HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Pennsylvania (Group) » PA DEP Under Reporting NG...

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 09:45 AM

PA DEP Under Reporting NG Wells - violates Act 13

PA Department of Environmental Protection – FAIL
http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/01/10/pa-department-of-environmental-protection-fail/

2 replies, 691 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply PA DEP Under Reporting NG Wells - violates Act 13 (Original post)
Frack Glop Jan 2013 OP
Curmudgeoness Jan 2013 #1
JPZenger Jan 2013 #2

Response to Frack Glop (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 07:31 PM

1. Sounds like this is about par for the course.

Let's add a little teaser from the article.

A recently released analysis, “An Analysis of Unconventional Gas Well Reporting under Pennsylvania’s Act 13 of 2012” states the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection did not report all of the state’s natural gas wells and this could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.


- Finally, fees depend on spudding, or “the actual start of drilling of an unconventional gas well” (58 Pa.C.S. §2301). In the oil and gas industry, spudding is distinct from activities such as completion and production, which can occur only after spudding, if at all. By anchoring the assessment of fees on spudding, Act 13 requires the identification of unconventional gas wells without reference to completion or production. But, in that case, how does one differentiate unconventional and conventional wells, as both are essentially identical at the start of drilling? And how can the DEP retroactively determine whether an unconventional well has been spud if the necessary records were not kept?

- Phase 1: The DEP Omitted 1,500 “Recent” Unconventional Spuds: The first phase of our analysis started with the DEP’s Act 13 report and focused on determining the extent to which the DEP accurately reported on recent unconventional well spuds—those between 2002 and 2011, as this was the time period explicitly covered by its report. In particular, we compared the DEP’s Act 13 report with its previously published reports covering the same period. Essentially, we used the DEP’s existing reports to assess the accuracy and completeness of its Act 13 report. This entailed downloading five additional DEP reports—permits, spuds, production, wastes, and compliance—all of which were publicly available on the DEP’s Office of Oil and Gas Management website.





I have to wonder if this is intentional because of the DEP relationship with the drillers, or if it is just incompetence. One if just as likely as the other.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frack Glop (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:47 AM

2. Article: Did PA. DEP Miss Out on $300 Million of Well Impact Fees????

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-01-10/news/mc-pa-gas-well-impact-fees-20130110_1_deep-wells-impact-fee-marcellus-shale

The questions revolve around which wells were required to pay the fees, and which ones were not. At least one expert argues that hundreds of additional wells should have been charged the fees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread