i

1<116/15

580 .332 .4714

->

Cothran Development Page 001

DE Pri-

22
- ££

2
-'

w:

DOMESTll: ENERGY PRODUCERS ALLIANCE

(405) 424~1699 I depausa.org

June 1.6,2015
Dear friend,
America's ban on US oil exports contradkts om interests. Foreign oil producers arc using their oil-and our ban on exports-as

ti

\veapon.

or

Over the pa>t three (kc ades, foreign prnd uct.~rs ll.<we accompJi~hcd a calculated conv(•rsion l.JS re.lining cap<tdty to run heavy
sour crude produced in other countries. 'fo e.nsure a market for their fwavy sour crude, fotcign produccts began ht.tying into US
relining capacity as il bec:<mw available, guaranteeing long-term m>trkern for their heavy sour crude product.
T<,day; as US indcpt.•ndent producers have discovered an abundant supply of domcstlc light sweet oil, foreign heavy sour oil pro·
duccrs and lhc.ir rt?fi1wry partners cont.irnw to invest in rdinerks l.o ru.n thdr heavysotn: ~rude at the exclusion o(this light sWC('l
production. 'The resu1l is a critical shortage of refining capac.H.y f'or light sw<:d oil p.mduced ill the US Cotnbhicd with the ban on
US oil c:xports, this refinery mismatch is c.rcatint~ a significant dh1<~Junt for US light swcd oil at 11() benefit to anyone except refiners
and their foreign ownership. In foct, the WTI discount to llrent crude has cost America $124 billion in lost revenue in just four
yenrs. ·1 hal's money going to Canada. Venezuela, Mexico and other loreign producers al our expense and cat1sing a severe hardship
on US producers.
Wl~

M\JST IJfI.'.DUl l!AN ON PS <:;.W..llli._Qll.~)1~ It's an issue the Dome,l.ic Energy Producer> Allirm<''~ orst imn1ducx;,J lo ll<tlional medic< in Washingt<!ll, D.C. . on ()(L<Jbcr l 5, 2013 when the dil'lercntial between wn and Brent was $20 a barrel.
A few months later, along with others, I was invited to represent US oil and gitS producers in the first Congressional hearing on oil
exports in 25 years. Since that time, the efforts of DEPA, our 14 collaborating trade associations and om lobbying team have contributed to shaping public opinion for lilting the oil exporl ban.

Lcgishtion is m~ccssary to lift tlw ln111. 'The key to st.~cu.ring Congressional action. i.s working in tlw polilkal process 1.0 Cully 1:ducatc
Congrcssion,il member> of all the brnclit.s of this ;\cl.ion. 'Jhere '""' many competing :}gcndas in W(tshington with the 2016 gcncrnl
declion lowning,. so Wt) must cominuously communicate the urgency of lif'ting the ban and all of the bencfas that wmc with it,
including lower gasoline prices for consunwrs. the creation ofa million American jobs, and the continuation of America's Energy
Renaissance. DEPA has taken the lead on these educational efforts -- and ilis an expensive process.
f understand these ure di.llkull tirncs, but it's t.in1('S like t.ht.'S(' when we 1n.usl spt.:nd our 111<.>ney wi.sdy, and on dfo1·t.s soch as this to
enable this industry to ernerge one'~ again. Now is 1hc tin:w to invest in. DEPA- We nt~ed <wcry producer in America to s1'ep up and
light for what is t"igbt--fr)r our industry <md 1i11· om· c:t.llmtry.
Attached to th L' fox is a reply card for your convenience. Fill it 011t and send it back to us. Please partidpatc at the highest· possible
level lUGHT NOW. We need you with us.
Sinc(~rely,

lcfat'O d Hamm
Chairmotn, Domestic Energy Prodtic.crs Alliance
Chairman & CEO, Continental Resources, Inc.

Received Time Jun. 16. 2015 9:01AM No. 0625

 06/16/15 10:14:42 580.332.4714

->

Cothran Deuelopment Page 002

Join us today!
Fax this completed form to:
(580) 332-4714

-----------

-------~-----

IJOMESIIC ENERGY PRODUCERS ALLlllllCE

(405) 424-1699 Idepausa.org

or invest onUne at
www.depausa.org
IO!lllY'S DATE _ _ _ _ , _ , _. __ ,_,,,_,~_.,,,,,,,.

INVESTOR Nl\ME _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

DEPA LEADERSHIP
Executive Co1nnlittee
H<\n)!d

D Service Company

V<lfH:t: L<irl~

/\ni:lrt;~"

Ben')'" iVJulleonix, ~ecn•U1ryf"Ji·eastirer
Pr1u1h11:r f~nersy Cll111pany, Ll.C

K~~1\t.r.1(ky Oil

McN•Jlll

& (;;)~ /\.~o:.od<ir.lon

Chad }..fcDour:all
IMA E11£"rgy C11m.pany, Ll.C
Mark M'el.tlt;;r•
F~ldt!rh1)ff(l1'lldlltl·k1fl C1w1:1p}ll'\}'

CHOOSE INVESTMENT LEl!El
D $50,000 DEPA Underwriter
D $15,000 Partner
D $25,000 Principal Investor
D $10,000 As>;ociate
0 $5,000 Affiliate
0
$ l.,000 Advoc;1t:t!
D $2,500 Colleague
0 $ _____ Other
0 $500 Friend of Industry
0 $._,,
Leg~! Fund
0 $_...
Regulatory Oefonse Fund

PHONE _ _ _ _ _ __

!~.,0:0:.~)l.l\\'.1..~. 1\)1,\

Pe!ni\e:nm C.zu!ogi!>l

/\.1ilw McDm;:1ld, Pre~kfon!

0011 ~1on1g1.1fl'•l)ry, Vkl:l r1rr::dd1;1n1
M1111(gt)n1i':ry E:xp\vn>.linri Cn1rirr111y

0 Explorntion/Produclion

Httl~i(';y

11h1

<Xm!in<'lnto.1

Cb;.\irr1\<l1l
C<~1ttint."f'1fal Rf.':>()t"·ct~. In<:.
H<11nm,

't'l'/;'td Energy

!NDllSTRY SEGMENT

Ed

Cn1~r.

Kt1111\Uli lfh:i<tpl!nd<t!l! Oil oncl Gn~ t\i;
.;nd<'llion

Ak,s; Mill~
Texo..o. Alli:u1cc of Et1l"r_f',y l)rodi.tct."ri'.
Pr.trkk /\1ollhllbnn
Nnr!IMr'n l\101H1l1l.\l Oi! & (~:'l~l J\iif;:0Ch1·

ferry !iirrl1-niJ11$
Nilliv11;\l {\(<(lQdt11i1Jn

:;m11<:"rlyn

{)f

llt)y;il~y

c~thr.:'ltl

Nalion;.ll Stdppcr Wet! ,'\J>:~'.)dali1)ll

FAX _ _ _ _ _ _ __

BL'ie1.n i'v1oore
Superi(Jf E1lifft\)' Ser¥ic(;'~
Ohle (Yr3rfon

Mik~'forry

Okl;;ilt1n111> l111.k.pt:11d~•.1.)l l'i:.r.n1lc1.1~11

/\h ..

BHl S1.eve1rn
'l~i't.l'f•

ri~111

()wnr;7\':l

9.>citl!i(lll

/l.l!(1111i:;-(.' or 1·:n~1·3y P1:t1r,lut.:t.:1's

c,,,,,!,l'<lfio11

/\pn4;ht~

l~rnd

Ridw.rdi;

lllinoili Oil&. Gn.~ Ai:.liocfal.im1

fohn Sclimll'l.
$i;:l1;,;I f!.(11!rgy

EMA.IL-· ·--- _____......_. . ___ . _________

CHoOSf PllVMENT TYPE
D C1·edlt Card 0 MasterCard

OVISA

!loan! of Dlrect<ll·s

Oreg Sdnwdzc
!Jenbut·y Rc,<;<>ttn:ci;, rnc.

S\li.\Wr\ JknrleH
Ohio 011 &. Ga~ J\J.;i;ocinl.ion

P~n11i:.n\ Hiwit\ l·'t,1 r1.il~\1111 (l ... M)i.;i;1!i1.1t1

l\IUk~

Con11•t;ill

lnvi:-~~!1;11~~11.~, l1h:.

!kn Sbc.ppe.rd
Jin; Stund\cy
Linn

~~J1er~y

Dt1det~e

(IJ(#

SIGNATURE _ _ _ _ _ _ __

[fri<trl H11rr\)1)fl
C.E. l·l<'nnnn ()il Cmnp<'ny

C:hnl'le-:;: Hiu•m,)11
C.E. Hlll'J1\(1t\ Oil Compilnr

Her.:i:;
rntcrci-:t, ud.

Aar{'ll~

Her:"~

Don·ic~tk Encr~y Vro~1ut.:c1·:-;, t\Jlh\l'h.:t'. Inc .. i.-; a 501(t::)(6)11nt,for~proiit
org<.\ni7..::irjon. <.:()ntribotlon1~ <ll't' not r~1x.,d~ductlble as cbai'ltahle, hut ttp
to 70o/.) n1<\Y be deductible as nl'din.a1y busine~s cxpi.:-n!;t~.
Tt\X [l)µ 26·439@61

Received Time Jun, 16, 2015 9:01AM No, 0625

$t;rvi.~e~r.

Bob Bag.gM.1
P.rin~i~i<x E11ergy ~\1r1.ners

Cantrel!

CARil NUMBER

EKPDAH _ __

-----

(\\lU1\\hU~

\tv'aHace

Oil

C()lll!)f.10.y

NehH)ll W1)ocl

Y....'t11al

F.ncrµ}~

r11c.

Rock Zi<>rmnn
Cal1fi.~1·ni<' lndepe.r~df:1111;'~!1'('t\e1J1n

i:.od111.f0n

/l.i:. ..

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Laurel Baird <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:25 PM
Alan Coyner; Bob King; Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field; Brian Love; C. Edmon
Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok;
Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Grant Black; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey; Jim Dilay
; jimw@dnr.state.la.us; John Baza ; Jon Williams; Joseph Pettey; Joseph Pettey; Keith
Endreson; Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Matt Lepore;
Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Neslin, Dave; Nick Tew
; Paul Jeakins; Paul Schmierbach; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; Sandy MacMullin;
scperry@pa.gov; Thomas Wright ; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Mike Smith; Gerry Baker; Amy Childers; Erica Carr; Carol Booth; Mark Cox
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission - Oklahoma Official Representative

Hello,
Please help me welcome Secretary Michael Teague as the newly appointed Oklahoma Official Representative. He is
replacing Mr. Michael Ming.
Sincerely,
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba i rd@iogcc. state .o k. us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:38 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; Grant Black; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James
Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings
(EEC); Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin ; Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Matt Lepore;
Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins;
Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ron Dunkin; Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy
MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Steven Rauzi; Thomas Richmond ; Thomas Wright ; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Erica Carr
States First Online

The States First Initiative is well under way with its public outreach campaign beginning with the launch of its
website, www.statesfirstinitiative.org, Twitter page, @Stateslst and YouTube channel, Stateslst.
Everyone is encouraged to visit our online presence, share, watch and tweet, as we continue to inform energy
leaders, influencers, the media and most importantly, the public of the states' regulatory role in the responsible
development of oil and natural gas. We will keep all of these updated with the latest news about state oil and
gas regulation and actions taken by states to support the responsible development of domestic energy. We me
using the voices of our governors and regulators to talk about the many priorities addressed by States First and
illustrate that the states m·e doing a great job.
Moving forward, we would like input and interaction for our social media news and updates to our website.
Your news is our news. And we ask that you will do the same for this initiative. If you have a Twitter page,
follow us and retweet. If you do not have a Twitter or social media presence, we me planning a webinar in the
near future for training, tips and advice for stmting your own.
Each of you have different issues and news worthy stories that should be shmed. We are asking that you send us
what your state sees as priorities and if there are suggestions for postings about your state you would like
followed.

Here me some examples we would like to post on our website and/or Twitter:
New policies, regulations or upcoming bills
Production numbers
Economic development related to the oil and gas industry
Working with other organizations or government entities for continuous regulatory improvement
Any news/ press releases coming out of your agency
If you should any questions, please feel free to contact me or Erica Can', States First Coordinator, at any time.
Carol Booth
1

 Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

Quote for the day: People who work together will win, whether it be against complex
football defenses, or the problems of modern society.
Vince Lombardi

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Craig Perry
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:30 PM
Craig Sundstrom; Michael Teague
Katie Altshuler
statesfirst intiative

Here is the eamil Katie was referring to.

From: Katie Altshuler

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 11:10 AM
To: Carol Booth
Cc: Chelsea Barnett; Craig Perry; Krista Carman
Subject: Re: IOGCC and NGA Winter meeting

Carol,
Thank you for your email. I am including Craig Perry in our office who handles energy issues. I am also including Chelsea
Barnett who is in our DC office and Krista Carman who represents Governor Dalrymple, who serves as the Chair of the
NGA Natural Resources Committee. We will discuss and get back to you. Thank you very much, Katie
On Nov 26, 2013, at 10:43 AM, "Carol Booth" <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Hi Katie,
I hope you received my earlier email about the States First Initiative and its on line presence,
www.statesfirstintiative.org and on Twitter @Stateslst.
I wanted to touch base a little earlier this year to see if there are any possibilities or openings in the NGA
Winter meeting schedule for our initiative. We have bipartisan support with more governors in the cue
to sign before the meeting.
Just let me know what you need from me, questions or plan, for proposal.
Carol Booth

Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, December 11, 2013 9:08 AM
Craig Perry; Alex Weintz; Katie Altshuler
Michael Teague
States First moving forward
FINAL LETTER-Signed-12-11-13.pdf; States First Governor Talking Points.docx; States
First Press Release - 12-12-13.docx

Hello all!
Today is the day. After some delay because of our unpredictable weather, we are mailing the States First Initiative
governors' support letters (attached). We now have a total of 12 governors supporting the initiative and expect more in
the near future.
I am also following up with some interested media including Jay Marks at the Oklahoman. Please let me know if
Governor Fallin is available for comment and who is going to act as a point of contact for them to schedule an interview.
There are general talking points attached for Governor Fallin to help in any interview with the media.
I will be sending a press release out tomorrow to all media outlets. I have attached the press release for you to review
and send out through your office's distribution list. Please add a quote from Governor Fallin as designated.
Once again, we want to thank Governor Fallin for supporting this initiative and we look forward to working with her
office again. If you should have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Merry Christmas to you and your families!
Carol Booth

Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 StatesFirst
An Initiative of the IOGCC & GWPC

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
Phone 405.525.3556
P.O. Box 53127, Oklahoma City, OK 73152

Ground Water Protection Council
Phone: 405.516.4972
13308 N. MacArthur, Oklahoma City, OK 73142

December 11, 2013

American Energy Policy Leaders:
As governors of states that provide the oil and natural gas that help fuel this country and its economic
well-being, we are seeking your support to continue this crucial mission. State regulatory programs
have been at the forefront of oil and gas exploration since 1935. Our programs, which are as varied as
the geography, climate, geology and social fabric of our states, are designed to be flexible, yet effective,
in providing the world's best environmental protection and regulation.
The states' ability to design effective regulations that reflect state-specific needs Is a vital element In
the resurgence of our nation's oil and natural gas industry. In fact, thanks to technology and American
ingenuity, the United States is on target to become the world's largest producer of oil and the world's
largest net exporter of natural gas.
We are proud of the job that state regulatory agencies are doing and want you to be aware of a new
initiative, States First, that states are undertaking to continue their worldwide leadership as the laboratories of effective regulatory development. As previously announced at the Annual Meeting of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), this initiative is a joint venture between the IOGCC and
the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), a national association of state water-protection officials.
States First is an innovative and exciting state-led effort. Its first task was the formation of the State Oil
and Gas Regulatory Exchange, a unique network of experts who will be available to help meetemerging
regulatory challenges and solve unique problems in all oil and gas producing states.
State Oil and Gas Regulatory Exchange
The State Oil and Gas Regulatory Exchange (SOGRE) will bring state policy and technical staff together
on a routine and coordinated schedule to share the way they do business, review internal operations,
and open up opportunities for extrapolating effective practices from one state to another. The SOGRE
creates a dynamic forum where states can reach out and communicate with one another in an ongoing
effort to keep current with rapidly changing technology, as well as to share the very best and innovative
regulatory procedures from state to state.
The SOGRE will focus first on field operations. This critical area Is where the states know best how to
conduct oversight of exploration and production activities. It is in the field where state regulators interact daily with the public and the operating companies. The program's initial goals are identifying
opportunities for new operating procedures, improving communication with the public and improving
efficiency and effectiveness in regulatory oversight.

 Amerian Energy Policy Leaders

Page2

December 11, 2013

Field Inspectors Education and Certification Program
We have teamed with highly respected university educators and will develop technical training opportunities for oil and gas inspectors and others associated with oilfield operations. The goal of this program Is to provide a formal certification process for experienced field inspectors who desire an in-depth
understanding of new and/or emerging technical practices, as well as for persons new to the field who
need in-depth basic training.
FracFocus 2.0
Many states have revised, or are in the process of revising, regulations in response to changing technology and public concerns. Subsequently, twelve states have led in adopting chemical disclosure requirements, using FracFocus, that require companies to disclose chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing
process. A new, more searchable version of FracFocus, designed with the public in mind, will be fully
functional June 1, 2013, and will contain information on over 45,000 individual fracturing jobs.
Underground Injection Wells (UIC): Peer Reviews
These UIC disposal well Peer Reviews will be conducted jointly by the states and USEPA, in the respective
program offices. They will help states and the USEPA continuously improve their programs to protect
the environment through the UIC program. UIC wells can safely dispose of a variety offluids, Including
produced water, which can include water returned from the hydraulic fracturing of wells. Conducting
peer-to-peer reviews of this critical environmental protection program will help ensure an extra level of
environmental oversight for the public.
Science and Technology Transfer
This effort will focus on the emerging technology from pure and applied research projects being done
through the US Department of Energy, national labs, universities, and other institutions. Opportunities
will be provided for researchers to communicate with states on how the application of their work might
improve environmental protection and regulatory oversight.
States will continue to deliver effective solutions to regulatory challenges. They are the incubators of
regulatory innovation. State officials are uniquely qualified at understanding oilfield operations and
emerging technologies because they live and work in the field.
We have made great progress, and we urge the Federal Government to leave regulation in the capable
hands of the states. Our programs are working. Our people are on the ground, have decades of experience, and we are following a path of continuous improvement.

 Amerian Energy Policy Leaders

Page3

December 11, 2013

Sincerely,

Phil Bryant
Governor of Mississippi
IOGCC Chairman

Robert Bentley
Governor of Alabama

Steven L. Beshear
Governor of Kentucky

Steve Bullock
Governor of Montana

Tom Corbett
Governor of Pennsylvania

t;~lt
~n.~4..+-

Mary Fallin
Governor of Oklahoma

Gary R. Herbert
Governor of Utah

John Hickenlooper
Governor of Colorado

Sean Parnell
Governor of Alaska

Rick Perry
Governor ofTexas

Governor of Nevada

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Laurel Baird < laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, January 13, 2014 2:30 PM
Michael Teague
IOGCC Meeting Calendar
IOGCC Meeting Calendar - PDF.pd!

Good Afternoon,
Attached is the IOGCC Meeting Calendar with dates through 2015.
Sincerely,
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la urel.ba ird@iogcc.state.ok.us

1

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

IOGCC MEETING CALENDAR

2014 Midyear Meeting
Biloxi, Mississippi
Beau Rivage
May 18 - 20, 2014
(Sunday through Tuesday)
2014 Annual Meeting
Columbus, Ohio
Hyatt Regency, Columbus
October 19-21, 2014
(Sunday through Tuesday)
2015 Midyear Meeting
Salt Lake City, Utah
Hotel and Dates TBD
2015 Annual Meeting
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
The Skirvin Hilton
September 28 - 30, 2015
(Monday through Wednesday)
COLLECTIVELY REPRESENTING THE STATES

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:25 AM
Michael Teague
Gerry Baker; Laurel Baird
Thanks for the meeting!

MikeJust a note to thank you again for all support for IOGCC. It is greatly appreciated!
As to committee assignments, I think the 2 best for you (you can serve on more than one) would be Public Outreach
(OREB has been important for this committee) and Environment and Safety (for obvious reasons). Gov. Fallin can
appoint you with a brief letter us and we can draft one for her consideration.
Just let me know and thanks!
Mike

•

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Laurel Baird < laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:40 PM
Michael Teague
IOGCC Steering Committee Meeting

Good Afternoon,
We would like to extend an invitation to you to join the IOGCC Steering Committee meeting in Oklahoma City at IOGCC
Headquarters February 10 and 11. We will be meeting all day on February 10, concluding with dinner and resuming the
morning of February 11 for a short time.
Please let me know if you are able to attend.
Sincerely,
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba i rd@iogcc.state .ok. us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Laurel Baird< laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:44 AM
Michael Teague
Carol Booth
IOGCC Committee Appointment Request
scleveland IOGCC app.pdf

Good Morning,
Scott Cleveland from Chesapeake has turned in this request to be appointed to the Environment and Safety committee.
Please let me know if you need any further information from him and I will be happy to request it otherwise, if
appointed, please forward me a short note on his behalf on your letterhead with your signature and I will welcome him
with a letter from Mike Smith and a packet from IOGCC.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
Iau re I. ba i rd@iogcc. state .o k. us
Visit our website at iogcc.ok.gov

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, January 06, 2015 8:56 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James Martin ; Jami
Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal; Lisa
Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson;
Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman;
Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tim Baker; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
States responses to enabling language
OH enable language.pdf; states enabling language responses - 01-2015.pdf

We have had a great response to yesterday's question about each states' enabling language. So I thought I would go
ahead and compile these responses now to send out.
I will continue collecting your responses and adding to the list. I will send out a final by the end of the week.
Thank you everyone for taking time from your hectic schedule and starting this year with a bang.

Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 http:// oh iod nr.gov /home/history-purpose

History and Purpose of the Department of Natural Resources
Mission Statement: To ensure a balance between wise use and protection of our
natural resources for the benefit of all.
The history of the Department of Natural Resources is rich and varied, beginning with its creation by the Ohio
Legislature in 1949.
At that time, the department was charged with the responsibility of formulating and putting into execution a long
term comprehensive plan and program for the development and wise use of the natural resources of the state,
to the end that the health, happiness and wholesome enjoyment of life of the people of Ohio may be further
encouraged.
A department of incredible diversity, ODNR owns and manages more than 590,000 acres of land including 74
state parks, 21 state forests, 136 state nature preserves, and 117 wildlife areas. The department also has
jurisdiction over more than 120,000 acres of inland waters; 7,000 miles of streams; 481 miles of Ohio River;
and 2-1/4 million acres of Lake Erie.
In addition, ODNR licenses all hunting, fishing, and watercraft in the state and is responsible for overseeing and
permitting all mineral extraction, monitoring dam safety, managing water resources, coordinating the activity of
Ohio's 88 county soil and water conseivation districts, mapping the state's major geologic structures and
mineral resources, and promoting recycling and litter prevention through grant programs in local communities.
As an umbrella organization for such diverse interests, the department pulls all these activities into four
fundamental mission components:
•

Resource management by sustained productivity of Ohio's renewable natural resources, promoting the wise
use of non-renewable natural resources, and protecting Ohio's invaluable threatened and endangered natural

resources.
•

Economic development through job creation/expansion/retention, stimulating local economies, developing
industry and tourism opportunities, and supporting the present and future economic health of the state.

•

Recreation by providing leisure services and recreation opportunities for the public at all levels.

•

Health and safety through fair and consistent law enforcement participating in regulatory matters and identifying
and responding to environmental hazards.

/Resource Management
I

I

Managing Ohio's resources is one of ODNR's primary responsibilities. This involves sustaining the productivity
of Ohio's renewable natural resources such as timber and wildlife; promoting wise use of Ohio's non-renewable

1

 resources such as oil and gas; and protecting Ohio's threatened and endangered natural resources such as
rare plants and animals.
Eight of ODNR's divisions are actively involved in resource management. These include the divisions of:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Forestry
Geological Survey
Mineral Resources Management
Natural Areas and Preserves
Oil & Gas Resources
Soil and Water Resources
Watercraft
Wildlife

Though each division typically has its own mandates and responsibilities, they often combine their efforts,
working together on various management projects to achieve similar goals.

•Economic Development

Economic development is another responsibility of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. This involves
job creation, expansion, and retention; stimulation of local economies; industry development; promotion of
tourism; and management of natural resources to support the present and future economic health of Ohio. All
divisions within the department play a role in our state's economic development.

·Recreation

Recreation --perhaps what ODNR is best known for. Whether it's hiking, biking, camping, boating, hunting or
fishing, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources provides leisure services and recreational opportunities to
all Ohioans. With 21 state forests, 136 nature preserves, 74 parks, and 117 wildlife areas, the activities are
numerous and appealing. The five divisions providing you with all these opportunities are the Divisions of:
•

Forestry

•

Natural Areas and Preserves

•

Ohio State Parks

•

Watercraft

2

 •

Wildlife
Perhaps least recognized by the general public, but of great importance, is the role the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources plays in protecting the health and safety of Ohio's citizens. ODNR does this by enforcing
regulations, providing law enforcement, and responding to and treating hazardous situations or substances.
The divisions responsible for your health and safety are the Divisions of:

•
•
•
•
•
•

Engineering
Geological Survey
Mineral Resources Management
Soil and Water Resources
Watercraft
Wildlife

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is dedicated to developing and implementing policies that will have
far-reaching impact on the environment and our natural resources. It is an agency comprised of incredible
diversity with a vast understanding of the importance of partnerships with the public. Through these
partnerships, ODNR has accomplished a greater balance between environmental conservation and economic
growth for the state.

Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1509
1509.73:

Leasing formations; exclusion of nature preserves

(A)(l) Beginning on the effective date of this section and ending on the effective date of the
rules adopted under section 1509.74 of the Revised Code, a state agency, in consultation with
the oil and gas leasing commission, may lease a formation within a parcel of land that is owned
or controlled by the state agency for the exploration for and development and production of oil
or natural gas. The state agency shall establish bid fees, signing fees, rentals, and at least a oneeighth landowner royalty. On and after the effective date of the rules adopted under section
1509.74 of the Revised Code, a formation within a parcel of land that is owned or controlled by
a state agency may be leased for the exploration for and development and production of oil or
natural gas only in accordance with divisions (A)(2) to (H) of this section and those rules.
(2) Not earlier than two hundred seventy days after the effective date of this section, a
person that is an owner and that is interested in leasing a formation within a parcel of land that
is owned or controlled by a state agency for the exploration for and the development and
production of oil or natural gas may submit to the oil and gas leasing commission a nomination
that identifies the parcel of land. A person submitting a nomination shall submit it in the

3

 manner and form established in rules adopted under section 1509.74 of the Revised Code and
shall include with the nomination both of the following:
(a) The information required by those rules;
(b) The nomination fee established in those rules.

(B){l) Not less than thirty days, but not more than one hundred twenty days following the
receipt of a nomination of a parcel of land, the commission shall conduct a meeting for the
purpose of determining whether to approve or disapprove the nomination for the purpose of
leasing a formation within the parcel of land that is identified in the nomination. The
commission also shall review the nomination of the parcel of land and determine if the parcel
of land has been classified under section 1509. 72 of the Revised Code. If the parcel of land that
is the subject of the nomination has not been classified, the commission immediately shall send
a copy of the nomination to the state agency that owns or controls the parcel that is the subject
of the nomination. Not later than fifteen days after receipt of a copy of the nomination, the
state agency shall classify the parcel of land as a class 1, class 2, class 3, or class 4 property and
submit the classification to the commission. On receipt of the state agency's classification of the
parcel of land, the commission shall provide the department of natural resources the
information necessary for the department to comply with divisions (C) and (D) of section
1509.72 of the Revised Code.
After a parcel of land that is the subject of a nomination has been classified under section
1509.72 of the Revised Code or division (B)(l) of this section, as applicable, the commission
shall approve or disapprove the nomination. In making its decision to approve or disapprove
the nomination of the parcel of land, the commission shall consider all of the following:
(a) The economic benefits, including the potential income from an oil or natural gas
operation, that would result if the lease of a formation that is the subject of the nomination
were approved;
(b) Whether the proposed oil or gas operation is compatible with the current uses of the
parcel of land that is the subject of the nomination;
(c) The environmental impact that would result if the lease of a formation that is the
subject of the nomination were approved;
(d) Any potential adverse geological impact that would result if the lease of a formation
that is the subject of the nomination were approved;
(e) Any potential impact to visitors or users of a parcel of land that is the subject of the
nomination;

(f) Any potential impact to the operations or equipment of a state agency that is a state
university or college if the lease of a formation within a parcel of land owned or controlled
by the university or college that is the subject of the nomination were executed;

4

 (g) Any objections to the nomination submitted to the commission by the state agency
that owns or controls the land on which the proposed oil or natural gas operation would
take place;
{h) Any comments or objections to the nomination submitted to the commission by
residents of this state or other users of the parcel of land that is the subject of the
nomination;
(i) Any other factors that the commission establishes in rules adopted under section
1509.74 of the Revised Code.
(2) The commission shall disapprove a nomination of a parcel of land that is a class 3
property. The commission shall send notice of the disapproval by certified mail to the person
that submitted the nomination.
(3) Prior to making its decision to approve or disapprove a nomination, the commission shall
notify the state agency that owns or controls the land on which the oil or gas operation would
take place.
(4) The commission shall approve or disapprove a nomination not later than two calendar
quarters following the receipt of the nomination. Notice of the decision of the commission shall
be sent by certified mail to the person that submitted the nomination.
(5) If the commission approves a nomination, the commission shall notify the state agency
that owns or controls the parcel of land that is the subject of a nomination of the commission's
approval of the nomination. The notification shall request the state agency to submit to the
commission special terms and conditions that will apply to the lease of a formation within the
parcel of land because of specific conditions related to the parcel of land. The state agency shall
submit the special terms and conditions not later than sixty days after receipt of a notice from
the commission.
(6) If the commission approves a nomination for a parcel of land that is a class 1 property,
the commission shall offer for lease each formation that is within the parcel of land. If the
commission approves a nomination for a parcel of land that is a class 2 or class 4 property, the
commission shall not offer for lease any formation that is within the parcel of land unless the
state agency that owns or controls the parcel of land notifies the commission that a formation
or formations that are within the parcel of land may be offered for lease.

(C) Each calendar quarter, the commission shall proceed to advertise for bids for a lease for
a formation within a parcel of land that was the subject of a nomination approved during the
previous calendar quarter that is a class 1 property or that is a class 2 or class 4 property for
which the commission has received notice from the state agency that owns or controls the
parcel of land under division (B)(6) of this section that a formation or formations that are within
the parcel of land may be offered for lease. The advertisement shall be provided to the
department of natural resources, and the department shall publish the advertisement on its

5

 web site for a period of time established by the commission. The advertisement shall include all
of the following:
{1) The procedure for the submission of a bid to enter into a lease for a formation within a
parcel of land;
{2) A statement that a standard lease form that is consistent with the practices of the oil
and natural gas industries will be used for the lease of a formation within the parcel of land;
(3) A copy of the standard lease form that will be used for the lease of a formation within
the parcel of land;
(4) Special terms and conditions, if applicable, that apply to the lease because of specific
conditions related to the parcel of land;
(5) The amount of the bid fee that is required to be submitted with a bid;
(6) Any other information that the commission considers pertinent to the advertisement for
bids.
(D) A person submitting a bid to enter into a lease under this section shall pay a bid fee
established in rules adopted under section 1509.74 of the Revised Code.
{E) In order to encourage the submission of bids and the responsible and reasonable
development of the state's natural resources, the information that is contained in a bid
submitted to the commission under this section shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed
before a person is selected under division (F) of this section unless the commission determines
otherwise.
(F) The commission shall establish a deadline for the submission of bids for each lease
regarding a particular parcel of land and shall notify the department of the deadline. The
department shall post the deadline for the submission of bids for each lease on the
department's web site. A person shall submit a bid in accordance with the procedures and
requirements established by the commission in rules adopted under section 1509.74 of the
Revised Code.
The commission shall select the person who submits the highest and best bid for each
formation within that parcel of land, taking into account the financial responsibility of the
prospective lessee and the ability of the prospective lessee to perform its obligations under the
lease. After the commission selects a person, the commission shall notify the applicable state
agency and send the person's bid to the agency. The state agency shall enter into a lease with
the person selected by the commission.

(G)(l) Except as otherwise provided in division (G)(2) of this section, all money received by a
state agency from signing fees, rentals, and royalty payments for leases entered into under this
section shall be paid by the state agency into the state treasury to the credit of the state land
royalty fund created in section 131.50 of the Revised Code.
6

 (2) Money received by a state agency from signing fees, rentals, and royalty payments for
leases entered into under this section on land owned or controlled by the division of forestry,
wildlife, or parks and recreation in the department of natural resources shall be deposited into
one of the following funds, as applicable:
(a) The forestry mineral royalties fund created in section 1503.012 of the Revised Code if
the lease pertains to land owned or controlled by the division of forestry;
(b) The wildlife habitat fund created in section 1531.33 of the Revised Code if the lease
pertains to land owned or controlled by the division of wildlife;
(c) The parks mineral royalties fund created in section 1541.26 of the Revised Code if the
lease pertains to land owned or controlled by the division of parks and recreation.
(H) All money received from nomination fees and bid fees shall be paid into the state
treasury to the credit of the oil and gas leasing commission administration fund created in
section 1509. 75 of the Revised Code.
(I) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section to the contrary, a nature preserve as
defined in section 1517.01 of the Revised Code that is owned or controlled by a state agency
shall not be nominated or leased under this section for the purpose of exploring for and
developing and producing oil and natural gas resources.
Added by 129th General Assembly File No. 35, HB 133, § 1, eff. 9/30/2011.

Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 1501:9
1501:9-1-04

Spacing of wells.

(A) General spacing rules:
(1) The division of mineral resources management shall not issue a permit for the drilling of a
new well, the reopening of an existing well, or the deepening or plugging back of an existing
well to a different pool for the production of oil and gas unless the proposed well location and
spacing substantially conform to the requirements of this rule.
(2) This rule shall not apply to any wells drilled in areas under special order from the chief for
pool spacing pursuant to section 1509.25 of the Revised Code. The chief shall grant an
exception to the requirements of any special order from the chief for pool spacing pursuant to
section 1509.25 of the Revised Code, if an applicant can demonstrate that such exception will
protect correlative rights and/or promote conservation by permitting oil and/or gas to be
produced which could not otherwise be produced.

7

 (3) Upon receipt of an application by the division, the chief shall determine if the proposed total
depth is reasonable to penetrate the objective geological formation or geological zone. If the
chief determines that the proposed total depth is insufficient to penetrate the proposed
geological formation or zone and that, because of the insufficient proposed total depth, the
spacing and acreage requirements as per paragraph (C) of this rule are not fulfilled the permit
shall be denied. In any event, no well shall be drilled deeper than the proposed total depth
without prior permission from the chief.
(4) A permit shall not be issued unless the proposed well satisfies the acreage requirements for
the greatest depth anticipated. If oil or gas is produced at a lesser depth than the geological
formation or zone for which the permit was issued, the acreage requirements may be changed
to conform with paragraph (C) of this rule by application to the chief.
(B) Scope:
Paragraph (C) of this rule, location of wells, shall apply to the drilling of a new well, the
reopening of an existing well, and the deepening or plugging back of an existing well regardless
of its depth or the producing geological horizon or zone except in areas under temporary
minimum well spacing orders of the chief pursuant to paragraph (D) of this rule.

(C) Location of wells:
(1) No permit shall be issued to drill, deepen, reopen, or plug back a well for the production of
oil and gas from pools from zero to one thousand feet in depth unless the proposed well is
located:
(a) Upon a tract or drilling unit containing not less than one acre;
(b) Not less than two hundred (200) feet from any well drilling to, producing from, or capable of
producing from the same pool;
(c) Not less than one hundred (100) feet from any boundary of the subject tract or drilling unit.
(2) No permit shall be issued to drill, deepen, reopen, or plug back a well for the production of
oil or gas from pools from one thousand feet to two thousand feet in depth unless the
proposed well is located:
(a) Upon a tract or drilling unit containing not less than ten acres;
(b) Not less than four hundred sixty (460) feet from any well drilling to, producing from, or
capable of producing from the same pool;

8

 (c) Not less than two hundred thirty (230) feet from any boundary of the subject tract or drilling
unit.
(3) No permit shall be issued to drill, deepen, reopen, or plug back a well for the production of
oil or gas from pools from two thousand to four thousand feet unless the proposed well is
located:
(a) Upon a tract or drilling unit containing not less than twenty (20) acres;
(b) Not less than six (600) hundred feet from any well drilling to, producing from, or capable of
producing from the same pool;
(c) Not less than three hundred (300) feet from any boundary of the subject tract or drilling
unit.
(4) No permit shall be issued to drill, deepen, reopen, or plug back a well for the production of
the oil or gas from pools from four thousand (4000) feet or deeper unless the proposed well is
located:
(a) Upon a tract or drilling unit containing not less than forty (40) acres;
(b) Not less than one thousand (1000) feet from any well drilling to, producing from, or capable
of producing from the same pool;
(c) Not less than five hundred (500) feet from any boundary of the subject tract or drilling unit.
(5) For new applications to drill wells in urbanized areas, the proposed wellhead location shall
be no closer than seventy five (75) feet to any property not within the subject tract or drilling
unit. Locating the wellhead closer than seventy five (75) feet to a property not within the
subject tract or drilling unit may be approved by the chief if the owner and resident of the
property in question, in writing, approves of the proposed wellhead location, or the chief
waives the seventy five (75) foot requirement.
(6) Wells drilled, deepened, reopened, reworked, or plugged back for purposes other than the
production of oil and gas will be considered as special situations, and each will be evaluated in
accordance with the issues of conservation of natural resources and of safety. Decisions as to
spacing of such wells will be determined after evaluation of the special circumstances. Rules
may be promulgated for some specific types of these wells.
(D) Temporary minimum well spacing in the vicinity of discovery wells:
(1) For the purpose of orderly development of a pool until such time as ultimate spacing is
determined, the chief on his own motion or upon consideration of an application by an owner
9

 in an affected area, and with approval of the technical advisory council, may order temporary
well spacing for wells to be drilled, deepened, reopened or plugged back to a particular pool or
field in an area in the vicinity of a discovery well. Such order shall contain the following:
{a) Description of the area covered by the order;
(b) Identification of the pool, field or horizons covered by the order;
(cJ Minimum distance wells may be drilled from the tract or drilling unit boundaries;
(d) Minimum distance between wells;
{e) Minimum acreage for tracts or drilling units; and may contain other requirements deemed
necessary by the chief to accomplish the purpose of paragraph {D) of this rule.
(2J An order of the chief for temporary minimum well spacing in the vicinity of a discovery well
shall be effective on the date the order is made and shall continue in effect until it is either
rescinded or amended by the chief or until such time as an order for special drilling unit
requirements is made by the chief after hearing pursuant to section 1509.25 of the Revised
Code.
{3) No well shall be drilled, deepened, reopened, or plugged back to or below the particular
pool or field located in the area covered by an order of the chief under paragraph (DJ of this
rule unless the requirements of such order are met. Permits issued prior to the effective date of
such order for wells to be located in the area and to or below the pool covered by such order
which do not comply with the requirements of the order and where actual drilling operations
have not commenced, shall be revoked.
(EJ Offset wells - spacing exception:
(1) The chief shall grant an exception to the requirements of paragraph (CJ of this rule to an
applicant who demonstrates that the well proposed for production of oil or gas will be an offset
to a well drilled or commenced before the effective date of paragraph (CJ of this rule, and
which is producing or may be capable of producing on an adjacent tract, and which is so located
on said adjacent tract as not to comply with any one or more of the requirements of paragraph
(CJ of this rule.
(2) The chief shall grant an exception to the requirements of paragraph (CJ of this rule if an
applicant can demonstrate that such exception will protect correlative rights and/or promote
conservation by permitting oil and gas to be produced which could not otherwise be produced.
{3) A well proposed to be drilled pursuant to such exceptions shall, nevertheless, be subject to
the requirements of rule 1501:9-1-05 of the Administrative Code.
10

 Effective: 08/11/2005
R.C. 119.032 review dates: 05/05/2005 and 08/11/2010
Promulgated Under: 119.03
Statutory Authority: 1509.03, 1509.23, 1509.24
Rule Amplifies: 1509.02, 1509.23. 1509.24, 1509.03
Prior Effective Dates: 2/10/71, 1/31/83, 4/15/04

1501:9-1-08 Well construction.
(A) General. A well permitted under Chapters 1501:9-1to1501:9-12 of the Administrative
Code shall be constructed in a manner that is approved by the chief as specified by these rules,
the terms and conditions of the approved permit, plans submitted in the approved permit, and
the standards established in section 1509.17 of the Revised Code. The casing and cementing
plans in the approved permit are understood to be estimates based upon the best available
geologic information prior to drilling. The division shall evaluate compliance with this rule for
the as-built well. Where this rule does not detail specific methods to meet these standards, the
owner shall use sound design and industry practices that effectively achieve the standards
established in section 1509.17 of the Revised Code.
(B) Field standards. The chief may establish alternative well construction standards that are
well-specific, field-specific, or play-specific by permit condition, to ensure protection of public
health or safety or the environment.

