Presenter: Dr. Douglas Jackson-Smith, Utah State University--Logan Campus
37 slide

Belton, Lorien

Gentry, Brian

Jackson-Smith, Douglas

Theodori, Gene

English

bepress Legal Repository

SLIDES: Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Oil and Gas Development in Utah

Colorado Law

University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Opportunities and Obstacles to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Natural Gas Development in Uintah Basin (October 14) 2010 10-14-2010 SLIDES: Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Oil and Gas Development in Utah Douglas Jackson-Smith Lorien Belton Brian Gentry Gene Theodori Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/reducing-environmental-footprint-of-natural-gas-development-in-uintah-basin  Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Climate Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Energy Policy Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Hydraulic Engineering Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Energy Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Technology and Innovation Commons, Water Law Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Citation Information Jackson-Smith, Douglas; Belton, Lorien; Gentry, Brian; and Theodori, Gene, "SLIDES: Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Oil and Gas Development in Utah" (2010). Opportunities and Obstacles to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Natural Gas Development in Uintah Basin (October 14). https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/reducing-environmental-footprint-of-natural-gas-development-in-uintah-basin/4 Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Oil and Gas Development in UtahDr. Douglas Jackson-SmithLorien Belton, Brian GentryUtah State UniversityDr. Gene TheodoriSam Houston State UniversityBackgroundWorking with larger national projectHouston Advanced Research CenterGoal of larger project– TECHNICAL: Develop & evaluate new natural gas exploration and production systems to reduce environmental impacts.– PROCESS: Foster dialogue among stakeholders and increase public awareness about Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) systemsProjects ongoing in TX, CO, WY, NY, PA, WV, AR, UTUSU’s Uintah Basin ProjectFOUR CORE RESEARCH QUESTIONS:– What is already being done to reduce the environmental footprint from natural gas resource development in this region?– What drives those changes?– What constraints exist to the expanded use of these practices?– How does the use of EFD approaches affect opportunities for expanded unconventional gas development in this region?USU Uintah Project = ExploratoryOur group = social scientists not engineersCore interests: understanding drivers & obstacles to use of environmentally-friendly approachesExpectations – Not all EFD approaches are appropriate in this region.– Acceptability of future energy development will be affected by availability and use of EFD systemsOutputs– Workshop (today)– White Paper (December 2010)Recommendations for programs or policies to facilitate adoption of appropriate forms of EFD technologyOil & Gas Production in the BasinImportance of the Uintah Basin201070% of Utah’s oil production (23 m. bbl)72% of Utah’s natural gas (430 bcf)94% of new spudded wellsTRENDS IN OIL & GAS ACTIVITY IN UINTAH BASINUtah DOGM Permit Data, 2001-2010# Approved DOGM Drilling Permits in Uintah Basin, By Type of WellBasin Jobs Associated with O&GFrom: Downen et al, 2009.Highlights of FindingsAttention to environmental footprint of O&G activity has increased in last decadeMany examples of innovation on the groundSome approaches used in other regions have yet to become ‘standard’ practice in the BasinComplex regulatory jurisdictions complicate and shape patterns of changeExamples of InnovationReduced surface disturbance– Multi-well pads; directional drilling– Centralized fracking facilities (with pipelines to pad sites)– Reclamation of drilling pads (interim, final)Water management– Pre-treatment of produced waters before reinjection or evaporation pondsMore Examples of InnovationAir Quality – Tier 2 diesel engines on more rigs– Electrification of some rigs– Dust mitigation (upgrading access roads; pipelines for water; reduced truck traffic)– Compressed air valvesProtecting Wildlife and T&E Plants– Mandatory buffers from known T&E species– Time restrictions on drilling activitiesExamples of Approaches Less Widely Used In Uinta BasinClosed loop or recycled fracking water systems Aggressive treatment of produced watersDrilling pad mats and ‘disappearing’ roadsAggressive capture of fugitive air emissionsCapture, testing, and treatment of drilling muds and cuttingsDrivers and ConstraintsMost ‘EFD’ practices not yet standard practice, yet great progress madeWhat explains pace and direction of change in O&G development methods?Production Practice (TIME 1)Production Practice (TIME 2)TechnologicalChangeSocietal & Political Pressure Regulation & PolicyEconomics ofProductionChange through timeCorporate LeadershipFindingsTechnological Change & Economics– Important Link in Chain: “Can’t use that here”  or “Too expensive”– Not always a DRIVER, but innovations can remove a technical or economic barrierMuch technology out there – but not yet usedLimiting characteristics of geology, topographyIf regulation is to work, technological solution must exist– Easiest cases = WIN-WIN technologiesReduce footprint AND save $Economics“Directional drilling is only affordable at certain gas prices.  The technology is there, but utilization is cost dependent.” “As the price of the product goes up, you can reduce the spacing, apply better technology, but make more money in the long run.” “The biggest barrier [to water management] is always money.” “For operators, it has to be economics.  Drilling superintendents would rather do vertical (than directional drilling) because it’s easier.”Examples of Win-Win“We thought [multi-well pads] were going to break us . . . But when we got going on it, we saved money in different areas we weren’t even considering.  Don’t have to move the rig every time you go to another pad and with the new style of rigs there is no need to re-lay pipe.”Geology“There aren’t that many zones geologically that can take a lot of water.”“Topography and underground geology will be what drives [operator] costs.”“Drilling would have to be vertical in areas with corrosive salts and large geologic holes if there were any hope of hitting target resources.”Regulation and PolicyNot a simple storySome changes in production practices directly linked to new rules/regulations – or at least: perceptions that they are comingMany examples where industries are ‘ahead’ of the regulatory waveComplexity of regulatory jurisdiction complicates the situationRegulation as a Driver“The energy industry isn’t doing anything out of the goodness of its heart that costs money…but are rather responding to increasing standards set by state and federal governments.”“Overall companies are begrudging partners but will do what they have to…about the only time I’ve seen them willingly adopt conservation measures . . . [is] if it improves or keeps good relations with an enforcement agency.”“Bad things happen, regulations occur, and companies figure out how to deal with those regulations.”Legal NEPA Challenges“…if a practice is going to be changed, it’s going to be changed because SUWA took the BLM to court and the courts ruled that yeah, you need to do this, and then that becomes part of the regulation.” COMPLEXITIES IN LAND OWNERSHIP• Tribal (16%)• Federal (53%)• BLM• USFS• USFWS• NPS• State (10%)• SITLA• DNR• Private (21%)Complexities in Regulatory JurisdictionFederal Lands– BLM = lead– NEPA governs– State permitting (DOGM), little state oversight (DEQ)Tribal Lands– Mix: Tribal Government, BIA, BLM, EPA– Boundaries of tribal jurisdiction extends beyond contemporary reservationSITLA lands– State = lead– EPA more involved on water & air issuesConfusion about Regulatory Authority & Processes“There are something like twelve agencies intermixed here…[this] makes it “hard to figure out what agency is in charge . . . Someone must have rules and regs on who enforces [what], but we haven’t seen it.”  “Operators would like a one-stop shop . . . that’s not the reality of the situation and they have to answer to multiple masters.”  “The BLM can only regulate what they are given authority over…they don’t have direct authority [over water], so it’s hard for them to take the lead.”Perceived Inconsistency & Uncertainty“Regulatory uncertainty is scary.  It’s no fun to go to an agency . . . and have them say they don’t know if they can approve that or not.” “[our] biggest problem with feds is inconsistency.  Getting the BLM to come down hard on a company is like pulling teeth.”  “[while] the EPA needs to get involved, [they] don’t always agree … about what is big enough to care about.”Perceived Inconsistency & Uncertainty“So much of what the BLM does is discretionary, and there really aren’t that many regulations about what needs to be done environmentally.”“One of the huge problems that we have in Utah is we can’t get DOGM to write down the stinking regulations.  It’s all verbal . . . from our perspective, we don’t have a problem dealing with meeting a certain regulation, so long as my competition . . . has to jump through the same hoops.”Societal & Political PressureImportant Backdrop to Other DriversDifferences between UTAH and private lands states– Federal lands = NEPA driven decisionsEnvironmental Stakeholders = tend not to be localDecisions = technical/process orientedLocal, regional & national political pressures– Private LandsMore private/local opposition groupsState regulatory process = key actorKey federal actor = EPARole of Corporate LeadershipConcerns about public perception of industry / companyFeelings of responsibility to communityCorporate cultureRole of Public Image“Innovations come from the bigger companies because they are in the public eye and care about their image.”“Spills are costly, bad PR is costly.  It’s better to be a green company, now, politically and every other way.” “Energy companies have to understand that what other people say about you is what your brand is.” [Companies want to] “sell themselves as good guys doing the right thing.”Community Responsibility“We reclaim because someone else’s livelihood depends on that grass.  We don’t want to be the bad guy.” “People that love the outdoors would be pissed if you’re out there fricken’ trashing it . . . you don’t get people who love the outdoors going out and trashing it.” Corporate Culture“Their corporate ethic . . . I think comes from the newer generation who is just more environmentally aware.” “As the older generation retires, new generations are more environmentally adept and concerned.” “The right person in the right position needs to be there . . . who’s thinking ahead, coupled with a smart, technical savvy and a company [ethic] that will embrace them.”Working Model for How Change Often HappensGrowing awareness of potential environmental issues A few companies proactively identify need to innovate to solve those problems Regulatory agencies begin to recommend changes to address certain issues Experience of innovators leads to greater industry comfort with certain practices Changes in state or federal policies might formally require certain practices or approachesImplicationsTechnical innovation important, but not enoughMarket conditions are important in the pace of changesRegulatory ambiguity uncertainty = huge issue– Many industry informants would be happy to live with strict environmental rules if… They could get quick decisions on leases/permitsThey knew the rules would be stable for foreseeable futureIndustry behavior = diverse – Lessons from innovators)Future Steps (2011)Answer Q: – How could the expanded use of EFDs affect the social acceptability of (and potential for development of) unconventional oil and gas resources in the region?Methods may include:– General population community surveys– Focus groups with stakeholders– More interviews with key actors and interest groupsContact InformationDr. Douglas Jackson-SmithUtah State Universitydoug.jackson-smith@usu.edu435-797-0582Dr. Gene TheodoriSam Houston State UniversityGLT002@shsu.edu936-294-4143

https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=reducing-environmental-footprint-of-natural-gas-development-in-uintah-basin

SLIDES: Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Oil and Gas Development in Utah

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

bepress Legal Repository

Colorado Law