisions;88 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has heard oral
arguments but has not yet issued an opinion. New York has a preemption provision similar to
80
The Supreme Court initially supported broad zoning powers—including the powers to create pleasant neighborhoods free of
perceived annoyances, such as apartments—in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926).
81
Farmington, New Mexico, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 19—Oil and Gas Wells, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10760.
82
Id at 19-3-1
83
City of Fort Worth, Texas, Ordinance no. 18449-02-2009, 29, adopted February 3, 2009, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/Gas_Wells/090120_gas_drilling_final.pdf.
84
City of Arlington, Texas, Ordinance no. 11-068, Gas Drilling and Production Ordinance, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.arlingtontx.gov/planning/pdf/Gas_Wells/Gas_Drilling_and_Production_Ordinance.pdf.
85
58 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 601.602.
86
See Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Oakmont, 964 A.2d 855, 865–69 (Pa. 2009); Range Resources–Appalachia v.
Salem Township, 600 Pa. 231, 244 (2009)
87
H.B. 1950, 2011 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Pa. 2011), accessed May 10, 2013,
http://www.ctbpls.com/www/PA/11R/PDF/PA11RHB01950CC1.pdf.
88
Robinson Tp. v. Pennsylvania, 52 A.3d 463 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
RICHARDSON ET AL.
10
Pennsylvania’s, prohibiting most local regulation of oil and gas development.89 So far, however, several
New York courts90 have determined that, as long as municipalities characterize drilling and fracking
bans as land use controls (as opposed to other types of regulation), these bans are acceptable. Finally,
Colorado has struggled with state–local conflicts, leading the governor to create a task force. The task
force issued recommendations on state–local cooperation in regulation, but the state government has
not been receptive to recent local bans. 91
Appendix 3. Further Statistical Analyses
In this Appendix are details of regressions that appear in the text and alternative regression
specifications that help explain the choice of model for the text. As noted in the text, the variables are
drawn from three “levels.” Level one variables are posited to influence all regulatory outcomes. Level
two variables target groups of regulatory elements. There are broad groupings, such as all waterrelated elements, and specific groupings, such as surface water-related elements. To target such
elements requires using an interaction variable, which consists of the main variable and a dummy
variable, the latter taking the value of one for the targeted regulatory elements and zero otherwise.
Multiplying the two variables together creates the interaction variable. To actually identify whether
the interaction term is associated with the regulatory outcome of interest or whether the components
of this term are responsible for the association requires that the components be included in the
regression as separate variables, in addition to the interaction variable.
As is customary, for compactness, variable names are used in the regression tables. Below is a
listing of those names with their definitions.
89
N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 23-0303(2).
See, e.g., Anschutz Exploration Corp. v. Dryden (N.Y. Cty. of Tompkins Supreme Ct. 2011); Cooperstown Holstein Corp. v.
Middlefield (N.Y. Cty. of Otsego Supreme Ct. 2011).
91
“Protocols Recommendations,” Task Force on Cooperative Strategies Regarding State and Local Regulation of Oil and Gas
Development, April 18, 2012, accessed May 10, 2013,
http://dnr.state.co.us/taskforce/Documents/Task%20Force%20LGD%20Matrix%20%E2%80%93%20Final.pdf.
90
RICHARDSON ET AL.
11
Variable name
Variable definition
Wells
Log of number of natural gas wells in 2010
Production
Conventional production in 2010 (Bcf)
Donations
Donations to environmental NGOs per Democrat ($)
GDP
GDP per capita ($1,000s)
Species
Number of endangered/threatened animal species
Forested
Percent of land area forested
Surfconsumption
Percent of freshwater consumption from surface
water
Groundconsumption
Percent of freshwater consumption from groundwater
Fedland
Percent of land federally owned
Ruralpop
Rural population density in 2000 (people per sq. mi.)
Dumwater
Dummy variable for water-related regulations
Dumground
Dummy variable for groundwater-related regulations
Int Dumwat*ruralpop
Interaction between water regulations and rural
population density
Int Dumwat*species
Interaction between water regulations and number of
endangered animals
Int Dumwat*fedland
Interaction between water regulations and percent of
federally-owned land
Int Dumground*groundconsumption
Interaction between groundwater regulations and
freshwater consumption from groundwater
A3.1 Number of Regulations
There are 567 state-regulatory element pairs. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and logit regressions
were used to look for groups of variables associated with the number of a maximum 20 regulatory
elements that the state regulates. In technical terms we estimated the probability that any possible
state-regulatory element was present. Using OLS (in this context termed a linear probability model) is
a less restrictive model than a logit model. Recent econometrics textbooks (Angrist and Pischke,
RICHARDSON ET AL.
12
2009) note that neither approach is necessarily superior to the other.92 Results from these two
specifications appear in some of the regression tables below.
Table Appendix 3-1 shows some of the results for the only variables with high correlation with the
number of regulations variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 5 is the
model in the main text. Models 1-3 include various non-environmental level one variables,93 that are
either in Model 4 or were significant in other specifications. Model 4 adds two level one environmental
variables and model 6 is model 5 estimated using a logit model.
Table A3-1. Regressions for the Number of Regulations
Variable
Wells
Model 1
OLS
Coeff. (S.E.)
Model 2
OLS
Coeff. (S.E.)
Model 3
OLS
Coeff. (S.E.)
0.024***
(0.007)
0.025***
(0.007)
0.024***
(0.007)
-0.054a
(0.034)
3.511
(2.606)
Donations
GDP
1.752
(2.362)
Species
Surfconsumption
Model 4
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
0.021***
(0.007)
-0.063**
(0.032)
Model 5
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.).
0.018***
(0.006)
-0.042
(0.028)
Model 6
Logit
Coeff.
(S.E.)
0.150***
(0.051)
-0.378*
(0.223)
0.003***
(0.001)
0.0013*
(0.0008)
-0.003***
(0.001)
-0.015***
(0.005)
0.0012*
(0.0007)
0.314***
(0.045)
0.003***
(0.001)
0.011*
(0.006)
Omitted
-0.947*
(0.577)
0.0001
(Prob>chi
2)
0.0591
(pseudo
R2)
297
Dumwat
Int Dumwat*species
Constant
0.582***
(0.062)
0.0007
0.502***
(0.123)
0.0025
0.476***
(0.124)
0.0023
0.624***
(0.083)
0.0000
0.482***
(0.074)
0.0000
Adj R-squared
0.0183
0.0176
0.0202
0.0428
0.2838
Observations
567
567
567
567
567
Prob>F
Omitted
Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error
The top two variables on the table are significant in all specifications, but GDP per capita is not. So,
for example, states with more wells tend to have more regulations. In Model 4, number of endangered
animals is significant, but the direction of causation is reversed from what one might expect (see the
92
Angrist, J. D. and J.-S. Pischke (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
The top level is the variable by itself. The second level interacts this variable by a dummy for whether the regulation is from a
broad group of regulations (e.g. all water-related regulations). The third level is an interaction with a dummy variables for the
specific group level, e.g., all groundwater regulations.
93
RICHARDSON ET AL.
13
text). The percent of water consumption from surface water is also significant. Model 5 is discussed in
the text. The logit model (column 6) gives similar results to model 5, except that two variables are
omitted because of collinearity.
A3.2 Type of Regulation
There are 444 state-regulatory element pairs that we can classify as command and control,
performance standards or permitting. Both OLS and logit regressions are used to look for associations
between whether command and control was used versus other regulatory tools and our list of
“independent” variables. Table Appendix 3-2 shows some of the results for the only variables with
high correlation with type of regulation. Models 1 and 2 have the identical specifications to Models 3
and 4, with only the statistical model differing. Models 1 and 3 are more complete specifications.
Models 2 and 4 drop the insignificant variables.
Table A3-2. Regulations for type of regulation (Command and Control = 0; performance
standards and permitting = 1)
Variable
Production
Forested
Surfconsumption
Ruralpop
Dumwat
Int
Dumwat*ruralpop
Constant
Prob>F
Adj R-squared
Observations
Model 1
Logit
Coeff. (S.E.)
Model 2
Logit
Coeff. (S.E.)
-0.110**
(0.054)
0.007
(0.007)
0.006
(0.007)
0.004
(0.013)
2.403***
(0.607)
-0.025*
(0.014)
-0.082*
(0.049)
0.008
(0.012)
2.361***
(0.601)
-0.024*
(0.014)
-2.440***
(0.943)
0.0000
(prob>chi2)
0.0952
(pseudo r2)
444
-2.151***
(0.855)
0.0000
(prob>chi2)
0.0896
(pseudo r2)
444
Model 3
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
-0.015**
(0.007)
0.0008
(0.0008)
0.0008
(0.0008)
-0.0004
(0.0012)
0.266***
(0.056)
-0.003**
(0.001)
Model 4
OLS
Coeff. (S.E.)
0.151
(0.108)
0.0000
0.189*
(0.097)
0.0000
0.0666
0.0665
444
444
-0.012*
(0.007)
0.0002
(0.0011)
0.263***
(0.056)
-0.003**
(0.001)
Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error
The log of production by conventional wells is significant in all models, but the other level one
variables are never significant. In states with more production, command and control approaches are
more likely to be used. The dummy variable for water-related regulations is highly significant and
implies that flexible regulatory approaches are more likely to be used for water-related regulations
than other types of regulations. However, the negative sign and significance of Int Dumwat*ruralpop
RICHARDSON ET AL.
14
means that in states that have higher rural population densities, the water regulations tend to rely
more on command and control approaches relative to approaches used for other types of regulations.
A3.3 Stringency Method 1
There are 200 state-element pairs with a relative stringency measure calculated with method 1.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to look for groups of variables associated with this stringency
measure. Table Appendix 3-3 shows some of the results for the only variables with high correlation
with the stringency variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 3 is the model in
the main text. Model 1 includes only level one variables that were in table A 3-1. Model 2 adds the
variables in the model in the text. As none of the general level one variables are significant, they are
dropped for model 3. Model 4 includes a set of variables that are significantly associated with
stringency using Method 2.
Table A3-3. Regression results for Stringency Method 1
Variable
Wells
Donations
GDP
Model 1
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
-0.013
(0.010)
0.074
(0.055)
-3.712
(3.962)
Fedland
Model 2
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
-0.013
(0.011)
0.069
(0.070)
-3.330
(3.956)
-0.002
(0.003)
Model 3
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
Model 4
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
-0.002
(0.002)
-0.016
(0.061)
0.006*
(0.003)
-0.017
(0.061)
0.006*
(0.003)
-0.001
(0.002)
0.001
(0.001)
-0.055
(0.087)
0.006**
(0.003)
-0.017
(0.099)
0.003
(0.002)
Groundconsumption
Dumwat
Int Dumwat*fedland
Dumground
Int Dumground*groundconsumption
Constant
Prob>F
Adj R-squared
Observations
0.776***
(0.182)
0.3259
0.0024
200
0.768***
(0.185)
0.2006
0.0429
200
0.560*** 0.528***
(0.042)
(0.054)
0.1508
0.0782
0.0117
0.0272
200
200
Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error
None of the models performs very well, explaining only between one and about three percent of
the variance in the stringency across state-elements. The federal land variable is significant when
interacted with the water-related regulations dummy, meaning that in states with a greater
RICHARDSON ET AL.
15
percentage of federal land, the water regulations tend to be more stringent that those for other types
of regulations. From model 4, in addition to the above effect, the groundwater regulations tend to be
more stringent than other regulations. However, we lack an explanation for what is ultimately driving
this outcome.
A3.4 Stringency Method 2
There are 292 observations to use to help explain the variance in relative stringency calculated
using method 2. This measure, in contrast to Stringency Method 1, includes as minimally stringent, any
state-element pair of the 13 quantitative regulations that is missing for a given state (i.e., where the
state doesn’t regulate that element). Given that there are 201 state-elements in stringency method 1,
this implies that there are 92 state-elements unregulated by the states.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) was used to look for groups of variables associated with this
stringency measure. Table Appendix 3-4 shows some of the results for the only variables with high
correlation with the stringency variable and that are robust to inclusion of other variables. Model 3 is
the model in the main text. Model 1 contains general level one variables that were significant in some
specifications in explaining the number of regulations. None of them are significantly associated with
stringency – the same outcome for stringency method 1. Model 2 adds the interaction term and its
related variables found to be significant in table A 3-3. Model 3 drops the general variables and adds
another interaction term along with the component variables.
Model 1 performs poorly. The model itself and the individual variables are insignificant. Model 2
does better, in that the regression is significant, and about 15 percent of the variation in the stringency
metric is explained and only two variables, whether the regulation is water-related, and for water
related regulations only, the percentage of federal land, are significant. Model 3 explains more of the
variance (17%) and finds that the federal land variable is significantly associated with weaker
regulations and that the groundwater regulations tend to be weaker than other regulations. However,
if a state takes a higher percentage of their water consumption from groundwater, the groundwater
regulations tend to be more stringent (see text).
RICHARDSON ET AL.
16
Table A3-4. Regression results for Stringency Method 2
Variable
Wells
Donations
GDP
Model
1 OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
0.006
(0.010)
-0.039
(0.044)
3.437
(3.419)
Fedland
Dumwat
Int Dumwat*fedland
Dumground
Int
Dumground*groundconsumption
Prob>F
Adj R-squared
Observations
Model 3
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
0.285*
(0.152)
0.0000
0.1490
292
0.360***
(0.042)
0.0000
0.1679
292
*
-0.002
(0.001)
-0.0005
(0.0011)
0.258*** 0.292***
(0.053)
(0.077)
0.004*
0.005*
(0.003)
(0.003)
-0.160*
(0.091)
0.005**
(0.002)
Freshwaterg
Constant
Model 2
OLS
Coeff.
(S.E.)
0.002
(0.009)
0.006
(0.050)
1.175
(3.166)
-0.003
(0.002)
0.273*
(0.162)
0.6687
-0.0050
292
Note: significant at: a=11% level; *=10% level; **=5% level; ***=1% level, S.E., standard error
Appendix 4. Tables of State Regulations
The tables in this appendix show the preliminary results of the analysis for approximately 20
important regulatory elements in each of the 31 states in the continental United States that have
significant shale gas reserves or where industry has shown interest in shale gas development. As
relevant regulations or statutes are adopted or passed, or other new information becomes available,
the tables will be updated accordingly.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
17
Alabama KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity Tools
is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the Regulatory
Used:
quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
15 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 1 3 Details
Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 . Condi onal
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required
Underground injec on allowed Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment Well Inspec on & Enforcement Yes
Yes, varies based on drilling depth Cemen ng to surface required Isolate all hydrocarbon zones 500 . above shoe/uppermost hydrocarbon zone
Restricted
Restricted
No evidence of regula on found Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Well Plugging & Abandonment No evidence of regula on found Registra on & repor ng required (if >100k gal/day)
200 .
No evidence of regula on found Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Well Drilling and Produc on 6 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
8% (about 19.68₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
18
18
Arkansas KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan
es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
14 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 Tool
5 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required
Has setback restric ons Has setback restric ons Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 100 . below water table/50 . into consol. rock
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 2 .
20 mils
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (3 years) Some local bans/moratoria Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 24 months permi ed 36 months permi ed Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
7% (about 12.3₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
19
19
California KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
6 3 1 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 10 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required
Other setback restric ons Other setback restric ons Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit Addressed in permit Cemen ng to surface required 500 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
500 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Proposed: disclosure required Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 300 months permi ed No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on found Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
1.4₵/MCF (about .5% at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
20
20
Colorado KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
18 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 Details
0.5 miles
Permit required 500 .
Designated water sources only, varies Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required 200 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
200 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
No ce and approval required No ce and approval required Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 .
24 mils
Recordkeeping required (5 years) Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 6 months permi ed
6 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
5% (about 12.3₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
21
21
Georgia* KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
7 * Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010. 4 1 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 7 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if >100k gal/day) 330 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit
Performance standard
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found 500 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids Addressed in permit Addressed in permit
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 6 months permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
None
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
22
22
Illinois KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
13 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 6 Details
Within 0.25 miles of well Permit required, register & report if >100k gal/day
200 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found 250 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
No evidence of regula on found Restricted
Proposed: disclosure required Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids No evidence of regula on found 20 mils.
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (3 years)
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 24 months permi ed
24 months
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
0.1% (about 0.246₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
23
23
Indiana KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
11 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 6 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit, register & report if >100k gal/day
200 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
Addressed in permit
Cemen ng to surface required Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 .
Addressed in permit
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
60 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2‐48 hours a er discovery, depending on severity
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
3₵/MCF (about 1% at $2.46/MCF price) 2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
24
24
Kansas KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
13 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 4 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 3 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required No evidence of regula on found 660 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
Determined by county
Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Restricted
Restricted
No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Permit required for all pits and tanks 1‐2.5 ., depending on pit type Yes, liner required
Recordkeeping required (3 years) Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 3 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
8% (about 19.68₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
25
25
Kentucky KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
11 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 2 6 Details
No evidence of regula on found Oil and gas industry exempt 150 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 30 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found Discre onary standard
Discre onary standard
No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 1 . 20 mils
Permit or approval required Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment Idle me regulated, me limit not specified
24 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
4.5% (about 11.07₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
26
26
Louisiana KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
15 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 2 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 3 Details
No evidence of regula on found Registra on and repor ng required 500 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found Yes, varies based on drilling depth Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
500 . above shoe
Banned
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 2 .
Yes, liner required
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (3 years)
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 6 months permi ed
3 months permi ed, if the well has no future u lity
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 1‐24 hours a er discovery, depending on severity
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
16.4₵/MCF (about 6.7% at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
27
27
Maryland KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
12 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 4 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if >10k gal/day) 1,000 .
1,000 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
100 . below water table Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 . Pit liners required
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regula ons Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2 hours a er discovery Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
18 month statewide moratorium 7% (about 17.22₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
28
28
Michigan KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
16 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 Details
Yes
Permit required (if >100k gal/day) 300 .
300 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
100 . below water table Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids No evidence of regula on found 20 mils
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (2 years) Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 8 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
5% (about 12.3₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
29
29
Mississippi KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan
es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
12 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 7 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if>20k gal/day) No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found Yes, varies based on drilling depth Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found 500 . above shoe
Restricted
Restricted
No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 1 . Yes, liner required
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 6 months permi ed
6 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
6% (about 14.76₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
30
30
Montana KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
9 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 1 6 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if >50.4k gal/day) No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit
Performance standard
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 3 .
Addressed in permit
No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
9% (about 22.14₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
31
31
Nebraska KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan
es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
10 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 5 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 4 Details
Within 1 mile of well
Permit required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit
Performance standard
Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Banned Allowed No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Permit required for all pits and tanks 2 . Yes, liner required
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (5 years)
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 2 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 48 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
3% (about 7.38₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
32
32
New Jersey* KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
2 1 1 *Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010. AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 16 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if >100k gal/day) No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula
Performance standard
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
on found on found on found on found on found on found on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2‐24 hours a er accident, depending on severity
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Recently ended statewide moratorium None
0
RICHARDSON ET AL.
33
33
New Mexico KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
14 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 4 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 2 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required Other setback restric ons Other setback restric ons Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found Addressed in permit
Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 2‐3 ., depending on pit type 20 mils
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (5 years)
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
60 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
3.75% (about 9.28₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
34
34
New York* KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used: Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found *Most regula ons part of comprehensive proposal released in 2011, and have not been finalized or implemented. 19 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 Details
Within 0.19 miles
Permit required (if >100k gal/day) 100 .
150‐2,000 ., depending on water body Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
75 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required Cemen ng to surface required Cemen ng to surface required Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 2 .
30 mils
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
3 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Indefinite statewide moratorium None
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
35
35
North Carolina* KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the each quan
es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
6 * Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010. 2 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 12 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Details
No evidence of regula
Registra on and repor
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
on found ng required (if >100k gal/day)
on found on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found 500 . above shoe
No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Statewide ban
Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 1 month permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on found Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
0.05₵/MCF (about 0.02% at $2.46/MCF price)
1
De‐facto statewide ban, pending wri ng of regula ons RICHARDSON ET AL.
36
36
North Dakota KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
11 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 5 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required 500 .
Performance‐based setback restric ons Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found Addressed in permit
Banned
Allowed Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids No evidence of regula on found Yes, liner required
Permit or approval required Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
9.4₵/MCF (about 3.8% at $2.46/MCF price)
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
37
37
Ohio KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
15 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 2 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 3 Details
Within 0.28 miles of well Permit req. if>2m gal/day, reg./report if>100k gal/day
100‐200 .
50 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required 500 . above shoe
1000 . above shoe
Banned Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Permit required for all pits and tanks No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Permit/approval and recordkeeping required
Some local bans/moratoria Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12‐24 months permi ed 12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
2.5₵/MCF (about 1% at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
38
38
Oklahoma KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
14 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 2 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 4 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required 200 . above uppermost hydrocarbon zone
Addressed in permit
Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Tanks required for some fluids 1.5‐3 ., depending on pit type 30 mils.
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required (3 years)
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
60 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
7% (about 17.22₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
39
39
Pennsylvania KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
16 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 2 1 Details
Not required; relevant liability rule Permit required 500 .
300‐1,000 ., depending on type of water body
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required Cemen ng to surface required 500 . above true ver cal depth Discre onary standard
Discre onary standard
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 .
Yes, liner required
Recordkeeping required (5 years) Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
60 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 2 hours a er discovery Other Local bans/moratoria State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria None
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
40
40
South Dakota KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
8 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 4 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 8 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required (if >25.9k gal/day) No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit
Yes
Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Banned Allowed
No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids No evidence of regula on found 12 mils.
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found 6 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
4.5% (about 11.07₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
41
41
Tennessee KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
11 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 8 Details
No evidence of regula on found Registra on and repor ng required (if >10k gal/day)
200 .
100 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula on found 50 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Discre onary standard
Restricted
No evidence of regula on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids No evidence of regula on found Yes, liner required
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
60 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on found Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
3% (about 7.38₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
42
42
Texas KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
13 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 2 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 1 3 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required 200 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
Performance standard
Cemen ng to surface required 600 . above shoe
600 . above shoe
Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids No evidence of regula on found Addressed in permit
Permit/approval and recordkeeping required
Some local bans/moratoria Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regs Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Immediate
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
7.5% (about 18.45₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
43
43
Utah KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
11 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 2 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 6 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Addressed in permit
Yes
Cemen ng to surface required No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Banned
Discre onary standard
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 .
40 mils
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 60 months permi ed
12 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
5% (about 12.3₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
2
RICHARDSON ET AL.
44
44
Vermont* KEY Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Regulatory Tools Used:
3 1 *Very li le shale gas development—no natural gas wells as of 2010. 16 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on Tool
Details
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources No evidence of regula on found Permit req. if >57.6k gal/day, reg./report if >20k gal/day No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
on found on found on found on found on found on found on found on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 24 months permi ed
Temporary abandonment allowed, no meline specified Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements No evidence of regula on found Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Statewide ban
None
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
45
45
Virginia KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
9 1 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 10 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources Details
Within 0.09 miles of well Permit required (if >300k gal/day) 200 .
No evidence of regula on found Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
Restricted
Restricted
No evidence of regula
on found on found on found on found on found on found Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids 2 . 10 mils
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment No evidence of regula on found No evidence of regula on found Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 0‐24 hours a er discovery, depending on severity
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
1% (about 2.46₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
46
46
West Virginia KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
14 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 3 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 3 Details
Within 0.19 miles of well Permit, register and report if >7k gal/day
625 .
100‐1,000 ., depending on type of water body
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
30 . below water table
Cemen ng to surface required Addressed in permit
Addressed in permit
Discre onary standard
Discre onary standard
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Only pits regulated
2 . Yes, liner required
Recordkeeping required
Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
No temporary abandonment status in state regs
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements Accident repor ng required, but no meline specified
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
Local bans/moratoria
5% (about 12.3₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
1
RICHARDSON ET AL.
47
47
Wyoming KEY Below is an analysis of various regulatory elements related to shale gas development ac vi es. The type of regulatory tool used for each ac vity is color‐coded according to the key (right), and the quan es of each type are displayed in a bar graph. Details for each ac vity and tool used are provided in the table below. Command/control Permit Performance standard Other No evidence of regula on found Regulatory Tools Used:
15 AcƟvity/Regulatory Element
Site Development and Prepara on 1 Tool
Pre‐Drilling Water Well Tes ng Water Withdrawal Restric ons Setback Restric ons from Buildings Setback Restric ons from Water Sources 1 3 Details
No evidence of regula on found Permit required
350 .
350 .
Well Drilling and Produc on Cement Type Regula ons Casing and Cemen ng Depth Requirements Surface Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Intermediate Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Produc on Casing Cement Circula on Regula ons
Ven ng Regula ons Flaring Regula ons Fracking Fluid Disclosure Regula ons Yes
120 . below water table Cemen ng to surface required 200 . above trona interval 200 . above trona interval Restricted
Restricted
Disclosure required
Flowback/Wastewater Storage and Disposal Fluid Storage Op ons Freeboard Requirements Pit Liner Requirements Flowback/Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on Pits allowed and regulated for all fluids No evidence of regula on found Discre onary standard
No evidence of regula on found Underground injec on allowed Well Plugging & Abandonment Well Idle Time Temporary Abandonment 12 months permi ed
24 months permi ed
Well Inspec on & Enforcement Accident Repor ng Requirements 24 hours a er discovery
Other State/Local Bans & Moratoria Severance Tax Number of Regula ng Agencies N/A
N/A
N/A
None
6% (about 14.76₵/MCF at $2.46/MCF price)
3+
RICHARDSON ET AL.
48
48
Appendix 5. State Regulatory Data
The tables in this appendix, one for each state, list cita ons for the regulatory elements in our analysis and for other relevant informa on about the state’s shale gas regula ons. Alabama AACR: Alabama Administra ve Code, Ala. Admin. Code r. (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
AACR § 305‐7‐10.01‐.07
AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.02(2)(h)
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2
AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2(a)
AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.2(c)
Id.
Id.
AACR § 400‐1‐9‐.02.10.d
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
AACR § 400‐1‐4.10
AACR § 400‐1‐4.10.3
AACR § 400‐1‐4.10.5
AACR § 400‐1‐9.03
No evidence of regula on found.
AACR § 400‐1‐4.11
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
AACR § 400‐1‐4‐.14
AACR § 400‐1‐4‐.17(1)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
AACR § 400‐1‐4.09.01
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
No evidence of regula on found.
Ala. Code § 9‐17‐25‐35 (produc on tax), § 40‐20‐1 (privilege tax),
State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, under the direc on of the State Geologist and Oil and Gas Supervisor; AL Department of Environmental Management implements federal rules. AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.03, AACR § 400‐1‐2‐.04
49
Arkansas GRR: Ark. Oil & Gas Comm'n, General Rules & Regula ons (2009), available at h p://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/Forms/Rules %20and%20Regula ons.pdf AC: Ark. Code. Ann (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
AC § 15‐22‐503
GRR B‐26(c)(5)
GRR B‐26(c)(5)
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula
GRR B‐15
Id.
No evidence of regula
GRR B‐15
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
GRR B‐19
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
GRR B‐17(c)(21); GRR B‐17(g)(1)‐(2) outlines condi ons for pit storage.
GRR B‐17(f)(2)(3)
Id.
GRR E‐3
GRR H‐1(s) (regional ban)
GRR B‐17(h)
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
GRR B‐7(d)
GRR B‐7(h)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
GRR B‐34(b); see also GRR B‐17(e) (applying to any discharge)
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
AC § 26‐58‐111(5)
Most aspects of gas development regulated by Oil and Gas Commission. Waste pits, leaks, spills, blowouts, air and water pollu on regulated by Department of Environmental Quality; drinking water also regulated by Department of Health. GRR B‐19(d)
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
50
California CCR: Cal. Code Regs. (2013) CPRC: Cal. Pub. Res. Code (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
CCR t. 23, § 650
No evidence of regula on found (CPRC § 3600 regulates setbacks from other infrastructure) Id.
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Form OG105 "No ce of inten on to drill new well" (requires cement type). Id. (CCR t. 14, § 1722.3 regulates the number of feet of casing required but not the se ng depth) CCR t. 14, § 1722.4
Id.
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
AB 591 2011‐2012 Sen. Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2011)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
CCR t. 14, § 1773.2
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
CCR t. 27, § 20090
Id. (CCR t. 27, § 17369 regulates hazardous waste disposal facili es)
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
CCR t. 14, § 3237(d)(i)
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Other
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
None.
CPRC § 3403
The Department of Conserva on's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR); 5 other agencies are involved with regula ng drilling wastes Permit Applica on Requirements
CCR t. 14, § 1721‐1721.9
RICHARDSON ET AL.
51
Colorado CR: Colo. Reg. (2013) CRS: Colo. Rev. Stat. (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, Final Rule 609(b) (2013) CRS § 37‐92‐101 through 602
2 CR 404‐1‐604(a)(1)
2 CR 404‐1‐317B
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
2 CR 404‐1‐317(f)
2 CR 404‐1‐317(h)
2 CR 404‐1‐317(i)
Id.
2 CR 404‐1‐912(b); see also 2 CR 404‐1‐912(a) (prohibi ng unnecessary or excessive ven ng) Id.
2 CR 404‐1‐205
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
2 CR 404‐1‐902
2 CR 404‐1‐902(b)
2 CR 404‐1‐904
2 CR 404‐1‐907(b)
2 CR 404‐1‐907(d)
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
2 CR 404‐1‐319(b)(3)
2 CR 404‐1‐319(b)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
2 CR 404‐1‐906(b)
Other
Ven ng
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Council of the City of Fort Collins, Ordinance No. 032, 2013 CRS § 39‐29‐105(1)(a)
Colorado Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission (COGCC), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), CO Department of Public Health and Environment 2 CR 404‐1‐303
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
52
Georgia GCRR: Ga. Comp. r & Regs. (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
GCRR 391‐3‐2‐.03
GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.05
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012) GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(12) (GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(10) mandates that freshwater be protected) Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(12)
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Fluid Storage Op ons
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(11)
GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10 § 11(a) (requiring pits be “of sufficient size to receive and contain the maximum volume of drilling fluid an cipated at the surface”); see also GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.04 § 9(f)(6‐7) (requiring descrip on of program for disposal of drilling fluids as part of permit applica on). DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012) No evidence of regula on found.
GCRR 391‐3‐13.10(11)(b)
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012) DNR Representa ve (email communica on, May 24, 2012) Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.10(5)
Other
Freeboard
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
None.
No evidence of regula on found.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protec on Division GCRR 391‐3‐13‐.04
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
53
Illinois ILAC: Ill. Admin. Code (2013) ILCS: Ill. Comp. Stat. (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
62 ILAC § 240.350(b)(1)
525 ILCS 45/1‐45/7
62 ILAC § 240.410(f)
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
62 ILAC § 240.610(a)
62 ILAC § 240.610(a)(3)
No evidence of regula on found.
62 ILAC § 240.610(c)
No evidence of regula on found.
225 ILCS 725
H.B. 3897, 97th Gen. Assem., (Il. 2013)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
62 ILAC § 240.520‐.530
No evidence of regula on found.
62 ILAC § 240.525(b)
62 ILAC § 240.925‐926
62 ILAC § 240.930(b)‐(c)
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
62 ILAC § 240.1130
62 ILAC § 240.1130(c)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
62 ILAC § 240.880(b)
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Tri‐Power Resources v. City of Carlyle, 967 N.E.2d 811 (2012) (holding that IL county may ban hydraulic fracturing). 225 ILCS 728/30
Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IL DNR), Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) in the Office of Mines and Minerals (OMM), IL EPA 62 ILAC § 240.220; 62 ILAC § 240.240‐245; 62 ILAC § 240.250
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
54
Indiana IAC: Ind. Admin. Code (2013) Form 21096: Indiana Dep. of Nat. Res., Form 21096 “Applica on for Well Permit”, available at h ps://forms.in.gov/Download.aspx?id=9154 Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Ind. Code § 14‐25‐7 (Ind. Code § 14‐29‐1‐8 oversees permi ng of withdrawals from navigable waterways) IAC 32‐23‐7‐6(3)
No evidence of regula on found.
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
312 IAC 16‐5‐9
Form 21096; see also 312 IAC 16‐5‐9 (requiring surface casing to be set through an impervious forma on). 312 IAC 16‐5‐9
Id.
Form 21096
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
312 IAC 16‐5‐12
312 IAC 16‐5‐13
Form 21096
No evidence of regula on found.
312 IAC 16‐5‐14
312 IAC 16‐5‐13
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
IAC 14‐37‐8‐8
312 IAC 16‐5‐20
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
312 IAC 16‐5‐23
Other
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
45 IAC 6‐1‐1
IN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Oil and Gas; Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 312 IAC 16‐3‐2 and 312 IAC 16‐3‐3
RICHARDSON ET AL.
55
Kansas KAR: Kan. Admin. Regs (2013) Form C‐1: Kansas Corpora on Commission, Form C‐1 "No ce of intent to drill", available at www.kcc.kansas.gov/conserva on/intents/K_011613_Pearson_I_39.pdf Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
No evidence of regula on found.
KAR § 5‐3‐4
No evidence of regula on found.
State Corp. Comm'n of Kansas, General Rules and Reg. for the Conserva on of Crude Oil and Natural Gas, Table I, Appendix "B" ‐ Eastern Surface Casing Order #133,891‐C (available at h p://www.kcc.state.ks.us/conserva on/cons_rr_010711.pdf) Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
KAR § 82‐3‐106(c)(1)
KAR § 82‐3‐106(b)
KAR § 82‐3‐106(c)(2)(B)(i)
Form C‐1
Id.
KAR § 82‐3‐314(b)
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
KAR § 82‐3‐600(a) (regula ng pits); KAR § 82‐3‐603(a) (regula ng tanks)
KAR § 82‐3‐601(a)
KAR § 82‐3‐601(b)
KAR § 82‐3‐127
KAR § 82‐3‐400
KAR § 82‐3‐400 and KAR § 82‐3‐607
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
KAR § 82‐3‐111(a)
KAR § 82‐3‐111(b)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
KAR § 82‐3‐603
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
KAR § 79‐4217
Kansas Corpora on Commission, Oil and Gas Conserva on Division (KCC); Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) KAR § 82‐3‐124(b)
RICHARDSON ET AL.
56
Kentucky KRS: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. (2013) KAR: Ky. Admin. Regs. (2011) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
KRS § 151.140
805 KAR 1:030
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
805 KAR 1:020.3
Id.
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
KRS § 353.160(1)
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
401 KAR 5:090.9‐.10
401 KAR 5:090.9(5)(b)
401 KAR 5:090.9(5)(a)
401 KAR 5:090.6
401 KAR 5:090.5
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
805KAR 1:060
805KAR 1:060.1
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
807 KAR 5:027.3; see also 401 KAR 5:015 (separate rules for leaks that could cause pollu on) Accident Repor ng
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
None
KRS § 143A.020
Kentucky Division of Oil and Gas, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department of Natural Resources (KDOG); KY Department of Environmental Protec on KRS § 353.590
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
57
Louisiana LAC: La. Admin. Code (2013) Order No. U‐HS: Office of Conserva on Order No. U‐HS (2009), available at h p://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/news/2009/U‐HS.pdf Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found. (but see LAC t. 43, § XIX.309.
requiring monitoring near any pit likely to contaminate an aquifer) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38:3094
Order No. U‐HS No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
LAC t. 43, § XIX.109(B)
Id.
Office of Conserva on, Form MD‐10‐R‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill for minerals" LAC t. 43, § XIX.109(D)
LAC t. 43, § XIX.3507
Order No. U‐HS LAC t. 43, § XIX.118
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
LAC t. 43, § XIX.303; see also LAC t. 43, § XIX.307.c.5 (restric ng fluid storage in pits) LAC t. 33, § IX.708.C.1.vi
LAC t. 43, § XIX.307.A.1
LAC t. 43, § XIX.545
LAC t. 43, § XIX.313
LAC t. 33, § IX.708.C.2.c and LAC t. 43, § XIX.313 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons) Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
LAC t. 43, § XIX.137.A.2.a
LAC t. 43, § XIX.137.A.2.b‐.c
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
LAC t. 33, § I.3915.A.1‐.3; LAC t. 33, § I.3917.A; LAC t. 33, § I.3919.A Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
None
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47:633(9)
Department of Natural Resources, Office of Conserva on (OC); Department of Environmental Quality Permit Applica on Requirements
LAC t. 43, § XIX.103 and LAC t. 43, § XIX.104 RICHARDSON ET AL.
58
Maryland COMAR: Md. Code Regs. (2013) Form .045: Maryland Department of the Environment, Form Number .045 (2008) "Applica on for Gas Explora on and Produc on", available at h p://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Permits/LandManagementPermits/LandPermit Applica onsandOtherForms/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/permit/MDE‐LMA‐PER045.pdf Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
COMAR 26.17.06.00‐.07; see also Form .045 (es mated withdrawals)
COMAR 26.19.01.09
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
COMAR 26.19.01.10(P)(2)
COMAR 26.19.01.10(O)(4)
COMAR 26.19.01.10(P)(1)
Form .045; see also COMAR 26.19.01.10(S) (requiring sufficient cement for an effec ve seal above any producing zone) Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
MDE Form Number .019 (2009); Form .045
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
COMAR 26.19.01.10
COMAR 26.19.01.10(J)(2)
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
COMAR 26.19.01.10(W)
Id; see also Form .045 (other disposal op ons addressed in permit)
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
COMAR 26.19.01.12(D)
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
COMAR 26.19.01.02
Other
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
MD Exec. Order No. 01.01.2011.11 (Statewide moratorium on fracking for dura on of study) Pub. Local Laws of Garre County § 51.01‐.07; Allegany County Code § 394‐1 (no state severance tax) Department of the Environment, Mining Program COMAR 26.19.01.06
RICHARDSON ET AL.
59
Michigan MAC: Mich. Admin. Code r. (2013) Form EQP 7200‐1: Department of Environmental Quality, Form EQP 7200‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill, deepen, covert and operate a well", available at h p://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7‐135‐
3311_4111_4230‐8856‐‐,00.html Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Mac r. 324.1002
Supervisor of Wells Instruc on 1‐2011 (May 23, 2011); see also MAC
324.404 (prohibi ng use of surface water for drilling fluid) MAC r. 324.301
Id.
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
MAC r. 324.411
MAC r. 324.408
Id.
Form EQP 7200‐1
Id.
MAC r. 324.1010; see also MAC r. 324.1117(1), 1122(2), 1124, and 1129(1) (addi onal requirements for wells with high hydrogen sulfide) Id.
MAC r. 324.416 (requiring permitees to file records of "fracturing" with regulators); see also Supervisor of Wells Instruc on 1‐2011 (May 23, 2011) (interpre ng this regula on to require disclosure of fracturing fluids). Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
MAC r. 324.407; MAC r. 324.502; MAC r. 324.503(1) No evidence of regula on found.
MAC r. 324.407(6)(a)
MAC r. 324.705(4)
MAC r. 324.703
MAC r. 324.703 and MAC r. 324.705(3) and MAC r. 324.407(7)(a)
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
MAC r. 324.903
MAC r. 324.209
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
MAC r. 324.1008
RICHARDSON ET AL.
60
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
See, e.g., Township of West Bloomfield, "Resolu on con nuing and extending moratorium on all natural resource explora on and extrac on ac vi es in the township," Feb. 11, 2013 Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 205.303
Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), through Supervisor of Wells, Geological and Land Management Division (GLM); Air Quality Division MDEQ Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
MAC r. 324.201
RICHARDSON ET AL.
61
Mississippi SRR: Miss. State Oil & Gas Board, Statewide Rules and Regula ons (2011), available at h p://www.ogb.state.ms.us/docs/20130320.RULEBOOK.pdf Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality Regula on LW‐2m, "Surface Water and Groundwater Use and Protec on," (2009) available at h p://www.sos.ms.gov/ACProposed/00018085b.pdf No evidence of regula on; see also SRR 8(1) (setbacks from wells).
Id.
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
SRR 11
SRR 12
No evidence of regula on found.
SRR 12
SRR 45(III)(C)
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
SRR 45(III)(E)(2)
SRR 45(III)(E)(3)(C)(1) (SRR 45(III)(E)(7)(d) sets out rules for drilling mud and reserve pits) SRR 45(III)(E)(3)(a)
No evidence of regula on found.
SRR 45(III)(E)(9)
SRR 45(III)(E)(7)(e) and SRR 45(III)(E)(9) and SRR 68(IV) (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons) Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
SRR 28(A)(2)
Id.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
SRR 17
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
Miss. Code Ann. § 27‐25‐703
Mississippi Oil and Gas Board (OGB); MS Department of Environmental Quality through Office of Pollu on Control (OPC) SRR 4, 88
RICHARDSON ET AL.
62
Montana MAR: Mont. Admin. r. (2013) Form 22 R: Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on, Form 22 R Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
MAR 36.12.102
No evidence of regula on found (MAR 36.22.702 regulates setbacks from boundary lines and other spacing requirements). No evidence of regula on found (MAR 36.22.702 regulates setbacks from boundary lines and other spacing requirements). Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Form 22 R
MAR 36.22.1001(1)
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
MAR 36.22.1221
Id.
MAR 36.22.1015(2) (MAR 36.22.1016 provides for trade secrets)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
MAR 36.22.1226‐1227 (MAR 36.22.1207 governs fluid storage in recomple on and workover phases) MAR 36.22.1227
Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on, Form 22 R; see also Mont. Admin. r. 36.22.1227 (requiring pit liners under certain condi ons). No evidence of regula on found.
MAR 36.22.1226
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
MAR 36.22.1303
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
MAR 36.22.1103
Other
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
MAR 42.25.1809
Department of Natural Resources and Conserva on (DNRC), Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conserva on; MT DEQ MAR 36.22.602 and MAR 36.22.608
RICHARDSON ET AL.
63
Nebraska NAC: Nebraska Admin. Code (2013) Form 2: Nebraska Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission, Form 2 "No ce of Intent to Drill or Re‐enter", available at h p://www.nogcc.ne.gov/Forms/NE_Form2_IntentToDrill.pdf. Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
NAC Title 267, Ch. 4 § 004.02J4
NAC Title 457, Ch. 2 § 001
No evidence of regula on found; but see NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.15 (setbacks from unit boundary lines). Id.
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Form 2; see also NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.04 (requiring cement to be tested and the results reported to the Director prior to use). NAC Title 267, Ch. 2 § 006
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.01
Form 2
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.14 (NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.12(B) restricts fluid storage in pits) NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.11
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.13
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.16(A)
NAC Title 267, Ch. 4
NAC Title 267, Ch. 4; NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 012.12(F), 012.14
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 040
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 040.01
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
NAC Title 267, Ch. 3 § 022.01
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 57‐703
Nebraska Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission (OGCC); NE DEQ
NAC Title 122, Ch. 7
Fluid Storage Op ons
RICHARDSON ET AL.
64
New Jersey NJAC: N.J. Admin. Code (2009) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
NJAC § 7:19‐1.4
No evidence of regula on found; but see NJAC § 7:9D‐2.11.d.7 (distance between wells). Id.
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula
NJAC § 13:1M‐2.k
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
NJAC § 7:14A‐8.1
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
NJAC § 7:14A‐8.9.a.4
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
State of New Jersey, 214th Legislature, Senate No. 2576: January 9, 2012 (one‐year moratorium recently ended). No evidence of regula on found.
Unclear
NJAC § 13:1M‐2
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
on found.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
65
New Mexico NMC: N.M. Code (2013) Form C‐101: Energy Minerals and Natural Resources, Form C‐101 "Applica on for permit to drill, re‐enter, deepen, plug back, or add a zone", available at www.emnrd.state.nm.us/OCD/documents/C‐10120121114.doc . Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
NMC r. § 19.25.13
NMC r. § 19.15.17.10
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
No evidence of regula on found.
Form C‐101; see also NMC r. § 19.15.16.10.A (requiring casing and cement as necessary to seal off and isolate oil and gas‐bearing strata) NMC r. § 19.15.16.10.B
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Form C‐101 Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Id.
NMC r. § 19.15.18.12
Id.
NMC r. § 19.15.16.19
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
NMC r. § 19.15.17.9
NMC r. § 19.15.17.11.G.9
NMC r. § 19.15.17.11.F.3
NMC r. § 19.15.36.13.G
NMC r. § 19.15.35.13
NMC r. § 19.15.36.14, 17; NMC r. § 19.15.35.8, 11‐13; NMC r. § 19.15.34.12, NMC r. § 19.15.17.13 Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
NMC r. § 19.15.25.8
NMC r. § 19.15.25.12
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
NMC r. § 19.15.26.9‐.10
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
See, e.g., Resolu on No. 03‐15‐11‐Natural Resources (San Miguel County moratorium); Ordinance 2013‐01 (Mora County ban) NMC r. § 3.18.4.8
New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Oil Conserva on Division (OCD); NM Environment Department (NMED) NMC r. § 19.15.5.9.A and NMC r. § 19.15.25.8 and NMC r. § 19.15.14.10
RICHARDSON ET AL.
66
New York SGEIS: Suppl. Generic Env. Imp. Stmt. (rev. 2011) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
SGEIS § 8.4.2.2; see also SGEIS § 7.1.4.1 (addressing water quality tes ng during and a er fracturing). SGEIS § 6.1.1.7
SGEIS § 6.8.2
SGEIS § 7.1.11.1 see also §7.2 (prohibi ng fracturing within 100‐year floodplains). Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
SGEIS § 7.1.4.2
Id.
SGEIS § 5.9
SGEIS § 1.7.7.2
SGEIS § 1.7.7.1
SGEIS § 7.5.3.1
Id.
SGEIS § 8.2.1.1
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
SGEIS § 5.11.2
SGEIS § 7.1.3.2
Id.
SGEIS § 7.1.7
SGEIS § 5.13
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
SGEIS § 17.E.1.e
SGEIS § 17.E.1.f
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
SGEIS § 7.1.6
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
See Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden. 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078
(2013) (holding that municipali es may prohibit oil & gas development via zoning). No evidence of regula on found.
Bureau of Oil and Gas Regula on, Division of Mineral Resources of the NY State Department of Environmental Conserva on N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 23‐0501; see also SGEIS (rev. 2011) § Chapter 8 (providing details on new permi ng process) RICHARDSON ET AL.
67
North Carolina NCAC: N.C. Admin. Code (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143‐215.22H
No evidence of regula on found; but see 15A NCAC 05D.0106 (well spacing). Id.
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
15A NCAC 05D.0107
15A NCAC 05D.0107(c)
No evidence of regula on found.
15A NCAC 05D.0107(c)
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
15A NCAC 05D.0107(f)
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
15A NCAC 02C.0209(b) (statewide ban)
"Current Regula on." NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, available at h p://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/current‐
regula on Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
15A NCAC 05D.0109
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
Recently legalized by Session Law 2012‐143, Senate Bill 820 (2012), though development is delayed pending new regula ons. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113‐387
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources 15A NCAC 05D.0105
RICHARDSON ET AL.
68
North Dakota NDAC: N.D. Admin. Code (2013) NDCC: N.D. Cent. Code (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
NDAC 43‐02‐05‐04.1.l; see also NDCC § 38‐11.1‐06 (liability rule)
NDAC 89‐03‐01‐01
NDAC 43‐02‐02‐28
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐21
Id.
No evidence of regula on found.
Industrial Commission Form 1H "Applica on for permit to drill horizontal well", available at h ps://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/rules/forms/Form1H.xls NDAC 43‐02‐03‐45
Id. (Unsold gas must be flared and reported. Technical requirements are
imposed, but flaring volume and frequency appear to be unregulated). NDAC 43‐02‐03‐27(1)(g)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19(3)
No evidence of regula on found.
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19(3)
Department of Health, Guideline 42 “Oilfield Explora on and Produc on Associated Waste Ac vi es”, available at h p://www.ndhealth.gov/wm/Publica ons/Guideline42OilField Explora onAndProduc onAssociatedWasteAc vi es.pdf. NDAC 43‐02‐03‐53
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐19.2 and NDAC 43‐02‐03‐53
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐55
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐55.2
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
NDAC 43‐02‐03‐30
Other
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
RICHARDSON ET AL.
None
NDCC § 57‐51‐02.2
North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division; ND Department of Health and Environment, Health Sec on NDAC 43‐02‐03‐16
69
Ohio OAC: Ohio Admin. Code (2013) ORC: Ohio Rev. Code. Ann (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
ORC § 1509.06.A.8.c
ORC § 1521.16 (permit must indicate proposed source of water and es mated rate and volume of withdrawal) ORC § 1509.021
Id.
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(j)(1)
OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(4)(a)
OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(4)(b)
OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(6)(b)(iv)
OAC 1501:9‐1‐08(M)(7)(a)
ORC § 1509.20
Id; see also ORC § 1509.073 (permi ees to no fy local emergency response before flaring) ORC § 1509.10
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Flaring
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Fluid Disposal Op ons
ORC § 1509.22
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
ORC § 1509.223
See Mark Nique e, Ohio Quake Spurs AcƟon on 5 Wells, Won’t Stop Oil
and Gas Work, BloombergBusinessWeek, Jan. 5, 2012 (repor ng that Ohio DNR shut down injec on opera ons at 5 wells a er an earthquake near Youngstown linked to the ac vity). ORC § 1509.22 and ORC § 1509.226
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
ORC § 1509.062
Id.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Other
Underground Fluid Injec on
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Ordinance No. 2012‐17 (Yellow Springs ban)
ORC § 5749.02
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources Management (ODNR‐DMRM); Ohio EPA Permit Applica on Requirements
ORC § 1509.06.A
RICHARDSON ET AL.
70
Oklahoma OAC: Okla. Admin. Code (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
OAC § 785:20‐1‐6
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
OAC § 165:10‐3‐4(c)(1)
OAC § 165:10‐3‐4(c)(5)
Id.
Oklahoma Corpora on Commission, Form 1000 "Applica on to drill, recomplete or reenter", available at h p://digitalprairie.ok.gov/ cdm/singleitem/collec on/forms/id/19/rec/17 OAC § 165:10‐3‐15(b)‐(c)
Id.
OAC § 165:10‐3‐10(b)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
OAC § 165:10‐9‐1(f)(7)
OAC § 165:10‐7‐16(d)(1), (f)(2)(E); OAC § 165:10‐7‐20(b)(4) OAC § 165:10‐9‐1(e)(7)‐(8)
OAC § 165:10‐1‐46
OAC § 252:652
OAC § 252:652; OAC § 165:10‐9‐2; OAC § 165:10‐7‐16e; OAC § 165:10‐
7‐18, 28. Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
OAC § 165:10‐11‐3(e)
OAC § 165:10‐11‐9
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
OAC § 165:10‐7‐5
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None.
Okla. Stat. t. 68. § 1001.B
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oklahoma Corpora on Commission (OCC), Oil and Gas Division; OK DEQ OAC § 165:10‐3‐1, OAC § 165:10‐1‐25, OAC § 165:10‐7‐31 RICHARDSON ET AL.
71
Pennsylvania Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
25 Pa. Code § 78.52
25 Pa. Code § 110.301 (PA DEP, "Water Management Plan Example Format Instruc ons for Marcellus Shale Gas Well Development," Form 5500‐PM‐OG0087 (April 2009) available at h p://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document‐
74084/5500‐PM‐OG0087%20Applica on%20Example.pdf outlines cradle‐to‐grave water use procedures for shale development) 58 Pa. Code § 3215(b)
Id.
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
25 Pa. Code § 78.85
25 Pa. Code § 78.83.c
Id.
Id.
Id.
25 Pa. Code § 78.74
25 Pa. Code § 78.73
25 Pa. Code § 78.122.b.6; (HB 1950)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
25 Pa. Code § 78.56
25 Pa. Code § 78.56(a)(4)(i)
Id.
58 Pa. Code § 3218.3
25 Pa. Code § 78.18
25 Pa. Code § 78.57 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.61 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.18 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons) Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
58 Pa. Code § 3203
25 Pa. Code § 78.101 (25 Pa. Code § 78.104 allows for extensions)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
25 Pa. Code § 78.66
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
See Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 52 A.3d 463 (2012) (overturning state legisla on blocking municipal fracking bans). No severance tax, but state has impact fee; see 58 Pa. Code § 2302.
Department of Environmental Protec on, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (Office of Mineral Resources Management) Sec on 215 of the act 58 Pa. Code § 601.215 and 25 Pa. Code § 78.19
RICHARDSON ET AL.
72
South Dakota SDAR: S.D. Admin. r (2013) Form 0437: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Form 0437 "Applica on for permit to drill", available at h ps://www.state.sd.us/eforms/secure/eforms/E0437V1‐Applica onForPermitToDrill.pdf Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
SDAR 74:02:05:01‐:08
No evidence of regula on found; see SDAR 74:12:02:05 (well spacing).
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Form 0437
SDAR 74:12:02:12
Id.
Form 0437
Id.
SDAR 74:12:05:04
SDAR 74:12:04:05, SDAR 74:12:02:17 (requiring that ven ng be reported, but not limi ng the prac ce) No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
SDAR 74:12:02:10
No evidence of regula on found.
SDAR 74:12:02:10.2
No evidence of regula on found.
SDAR 74:12:04:15
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
No evidence of regula on found.
SDAR 74:12:03:03
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
SDAR 74:12:02:10‐:11
Other
Flaring
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
S.D. Codified Laws § 10‐39A‐1
SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Board of Minerals and Environment SDAR 74:12:02:01 and SDAR 74:12:02:02
RICHARDSON ET AL.
73
Tennessee TCRR: Tenn. Comp. r. & Regs. (2013) TCA: Tenn. Code. Ann (2005) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
TCA § 69‐7‐304
TCRR 1040‐2‐4‐.01.1.d
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula
TCA § 1040‐2‐7‐.02
Id.
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
TCA § 1040‐2‐7‐.02
Id.
No evidence of regula
on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12
No evidence of regula on found.
TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12
No evidence of regula on found.
TCRR 1040‐4‐1‐.12
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
TCRR 1040‐02‐09‐.04
TCRR 1040‐02‐09‐.06
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Other
on found.
on found.
on found.
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
None
TCA § 60‐1‐301
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conserva on (TDEC), State Oil and Gas Board. Permit Applica on Requirements
TCRR 1040‐02‐02‐.01
RICHARDSON ET AL.
74
Texas TAC: Tex. Admin. Code (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
30 TAC § 1.297
Municipal Code Sec on 235.005(c)
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
16 TAC § 1.3.13(c)(iii)
16 TAC § 1.3.13
16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(2)(B)
16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(3)
16 TAC § 1.3.13(a)(4)
16 TAC § 1.3.3(32)(c)
Id.
16 TAC § 1.3.3(29)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Fluid Disposal Op ons
16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)
No evidence of regula on found.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Form W‐1 "Applica on for permit to drill, recomplete or re‐enter", available at h p://www.rrc.state.tx.us/forms/forms/og/pdf/finalw‐1‐92104.pdf 16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)(f)
City of Fort Worth, Ordinance No. 19946‐10‐2011, October 25, 2011, available at h p://fortworthtexas.gov/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary /City_Council/Official_Documents/2011_Ordinances/19946‐10‐
2011.pdf 16 TAC § 1.3.3(8)‐(9)
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
16 TAC § 1.3.14.b.2
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
16 TAC § 1.3.20(a)(i)
Other
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
Ordinance No. 10‐12A (Dish moratorium)
Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 201.052
Railroad Commission of Texas (RCC) through Oil and Gas Division; TX TCEQ 16 TAC § 1.3.5
RICHARDSON ET AL.
75
Utah UAC: Utah Admin. Code (2013) Form 3: Department of Natural Resources, Form 3 "Applica on for permit to drill" Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
Utah Code Ann. § 73‐3‐2
No evidence of regula on founding (UAC r. 649‐3‐2 regulates well spacing). No evidence of regula on founding (UAC r. 649‐3‐2 regulates well spacing). Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
Form 3
Id. see also UAC r. 649‐3‐8 (requiring surface casing to reach a depth below all u lizable, domes c fresh water sources) UAC r. 649‐3‐8
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
UAC r. 649‐3‐14.2
Id.
UAC r. 649‐3‐39
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
UAC r. 649‐9‐3
UAC r. 649‐9‐3.5.7
UAC r. 649‐9‐3.2
No evidence of regula on found.
UAC r. 649‐9‐2
UAC r. 649‐3‐25; UAC r. 649‐9‐2
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
UAC r. 649‐3‐36.3
UAC r. 649‐3‐36
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
UAC r. 649‐3‐32
Other
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None.
Utah Code Ann. § 59‐5‐102
UT Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Department of Natural Resources; UT DEQ UAC r. 649‐3‐18
RICHARDSON ET AL.
76
Virginia VAC: Va. Admin. Code (2013) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
4 VAC § 25‐150‐340.b
9 VAC § 25‐220‐70
4 VAC § 25‐150‐520
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.c; see also 4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.e (ven ng allowed
only when flaring is not safe or feasible) 4 VAC § 25‐150‐410.c
No evidence of regula on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Ven ng
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
4 VAC § 25‐150‐300 regulates pits, 4 VAC § 25‐150‐310 regulates tanks
4 VAC § 25‐150‐300(B)(1)
4 VAC § 25‐150‐300
No evidence of regula on found.
4 VAC § 25‐150‐420
4 VAC § 25‐150‐420 and 4 VAC § 25‐150‐430 (Different sec ons regulate different disposal op ons) Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
No evidence of regula on found.
No evidence of regula on found.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
4 VAC § 25‐150‐380.A‐.B
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
Va. Code Ann. § 58.1‐3712
Division of Gas and Oil, VA Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (MME); VA DEQ 4 VAC § 25‐150‐80
RICHARDSON ET AL.
77
Vermont VSA: Vt. Stat. Ann (2012) Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
No evidence of regula on found.
VSA t. 10 § 1418 (permi ng) andVSA t. 10 § 1417 (repor ng)
No evidence of regula on found (VSA t. 29 § 14‐522.2 regulates well spacing). No evidence of regula on found (VSA t. 29 § 14‐522.2 regulates well spacing). Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
No evidence of regula
VSA t. 29 § 14‐505.4
Id.
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
VSA t. 29 § 14‐544.d
Id.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
No evidence of regula on found.
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
VSA t. 29 § 14‐8‐571
No evidence of regula on found.
Vermont Natural Gas and Oil Resources Board VSA t. 29 § 14‐541
on found.
on found.
on found.
on found.
RICHARDSON ET AL.
78
West Virginia WVC: W. Va. Code r. (2013)
Form 6B: Department of Environmental Protec on, Form 6B "Well Work Permit Applica on", available at h p://www.dep.wv.gov/oil‐and‐gas/GI/Forms/Documents/UIC%20Permit%20Package.pdf. Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
WVC § 35‐4‐19.1; see also WVC 22‐6A‐18 (liability rule) WVC § 35‐8‐5.6; see also WVC 22‐6A‐7 (water management plan)
WVC § 22‐6A‐12
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
WVC § 35‐4‐11.4
WVC § 35‐4‐11.3
Id.
Form 6B
Id.
WVC § 35‐4‐17
Id.
WVC § 22‐6‐2
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
WVC § 35‐4‐16.4
WVC § 35‐4‐16.4(d)
Id.
WVC § 35‐8‐4(2)(c)(2)
WVC § 35‐4‐7
WVC § 35‐8‐4.3 and WVC § 35‐4‐7 (Other disposal op ons addressed in permit) Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
WVC § 22‐6‐19
No evidence of temporary abandonment status found. Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
WVC § 35‐4‐15.2
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
Civil Ac on 11‐C‐411 overruled local regula on such as Ar cle 721 (Morgantown ban) WVC § 11‐13A‐3(b) Office of Oil and Gas (OOG), WV Department of Environmental Protec on WVC § 35‐8‐3
RICHARDSON ET AL.
79
Wyoming ORDR: Wyo. Oil & Gas Conserva on Comm'n, Opera onal Rules, Drilling Rules, (2010), available at h p://wogcc.state.wy.us/downloads/proposed_rules_2010/Post8jun10/CH3_8jun10.pdf Rule 7929: Environmental Rules 7929, Chapter 4, available at h p://soswy.state.wy.us/rules/rules/7929.pdf
Site Development and Prepara on
Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
No evidence of regula on found.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 41‐3‐101
ORDR 3‐22(b)
Id.
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
ORDR 3‐22(a)(ii)
ORDR 3‐22(a)(i)
Id.
ORDR 3‐22(e)(v)
Id.
ORDR 3‐39(f); see also ORDR 3‐39(a) ( ming and ac vity limits)
ORDR 3‐39(a); see also ORDR 3‐39(e) (constant flare igniter system may be required if ven ng is not safe) ORDR 3‐45(d); see also ORDR 3‐45(g) (prohibi ng the use of BTEX compounds in fracturing fluid) Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
ORDR 3‐45(j)
No evidence of regula on found.
ORDR 4‐1(w)
No evidence of regula on found.
Rule 7929
Id; see also ORDR 3‐45(j).
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
ORDR 3‐4(e)
ORDR 3‐16(b)
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
Rule 7929, Chapter 4, Sec on 3(a)(b)(c)
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
None
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39‐14‐204
Oil and Gas Conserva on Commission; DEQ; WSEO ORDR 3‐1, 3‐18 RICHARDSON ET AL.
80
API HF1: API Guidance Document HF1, “Hydraulic Fracturing Opera ons‐ Well Construc on and Integrity Guidelines,” (2009) HF2: API Guidance Document HF2, “Water Management Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing,” (2010) HF3: API Guidance Document HF3, “Prac ces for Mi ga ng Surface Impacts Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing,” (2011) RP 51R: API Recommended Prac ce 51R, “Environmental Protec on for Onshore Oil and Gas Produc on Opera ons and Leases,” (2009) Site Development and Prepara on Predrilling Water Well Tes ng
Water Withdrawals
Setback from Buildings
Setback from Water
HF1: 20 (area of sampling); HF2: 19 (what to test for) HF2: 12‐16
HF3: 15‐16
HF3: 13‐15; see also HF2: 18 (pit setbacks)
Well Drilling and Produc on
Cement Type Specifica ons
Casing and Cemen ng Depth
Surface Casing Cement Circula on
Intermediate Casing Cement Circ.
Produc on Casing Cement Circ.
Ven ng
Flaring
Fracturing Fluid Disclosure
HF1: 7
HF1: 11‐12
HF1: 11
HF1: 12
Id.
RP 51R: 12
Id.
HF3: 7‐8; see also HF2: 12 (sugges ng addi ves that pose minimal risk)
Wastewater Storage and Disposal
Fluid Storage Op ons
Freeboard
Pit Liners
Wastewater Transporta on Tracking
Underground Fluid Injec on
Fluid Disposal Op ons
51R: 10; see also (51R: 22 recommending tanks) 51R: 22
HF2: 18
HF3: 10
Not applicable
51R: 28
Well Plugging & Abandonment
Well Idle Time
Temporary Abandonment
No best prac ces found.
No best prac ces found.
Well Inspec on & Enforcement
Accident Repor ng
HF3: 14
Other
State/Local Bans & Moratoria
Severance Tax
Regula ng Agencies
Permit Applica on Requirements
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
RICHARDSON ET AL.
81