(C) Drilling fluids.
(1) All intervals drilled prior to reaching the USDW protective depth shall be drilled with air,
fresh water, a freshwater based drilling fluid, or a combination of the above. Only additives
suitable for drilling through potable water supplies may be used while drilling these intervals.
(2) Based on regional knowledge of groundwater resources, well control, or safety factors, the
chief may by permit condition require the use of a freshwater based drilling fluid and specify its
characteristics while the owner is drilling any interval prior to reaching the USDW protective
depth.
(3) Below cemented surface casing, other drilling fluids may be utilized consistent with sound
design and effective industry practice.
(D) Casing standards.
11

 (1) All casing installed in a well shall be steel alloy casing that has been manufactured and
tested consistent with standards established by the American petroleum institute (AP/) in "5 CT
Specification for Casing and Tubing" or ASTM international (ASTM) in "A500/A500M Standard
Specification for Cold-Formed Welded and Seamless Carbon Steel Structural Tubing in Rounds
and Shapes" and has a minimum internal yield pressure rating designed to withstand at least
1.2 times the maximum pressure to which the casing may be subjected during drilling,
production or stimulation operations.
(a) The minimum internal yield pressure rating shall be based upon engineering calculations
listed in API "TR 5C-3 Technical Report on Equations and Calculations for Casing, Tubing and
Line Pipe used as Casing and Tubing, and Performance Properties Tables for Casing and Tubing."
(b) Reconditioned casing that is permanently set in a well shall be hydrostatically pressure
tested with an applied pressure at least 1.2 times the maximum internal pressure to which the
casing may be subjected, based upon known or anticipated subsurface pressure, or pressure
that may be applied during stimulation, whichever is greater, and assuming no external
pressure. The casing shall be marked to verify the test status. The owner shall provide a copy of
the test results to the inspector before the casing is installed in the well.
(c) Where subsurface reservoir pressure is unknown and cannot be reasonably anticipated, the
owner shall assume a pressure gradient of 0.4S pounds per square inch per foot in a fully
evacuated hole, under shut-in conditions.
(d) All hydrostatic pressure tests shall be conducted pursuant to API "5 CT Specification for
Casing and Tubing" or other method(s) approved by the chief.
(2) Reconditioned casing shall not be set in a well unless it has passed an approved hydrostatic
pressure and drift test or has otherwise been approved by the inspector. The inspector shall
reject casing that is excessively pitted, patched, bent, corroded, or crimped, or if threads are
severely worn or damaged.
(3) In order to verify casing integrity and proper cement displacement, the owner shall pressure
test each cemented casing string greater than two hundred feet long in accordance with the
test method of either paragraph (D)(3)(a) or (D)(3)(b) of this rule.
(a) Immediately upon landing the latch-down plug, the owner shall increase displacement
pressure by at least five hundred pounds per square inch and hold pressure for five minutes. If
pressure declines by ten per cent or more, casing integrity and cement placement shall be
further evaluated and appropriate corrective action shall be taken to verify casing integrity and
cement displacement. If the float apparatus does not hold, the owner shall pump the volume
that flowed back, and shut in until the cement has sufficiently set.

12

 (b) Prior to drilling the cement plug, the owner shall test any permanently cemented casing
strings, at a minimum pump pressure in pounds per square inch calculated by multiplying the
length of the casing string by 0.2, but not less than three hundred pounds per square inch. The
test pressure may not decline by more than ten per cent during the thirty-minute test period.
(i) If, at the end of thirty minutes of such testing, the pressure shows a drop greater than ten
per cent, the owner shall not resume further operations until the condition is corrected. A
pressure test demonstrating a pressure drop equal to or less than ten per cent after thirty
minutes is evidence that the condition has been corrected.
(ii) Casing integrity may be verified in conjunction with blowout preventer testing without a test
plug using either the test pressure described in paragraph (D)(3)(b) of this rule, or the pressure
required to test the blowout preventer, whichever is greater.
(E) Casing shoe tests. The chief may require the owner to conduct a casing shoe test after
drilling below the surface casing and/or the intermediate casing seat if the pressure gradient of
the permitted hydrocarbon reservoir exceeds 0.5 pounds per square inch per foot, or in areas
where fracture gradients are unknown.
(F) Surface water infiltration. Before drilling below the first casing string, the owner shall either
crown the location around the wellbore to divert fluids to a flow ditch, or construct a liquidtight cellar at least three feet in diameter to prevent surface infiltration of fluids adjacent to the
well bore. If a reserve pit is used to contain cuttings and drilling fluids, the flow ditch from the
cellar or crown to the reserve pit shall also be liquid tight.
(G) Mouse and rat holes. If a mouse and/or rat hole is used, it shall be constructed of liquid
tight steel pipe with a welded basal plate or bull plug. The annulus shall be sealed with clay or
cement in a manner that effectively prevents fluids from entering the annular space.
(H) Wellbore diameters.
(1) The diameter of each section of the well bore in which casing will be set and cemented shall
be at least one inch greater than the outside diameter of casing collar to be installed, unless
otherwise approved by the chief.
(2) The wellbore diameter shall be consistent with manufacturer's recommendations for all
float equipment, centralizers, packers, cement baskets, and all other equipment run into the
wellbore on casing.
(I) Wellbore conditioning.

13

 (1) Prior to cementing, the wellbore shall be conditioned to kill gas flow, foster adequate
cement displacement, and ensure a high quality bond between cement and the wellbore. If
circulation cannot be established or maintained, the inspector shall require testing to evaluate
cement displacement. If tests indicate cement displacement or quality is inadequate to meet
the standards, the owner shall not resume drilling activity until corrective action has achieved
compliance with the standards.
{2) If oil-based drilling mud is used, the wellbore shall be conditioned with a mud flush and the
spacer volume should be designed for a minimum of ten minutes of contact time prior to
cementing production casing in the horizontal segment of a wellbore.
(3) Where underground mine voids, solution voids, or other geologic features render circulation
infeasible, the owner shall install a cement basket or other approved device as close as possible
above the top of the void or thief zone. Mine strings shall be cemented above and below the
mine void in accordance with paragraph (M) of this rule.

(J) Cement standards.
(1) All cement placed into the wellbore shall be Portland cement that is manufactured to meet
the standards of API "10 A Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing" or
ASTM "C150/C150M Standard Specification for Portland Cement."
(2) Cemented conductor, mine, and surface casing strings shall remain static until all cement
has reached a compressive strength of at least five hundred pounds per square inch before
drilling the plug, or initiating a test.
(3) The tail cement for all intermediate and production casings and liners shall remain static
until the cement has reached a compressive strength of at least five hundred pounds per
square inch before drilling out the plug or initiating a test. Tail cement shall have a seventy-twohour compressive strength of at least one thousand two hundred pounds per square inch. Lead
cements with volume extenders may be used to seal these strings, but in no case shall the
cement have a compressive strength of less than one hundred pounds per square inch at the
time of drill out nor less than two hundred fifty pounds per square inch twenty-four hours after
being placed.
(4) The density of the cement slurry shall be based upon a laboratory free fluid separation test
demonstrating an average fluid loss no more than three milliliters per two hundred fifty
milliliters of cement tested in accordance with API "RP 10 B-2 Recommended Practice for
Testing Well Cements." Slurry should be mixed and pumped at a rate that ensures consistent
slurry density.

14

 (5) The chief may require, by permit condition, a specific cement mixture to be used in any well
or any area if evidence of local conditions indicate a specific cement is necessary.
(6) The owner shall ensure that the cement mix water quality and chemistry is proper for the
cement slurry design. An authorized representative of the owner shall be on site observing the
cement mixing equipment for the entire duration of the cement mixing and placement to
ensure that cement slurry design parameters are followed.
(7) Sulfate resistant cement shall be used whenever necessary to protect the casing string and
prevent the migration of hydrogen sulfide. When the owner is drilling in a township where
hydrogen sulfide occurs commonly in specific intervals, the chief shall require as a permit
condition that the owner use sulfate resistant cement.
(8) Compressive strength test requirements.
(a) Cement mixtures for which published performance data are not available shall be tested by
the owner or service company and approved by the chief prior to usage. Tests shall be made on
representative samples of the basic mixture of cement and additives used, using distilled water
or potable tap water for preparing the slurry. The tests shall be conducted using the equipment
and procedures established in API "RP 10 B-2 Recommended Practice for Testing Well
Cements." Test data showing competency of a proposed cement mixture to meet the above
requirements shall be furnished to the inspector prior to the cementing operation. To
determine that the minimum compressive strength has been obtained, the owner shall use the
typical performance data for the particular cement mixture used in the well at the following
temperatures and at atmospheric pressure:
(i) For conductor, mine string, and surface casing cement, the test temperature shall be sixty
degrees Fahrenheit;
(ii) For intermediate and production casing cement, the test temperature shall be within ten
degrees Fahrenheit of the formation equilibrium temperature of the cemented interval.
{K) Centralizer standards.
(1) All bowspring centralizers shall meet the standards of API "10 D, Specification for BowSpring Casing Centralizers."
(2) All rigid centralizers shall meet the standards of API "10 TR 4 Considerations Regarding
Selection of Centralizers for Primary Cementing Operations."

15

 (3) Casing shall be centralized in each segment of the well bore to provide sufficient casing
standoff and foster effective circulation of cement to isolate critical zones including aquifers,
flow zones, voids, lost circulation zones, and hydrocarbon production zones.
(L) Notification. The owner shall notify the inspector at least twenty-four hours prior to setting
any casing or liner string and before commencing any casing cementing operation pursuant to
this rule to enable the inspector to participate in the pre-job safety and procedures meeting,
independently test mix water, evaluate casing condition, and observe and document the
execution of the cementing operation.
(M) Casing strings.
(1) Drive pipe. Drive pipe may be driven through unconsolidated materials and need not be
cemented if there is no annular space.
(2) Mine string.
(a) Casing through an active underground mining operation.
(i) If a well is drilled within the geographic limits of an active underground mining operation, the
owner shall construct the well in a manner that protects personnel working in the mine, and, if
possible, shall locate the well so as to penetrate a pillar, a barrier, or the unmined perimeter of
the seam.
(ii) If a well is drilled within the limits of an active underground mining operation that may
penetrate the excavations of a mine and groundwater has been encountered below the base of
the conductor casing, the hole shall be reduced fifteen feet above the roof of the mine. This
string of casing shall be cemented to surface to shut off all groundwater. Drilling shall continue
to a point at least thirty but no more than fifty feet below the floor of the mine and another
string of casing shall be set and cemented.
(b) Casing through any underground mine void. After drilling through any underground mine
void or rubble zone, casing shall be set at least thirty feet but no more than fifty feet below the
base of the mine void or rubble zone and cemented at this point. The owner shall design the
casing and cementing plans considering the maximum number of casing strings that may be
necessary to isolate mine voids prior to setting and cementing surface casing.
(c) A mine string shall not serve as the only water protection casing. Where a mine string
isolates one or more water-bearing zones, either surface or intermediate casing shall be
cemented to surface inside the mine string.

16

 (d) Each mine string shall be equipped with a guide shoe or other appropriate device to prevent
deformation of the bottom of the casing.
(e) Cementing the mine string.
(i) If a mine void or rubble zone is encountered, the owner shall equip the mine string with a
cement basket or other approved device as close to the top of the void as practical.
(ii) The interval from the casing seat to the base of the coal seam shall be cemented.
(iii) Cement shall be placed on top of the basket or other approved device by pour string or
pumping from surface.
(3) Conductor casing.
(a) Conductor casing shall be set where necessary to:
(i) Stabilize unconsolidated sediments;
(ii) Isolate shallow aquifers that provide or are capable of providing groundwater for water
wells and springs in the vicinity of the well;
(iii) Isolate groundwater before penetrating the working of an active underground mine; or
(iv) Provide a base for equipment to divert shallow, naturally occurring natural gas.
(b) Conductor casing shall be cemented to surface if there is an annular space.
(c) If circulated cement drops or fails to circulate, cement shall be emplaced from surface by a
method approved by the inspector.
(4) Surface casing.
(a) An owner shall set and cement sufficient surface casing at least fifty feet below the base of
the deepest USDW, or at least fifty feet into competent bedrock, whichever is deeper, and as
specified by the permit, unless otherwise approved by the chief. Surface casing shall be
cemented before drilling though hydrocarbon bearing flow zones or zones which contain
concentrations of total dissolved solids exceeding ten thousand milligrams per liter unless
otherwise approved by the chief. For the purposes of this paragraph, hydrocarbon bearing flow
zones shall include all formations that have historically, are currently, or are anticipated to be
commercially productive.
(b) Sufficient cement shall be used to fill the annular space outside the casing from the seat to
the ground surface or to the bottom of the cellar.

17

 (c) If cement is not circulated to the ground surface or the bottom of the cellar and the top of
cement cannot be measured from surface, the owner shall perform tests as approved by the
inspector. The owner shall notify the inspector prior to performing the tests. After the nature of
the well construction deficiency is determined, the owner shall contact the inspector and
obtain approval for the procedures to be used to perform any required additional cementing
operations. Surface casing shall not be perforated for the purpose of remedial cementing unless
intermediate casing is set and cemented to surface, or otherwise authorized by the chief.
(d) If remedial options fail and the chief determines that USDWs are not adequately isolated or
protected, the chief may issue an administrative order suspending further drilling operations. If
the chief determines additional remedial measures will not isolate and protect the USDW, the
chief shall issue an administrative order requiring the well to be plugged.
(e) For surface holes drilled through glacial drift deposits that exceed one hundred feet in
thickness, a guide shoe shall be run on the surface casing.
(f) In areas where bedrock USDWs cannot be mapped, except in areas subject to paragraph
(M)(4)(g) of this rule, surface casing shall be set and cemented at the depth stated in paragraph
(M)(4)(f)(i) or (M)(4)(f)(ii) of this rule, whichever is deeper and as determined by permit
condition, or, as an alternative method for protecting groundwater resources, at the depth
stated in paragraph (M)(4)(f)(iii) of this rule:
(i) At least three hundred feet deep; or
(ii) At least one hundred feet below the deepest local perennial stream base; or
(iii) At least fifty feet below the base of the lowest spring or deepest water well developed for
any legitimate purpose, based upon an inventory of water supplies within a five hundred foot
radius of the proposed oil and gas well. If there are no springs or water wells within the five
hundred foot radius, conductor casing shall be set and cemented at a minimum depth of one
hundred feet. After conductor casing is set through the deepest useable water zone and
cemented to surface, the owner shall set and cement to surface a surface casing string through
water zones that may include brackish or brine bearing zones. This casing string shall be set and
cemented to surface before the owner drills into potential flow zones that can reasonably be
expected to contain hydrocarbons in commercial quantities.
(g) In areas where bedrock USDWs cannot be mapped and where groundwater resources can
be developed in valley-fill aquifers, surface casing shall be cemented at least one hundred feet
below the base of the valley-fill aquifer for any well within one thousand feet of the one
hundred year floodplain.

18

 (5) Alternative surface casing requirements. An alternative method of protecting USDWs may
be approved upon written application to the chief. The owner shall state the reason for the
alternative USDW protection method and outline the alternative method for casing and
cementing through the deepest USDW. Alternative methods for setting more than specified
amounts of surface casing for well control purposes may be requested on a field-specific or
area-specific basis. Alternative methods for setting less than specified amounts of surface
casing shall be authorized on an individual well basis only. The chief may approve, modify, or
reject the proposed alternative method. The chief shall reject the proposed method by order if
the owner has not demonstrated that the alternative casing plan will meet the standards of
section 1509.17 of the Revised Code and this rule. The owner may file an appeal with the oil
and gas commission pursuant to section 1509.36 of the Revised Code. An owner shall obtain
the chief's written approval of any alternative method before commencing operations.
(6) Intermediate casing.
(a) Intermediate casing may be set at the discretion of the owner to isolate flow zones, lost
circulation zones, or other geologic hazards, unless otherwise required by this rule or the
approved permit.
(b} The owner shall set and cement intermediate casing in a competent formation in the
following situations:
(i) If groundwater containing total dissolved solids of less than ten thousand milligrams per liter
is encountered below the base of cemented surface casing;

(ii) Through a gas storage reservoir when drilling to strata beneath a gas storage reservoir
within the storage protective boundary;
(iii) When drilling to permitted hydrocarbon zones deeper than the silurian clinton sandstone
east of the updip pinch out; such casing shall be set through the Mississippian berea sandstone,
or one thousand feet, whichever is greater;
(iv) For wells drilled horizontally, in the Marcellus shale, or deeper, such casing shall be set
through the Mississippian berea sandstone or one thousand feet, whichever is greater; or
(v) In other situations as determined by the chief.
(c) For each intermediate string of casing that is permanently set in the wellbore, tail cement
shall extend from the seat to a point at least five hundred true vertical feet above the casing
seat, or to a point at least two hundred feet above the seat of the next larger diameter casing
string.

19

 {d) If the intermediate wellbore penetrates one or more flow zones, cement shall be placed at
feast five hundred feet above the uppermost flow zone. The cement used to control annular gas
migration from flow zones shall be designed consistent with recommended methods in API "652 Isolating Potential Flow Zones during Construction." The cement shall reach a compressive
strength of five hundred pounds per square inch before drill out. Annular pressure shall be
measured prior to drill out to verify isolation of the flow zone.
(e) If the cement placement indicators including fluid returns, lift pressure, or annular pressure
indicate inadequate isolation of any flow zone, the owner shall obtain approval of the inspector
for the proposed plan for determining top of cement and/or performing additional cementing
operations.
(f) Liners may be set and cemented as intermediate casing provided that the cemented liner has
a minimum of two hundred feet of cemented lap within the next larger casing, and the liner top
is pressure tested to a level equal to or higher than the maximum anticipated pressure to be
encountered in the interval to be drilled below the liner. The test pressure may not decline by
more than ten per cent during the thirty minute test period. If at the end of a thirty minute
pressure test, the pressure has dropped by more than ten per cent, the owner shall not resume
operations until the condition is corrected and verified by a thirty minute pressure test.
(7) Production casing and liners.
(a) Cemented completions.
(i) The production casing shall be cemented with sufficient cement to fill the annular space to a
point at least five hundred true vertical feet above the seat in an open-hole vertical completion
or the uppermost perforation in a cemented vertical completion, or one thousand feet above
the kickoff point of a horizontal well. If any flow zone is present, including strata that may
contain hydrocarbons in commercial quantities or a hydrogen sulfide-bearing flow zone, the
casing shall be cemented in a manner that effectively isolates such strata with at least five
hundred feet of cement above the zone. The cement slurry shall be designed to control annular
gas migration consistent with recommended methods in API "65-2 Isolating Potential Flow
Zones during Construction."
(ii) When cementing the production string of a well that will be stimulated by hydraulic
fracturing, and the uppermost perforation is less than five hundred feet below the base of the
deepest USDW, sufficient cement shall be used to fill the annular space outside the casing from
the seat to the ground surface or to the bottom of the cellar. If cement is not circulated to the
ground surface or the bottom of the cellar, the owner shall notify the inspector and perform
tests approved by the inspector. After the top of cement outside the casing is determined, the

20

 owner or his authorized representative shall contact the inspector and obtain approval for the
procedures to be used to perform any required additional cementing operations.
(iii) Liners may be set and cemented as production casing, provided that the cemented liner has
a minimum of two hundred true vertical depth feet of cemented lap within the next larger
casing, and the liner top is pressure tested to a level that is at least five hundred pounds per
square inch higher than the maximum anticipated pressure to be encountered by the wellbore
during completion and production operations. The test pressure may not decline by more than
ten per cent during the thirty minute test period. If at the end of a thirty minute pressure test,
the pressure has dropped by more than ten per cent, the owner shall not resume operations
until the condition is corrected and verified by a thirty minute pressure test. Liners may only be
set and cemented as production casing in horizontal shale gas wells if approved by the chief.
(iv) If operations indicate inadequate cement coverage or isolation of the hydrocarbon bearing
zones, the owner shall obtain approval of the inspector for procedures to determine the top of
cement and/or perform corrective actions.
{b) Packer completions. Packer or other non-cemented completions may be used in place of
cemented completions. If intermediate casing is run with this type of completion, cementing
shall meet the requirements of paragraph (M)(7) of this rule. If intermediate casing is not run, a
multi-stage cementing tool shall be run above the top external packer and cemented to fill the
annular space outside the casing to the surface or to a point at least five hundred feet above
the packer or casing seat. The chief may approve alternative completion proposals. Any
approved alternative shall meet the well construction standards of section 1509.17 of the
Revised Code and these rules.
(N) Annular pressure.
(1) Wellhead assemblies shall be used to maintain surface control of the well. Each component
of the wellhead shall have a working pressure rating equal to or greater than the highest
anticipated operating pressure to which the particular component might be exposed during the
course of drilling, testing, completing, stimulating, or producing the well.
(2) The valve on the surface-production casing annulus or surface-intermediate casing annulus
shall be accessible and equipped with a pressure gauge to allow continual monitoring of
mechanical integrity. The valve shall also be equipped with a properly functioning pressure
relief valve set at or below the hydrostatic pressure at the surface casing seat assuming a
pressure gradient of 0.433 pounds per square inch times the height of the groundwater
column. If the hydrostatic head at the casing seat is unknown, the surface-production casing
annulus is assumed to be over-pressurized when annular pressure measured at surface exceeds
0.303 multiplied by the length of the surface casing. If the inspector approves perforation of

21

 surface casing and intermediate casing is not installed and cemented, the allowable annular
pressure measured at surface in pounds per square inch will be established by multiplying the
depth of the uppermost perforation by 0.303.
(3) If any time after installation of the wellhead assembly, the sustained annular pressure
exceeds the prescribed pressure or releases the pressure relief valve, the owner shall
immediately notify the inspector.
(4) The inspector shall approve tests or logging procedures to evaluate the cause of overpressurized conditions and approve a plan for corrective action. If remedial cementing,
replacement of defective casing, or implementation of other mechanical barriers or operational
solutions cannot eliminate over-pressurized conditions, the owner shall plug the well.
(5) During stimulation or workover operations, all annuli shall be pressure-monitored.
Stimulation or workover operations shall be immediately suspended for any inexplicable
pressure deviation above those anticipated increases caused by pressure or thermal transfer. In
the event that stimulation fluids circulate, or annular pressures deviate from anticipated, the
owner shall immediately notify the inspector and acquire approval for remediation of casing or
cement. If the chief determines that the stimulation of the well has resulted in irreparable
damage to the well, the chief shall order that the well be plugged and abandoned within thirty
days of issuance of the order.
(O) Well construction records.
(1) Within sixty days after drilling to total depth, the owner shall file a legible copy of all cement
job logs with the chief furnishing complete data documenting the cementing of all cemented
casing strings, on a form approved by the chief and signed by the owner of the well or his
authorized agent having personal knowledge of the facts, and representatives of the cementing
company performing the cementing job, attesting to compliance with the cementing
requirements of this rule.
(2) Each job log shall include the following information:
(a) Date cemented;
(b) Name of the cementing contractor;
(c) Mix water temperature and pH;
(d) Whether or not the wellbore circulated prior to cementing;

22

 (e) Hole diameter in inches, casing outer diameter in inches, casing length in feet, float
equipment depth in feet, basket depth in feet, and centralizer depth in vertica I segments of the
wellbore in feet;
(f) Number of centralizers placed in the horizontal segment of a well bore;
(g) Cement type, additives by percent of unit volume, volume of cement in sacks, cement yield
per sack, average slurry density in pounds per gallon, slurry volume in barrels, and
displacement volume in barrels;
(h) Pumping rates in barrels per minute, displacement pressure in pounds per square inch, and
final circulating pressure prior to landing the plug in pounds per square inch;
(i) The time the latch-down or wiper plug landed;

(j) Casing test pressure in pounds per square inch and final test pressure in pounds per square
inch;
(k) Whether or not cement circulated to surface; and
(I) Volume of cement slurry circulated to surface in barrels.
Effective: 08/01/2012
R.C. 119.032 review dates: 05/29/2017
Promulgated Under: 119.03
Statutory Authority: 1509.03, 1509.06, 1509.17, 1509.23
Rule Amplifies: 1509.02, 1509.03, 1509.05, 1509.06, 1509.10, 1509.12, 1509.15, 1509.17,
1509.18, 1509.23

1501:9-11-02

Permit to plug.

(A) Each application for a permit to plug and abandon a well shall include: an affidavit attesting
that the owner of his authorized agent has notified in writing the owner of the land upon which
the well is located, of his intention to abandon the well, and of the approximate date when he
will commence plugging operations.

23

 {B) The division will provide electronic access created in the normal course of business to all
underground mine owners in the state providing notice of applications to plug that have been
filed with the division and permits to plug that have been issued by the division.

(C) To encourage plugging of all applicable wells in accordance with standards established by
the Federal {MSHA)(Mine Safety Health Administration), the coal owner may contact the well
owner to coordinate plugging of a well in a manner that will protect miner safety and minimize
the need to drill out and re-plug a well in the future. The coal owner will bear all incremental
costs of plugging pursuant to these "Standards". The coal owner shall make every reasonable
effort to facilitate the coordination to avoid any delay in the scheduling of the plugging by the
owner.
{D) The permit or a true copy thereof shall be available at the well site at all times during which
plugging and abandonment operations are taking place. A permit issued pursuant to these rules
is not transferable. It may be reissued as a new permit to a successor owner.
(E) Expiration of plugging permit:
(1) Once a permit to plug and abandon has been issued pursuant to this rule, actual plugging of
the well authorized by the permit shall be commenced within twelve month period of the date
of issuance of such permit or the permit shall expire; if plugging is commenced but not
completed within said twelve month period, plugging shall be continued with due diligence
following the twelve month period or the permit shall expire.

Eff 1-22-75; 7-16-82; 8-9-93; 4-15-04
Rule promulgated under: RC 119.03
Rule authorized by: RC 1509.03
Rule amplifies: RC 1509.13
RC 119.032 review dates: 9/16/03, 4/15/09

1501:9-11-08

Plugging with cement.

{A} For all wells plugged with cement, plugs shall be placed in the following intervals:
(1) From total depth or a minimum of fifty feet below the base of the lowest reservoir rock
penetrated to a minimum of two hundred feet above the top of the lowest reservoir rock
penetrated. With approval of the chief the owner may have the option to plug the lowest
reservoir with prepared clay or other materials. If prepared clay is approved by the chief for the
bottom hole plug, the plug shall be emplaced from total depth to a minimum of five-hundred
24

 feet above the top of the lowest reservoir rock penetrated or perforated. Prior to placing the
clay, tools must be run tot total depth to ensure the well bore is clear of obstructions. If an
obstruction is found, the well bore must be cleared prior to the placement of the clay.
(2) From minimum of fifty feet below the base to a minimum of one hundred feet above the
top of each succeeding reservoir rock formation until the plugging operation has been
completed to within a minimum of one hundred feet of the bottom of the surface casing.
Exceptions may be granted by the chief.
(3) From a minimum of one hundred fifty feet below the top of the big lime to the top of the big
lime. Exceptions to this rule may be granted by the chief.
(4) From a minimum of one hundred feet below to a minimum of one hundred feet above the
base of the surface casing.
(5) If the surface casing of a cable tool well has been removed, leaving the fresh water strata
unprotected, a cement plug shall be placed from a minimum of fifty feet below the base of the
fresh water strata to thirty inches below grade level.
(6) Where the coal owner identifies that a economic mineable coal seam or active underground
mine may be affected, a bridge shall be placed in the well bore a minimum of two hundred feet
below the mineable coal seam, and the well bore shall be filled with an approved material from
the top of such bridge to within a minimum of thirty inches of the grade level. The owner and
the coal owner will make reasonable efforts to coordinate plugging to minimize any potential
adverse effect and/or future re-plugging of the well.
(7) From a minimum of one hundred feet below the grade level to thirty inches below grade
level.
(B) Placement of cement plugs shall be accomplished by one of the following methods: the
balance method, the dump-bailer method, a pump-and-plug method, or any other method
approved by the chief.

(C) Where necessary to prevent thieving of cement, drilling mud weighing not less than nine
pounds per gallon and with not less than forty "American Petroleum Institute" funnel viscosity
may be required in all portions of the well not filled with cement or other approved plugging
material, unless otherwise approved by the chief.
(D) Cement plugs shall not be circulated into holes where static conditions cannot be reached.
(E) If during the plugging operation, circulation is lost due to the presence of a highly porous
and permeable rock formation, it is permissible to place a mechanical bridge or to pump or

25

 place any material approved by the chief across the porous zone in order to provide a base on
which to place a cement plug not less than two hundred feet in length above the top of such
formation.
{F) During plugging, a good fait effort must be made to recover all casing which is not
cemented, excluding conductor pipe.
(G) In the event that it is determined by the inspector that borehole conditions render
compliance with the above plugging procedures impossible or impractical or if it is determined
by the inspector that the above procedures will not fulfill the requirements as set forth under
paragraph {A) of rule 1501:9-11-03 of the Administrative Code, then the inspector may
designate an alternate thickness and method of emplacement of the plugs, and/or the
approved plugging material to insure compliance with paragraph (A) of rule 1501:9-11-03 of the
Administrative Code. The inspector may also require or approve the placing of brush and stone
bridges, and/or mechanical bridges in the well bore or casings, when in his judgement, such
bridges will be necessary to insure that the plugging material placed in the well remains at the
point in the well where such material had been placed.
(H) In order to promote enhanced recovery, including but not limited to secondary and tertiary
operations, the chief may require special plugging conditions.
Replaces: 4101:10-1-03, 4101:10-1-04, 4101:10-1-05; Eff 7-16-82; 9-27-93; 4-15-04
Rule promulgated under: RC 119.03
Rule authorized by: RC 1509.03
Rule amplifies: RC 1509.15
RC 119.032 review dates: 9/16/03, 1/27/04, 4/15/09

1501:9-11-09

Plugging with prepared clay.

(A) For all wells plugged with prepared clay, a clay slurry shall be placed in the following
intervals in the well bore:
(1) From total depth to a minimum of five hundred feet above the top of the lowest reservoir
rock penetrated or perforated.
{2) From a minimum of fifty feet below the base of each succeeding reservoir rock formation to
a minimum of two hundred feet above the top of such formation, until the plugging operation
has been completed to within a minimum of one hundred feet of the bottom of the surface
casing.

26

 {3) From approximately fifty feet below the base of the fresh water strata to a minimum of
thirty inches below the grade level.
(4) A bridge shall be placed in the well bore a minimum of two hundred feet below the coal
seam, and the well bore shall be filled with an approved material from the top of such bridge to
within a minimum of thirty inches below the grade level.
{B) During the plugging operation a good faith effort must be made to recover all, casing which
is not cemented, excluding conductor pipe. When a string of casing has been withdrawn by
either removing the casing above the casing seat, or by parting the casing string, an approved
precast concrete plug may be lowered in place either on the casing seat or on the parted casing
point to serve as a base for a prepared clay plug. If the surface casing is parted during the
pulling operation, and cannot be recovered or removed, the well will be filled from the previous
set plug to thirty inches below grade level with prepared clay.

(C) The chief or his authorized representative may also require or approve the placing of brush
and stone bridges, and/or mechanical bridges in the well bore or casings, when in his judgment
such bridges will be necessary to ensure that the prepared clay placed in the well remains at
the point in the well where such prepared clay had been placed.
{D) A precast concrete plug shall be placed on the top of the conductor pipe or surface casing.
(E) In the event that it is determined by the inspector that borehole conditions render
compliance with the above plugging procedures impossible or impractical or if it is determined
by the inspector that the above procedures will not fulfill the requirements as set forth under
paragraph (A) of rule 1501:9-11-03 of the Administrative Code, then the inspector may
designate an alternate thickness and method of emplacement of the plugs to ensure
compliance with paragraph (A) of rule 1501:9-11-03 of the Administrative Code.
(F) In order to promote enhanced recovery, including but not limited to secondary and tertiary
operations, the chief or his authorized representative may require special plugging conditions.
Replaces: 4101:10-1-05; Eff 7-16-82; 9-27-93; 4-15-04
Rule promulgated under: RC 119.03
Rule authorized by: RC 1509.03
Rule amplifies: RC 1509.15
RC 119.032 review dates: 9/16/03, 1/27/04, 4/15/09

27

 STATES' RESPONSES TO ENABLING STATUTE LANGUAGE
As of January 6, 2015

1. Alabama - response from Marvin Rogers, General Counsel
I just read through our original act adopted in 1945 (Act No. 1. of the 1945 Acts of Alabama).
The preamble states "To conserve natural resources," "this law is enacted for protection against
[waste]," "to administer and enforce ... the provisions of this Act and all other acts relating to the
conservation of oil and gas."
So, our statute uses the term "conserve" and "conservation." Of course, that is no surprise considering all
the oil and gas commissions are "conservation" agencies, as that term was defined in the early part of the
last century.

2. Arkansas - response from Larry Bengal, Oil and Gas Director
Arkansas does not use the term "foster", "promote", or "encourage" in any of our enabling oil and gas
statutes. The "concepts" of these terms are alluded to in the definitions of conservation of oil and gas
resources and prevention of waste, but the specific terms are not used in the statutes.

3. Arizona - response from Steve Rauzi, Oil and Gas Administrator
Arizona Revised Statutes 27-502. Declaration of policy

A It is the public policy of the state to:
1. Conserve the natural resources of oil and gas and products thereof.
2. Prevent waste of oil and gas resources.
3. Provide for protection and adjustment of correlative rights of owners of land wherein the natural
resources lie and of owners and producers of oil and gas resources and products thereof, and of
others interested therein.
4. Encourage development of natural resources of oil and gas and their products.
5. Encourage continuous and economic supply thereof and demand therefor.
6. Safeguard the health, property and public welfare of citizens Of the state and other interested
persons.
7. Promote all purposes indicated by the provisions of this article.
B. This article shall be administered by the oil and gas conservation commission.
C. The legislature finds and declares that oil and gas in commercial quantities have now been discovered
and are being produced within this state.

4. California - response from Mark Nechodom, Director, California Dept. of
Conservation
California's oil and gas laws have a dual mandate: enable, encourage, foster (we can get language)
hydrocarbon resource development in an environmental safe manner that protect public health.

 5. Colorado - response from Matt Lepore, Oil and Gas Director
Colorado's enabling Act declares it to be in the public interest to:
"(I) Foster the responsible, balanced development, production, and utilization of the natural resources of
oil and gas in the state of Colorado in a manner consistent with protection of public health, safety, and
welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources." 34-60-102(1 )(a)(I), C.R.S.
Prior to 2007, this provision read "foster, encourage, and promote ... "

6. Florida - contact IOGCC for information
377.06 Public policy of state concerning natural resources of oil and gas.-lt is hereby declared to
be the public policy of the state to conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas in said state,
and the products made therefrom; to prevent waste of said natural resources; to provide for the protection
and adjustment of the correlative rights of the owners of the land wherein said natural resources lie and
the owners and producers of oil and gas resources and the products made therefrom, and of others
interested therein; to safeguard the health, property and public welfare of the citizens of said state and
other interested persons and for all purposes indicated by the provisions herein. It is not the intention of
this section to limit or restrict or modify in any way the provisions of this law.
History.-s. 1, ch. 22819, 1945; s. 25, ch. 90-54.

7. Indiana - response from Hershel McDivitt, Oil and Gas Director
Indiana's Oil and Gas Act, IC 14-37, doesn't contain any of the terms specified below ("foster", "promote",
or "encourage"), however IC 14-37-3-3 does specify that "A rule adopted under this section must consider
regional and geological characteristics and factors conducive to the most efficient and economical
recovery of oil and gas."
Our Mission Statement does include "encourage" or "encouraging" as follows:
MISSION STATEMENT
We, the employees of the Division of Oil and Gas, are dedicated to professional public service through
the effective administration of Indiana's oil and gas exploration and production laws. We are committed to
encouraging the responsible development of Indiana's oil and gas resources in a manner that will:
•
•
•
•
•

prevent waste;
encourage the greatest economic recovery of oil and gas;
protect the correlative rights of owners;
protect human health and safety;
protect the environment.

8. Louisiana - response from John Adams, Attorney, LDNR, Office of Conservation
Louisiana's enabling statute does NOT contain the terms "foster", "promote", or "encourage".

 9. Michigan - response from Hal Fitch, Chief of Oil, Gas and Minerals
Michigan's enabling statute includes a statement that "it is accordingly the declared policy of the state to
... foster the development of the [oil and gas] industry .... " The full citation is:

"In past years extensive deposits of oil and gas have been discovered that have added greatly to
the natural wealth of the state and if properly conserved can bring added prosperity for many
years in the future to our farmers and landowners, as well as to those engaged in the exploration
and development of this great natural resource. The interests of the people demand that
exploitation and waste of oil and gas be prevented so that the history of the loss of timber may
not be repeated. It is accordingly the declared policy of the state to protect the interests of its
citizens and landowners from unwarranted waste of gas and oil and to foster the development of
the industry along the most favorable conditions and with a view to the ultimate recovery of the
maximum production of these natural products. To that end, this part is to be construed liberally
to give effect to sound policies of conservation and the prevention of waste and exploitation."
[Emphasis added.]

This language goes back to 1939. It is now incorporated in Part 615 of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.

10. Nevada - response from Richard Perry, Administrator, Nevada Division of Minerals
NRS 513.073 Encouragement of exploration; collection and dissemination of educational information;
maintenance of register of operations; record of annual production; administration of chapter 522of NRS
and regulations of Commission. The Division shall:
1. Encourage and assist in the exploration for and the production of oil, gas, geothermal energy and
minerals within this State.
2. Collect and disseminate throughout the State information calculated to educate persons engaged in
those enterprises and benefit those enterprises in this State, and any information pertaining to any
program administered by the Division.
3. Maintain a register of all mining operations and operations for the production Of oil, gas and
geothermal energy in this State.
4. Record annually the production of each registered mining operation and operation for the production
of oil, gas and geothermal energy in this State.
5.

Administer the provisions of chapter 522 of NRS. (this is the oil and gas code for Nevada)

6.

Administer any regulations adopted by the Commission.

11. New York - response from Bradley Field, Oil and Gas Director

 We do not have those specific three words in our statute, but here's the policy statement from our
enabling legislation. I believe this came from the IOGCC model statute.

Environmental Conservation
§ 23-0301. Declaration of policy.
It is hereby declared to be in the public interest to regulate the development, production and utilization
of natural resources of oil and gas in this state in such a manner as will prevent waste; to authorize and
to provide for the operation and development of oil and gas properties in such a manner that a
greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas may be had, and that the correlative rights of all owners and the
rights of all persons including landowners and the general public may be fully protected, and to provide
in similar fashion for the underground storage of gas, the solution mining of salt and geothermal,
stratigraphic and brine disposal wells.

12. Ohio - response from Marlene Hall, Program Coordinator to the Chief, ODNR
(See other attachment)

13. South Dakota - response from Derric lies, State Geologist and Administrator
45-9-1. Purpose of chapter--Development of oil and gas resources. It is hereby declared that it is in the
public interest to foster, to encourage, and to promote the development, production, and utilization of
natural resources of oil and gas in the State of South Dakota in such a manner as will prevent waste; to
authorize and to provide for the operation and development of oil and gas properties in such a manner
that a greater ultimate recovery of oil and gas be had and that the correlative rights of all owners be fully
protected; and to encourage, to authorize, and to provide for cycling, recycling, pressure maintenance,
and secondary recovery operations in order that the greatest possible economic recovery of oil and gas
be obtained within the state to the end that the landowners, the royalty owners, the producers, and the
general public realize and enjoy the greatest possible good from these vital natural resources.

14. Virginia - response from Butch Lambert, Oil and Gas Deputy Director
Virginia uses all three.

§ 45. 1-361.3. Construction.
The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate the following purposes:
1. To foster, encourage and promote the safe and efficient exploration for and development, production,
utilization and conservation of the Commonwealth's gas and oil resources;

 15. Wyoming- response from Mark Watson, Oil and Gas Supervisor
Wyoming does not use any of the words in our statutes, though it is implied.

CANADA
16. Saskatchewan - response from Ed Dancsok, Assistant Deputy Minister
Saskatchewan has no terms such as "foster", "promote" or "encourage" in its enabling legislation.

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Tim Baker <T.Baker@occemail.com>
Thursday, January 08, 2015 4:35 PM
Carol Booth; Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy
Foerster; Dan Sea mount; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed
Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James
Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence
Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark
Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith;
Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers ; Ronald Efta;
Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi;
Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
RE: Member state poll on enabling statutes

Sorry for the late response Carol but things have been a little busy here. I asked legal to verify this language was not
buried somewhere in our statutes. As it turns out our statutes do not include the terms "foster", "promote", or

"encourage11 •
I hope this helps.

From: Carol Booth [mailto:CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 9:01 AM
To: Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore ; Cathy Foerster; Dan Seamount; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J.
Dale Nations ; James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal ;
Lisa Ivshin ; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms ; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael
McGehee; Michael Teague ; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew ; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers ;
Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi ; Tim Baker; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Subject: Member state poll on enabling statutes
We hope all of our members had a great holiday season. We, at IOGCC, are ready to kick-off 2015 with upcoming
announcements about the Annual Business Meeting, more States First information, states' surveys and statutes
updates, developing IOGCC programs and plans, welcome new governors and members and more.
To start this year, one of our member states would like information from other IOGCC member states about the
following:
How many states and provinces include the terms "foster'', "promote", or "encourage" in their enabling statutes or
policy statutes?
Please send me your information or contact me with any questions. I will have the majority of results compiled within a
couple weeks and send out final compilations.
As always, we greatly appreciate your time and input to help each member state.
Best Wishes,
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
1

 405.525.3556 X114

Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Hannah Barton < hannah.barton@iogcc.ok.gov>
Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:42 AM
Michael Teague
JOGCC committee appointment for your consideration
WoodardCommitteeRequest.pdf

Good Moring Mr. Teague,
My name is Hannah Barton, and I am Mr. Mike Smith's new assistant, here at the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission. I wanted to take a moment to reach out to you and introduce myself, as well as forward on a request we
received from Brian Woodard, the Director of EH&S Regulatory Affairs for Cheaspeake Energy. Mr. Woodard would like
to come aboard our Legal and Regulatory, Public Lands, as well as State Review committee. I have attached a copy of the
documents to this e-mail for your consideration.
As the Official Representative, please take a moment to consider Mr. Woodard's request and let us know your verdict.
I greatly appreciate your time, and look forward to opportunity to work with you in the future,
Thank you!
Hannah Barton
Assistant to the Director
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
PO BOX 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 Ex, 101

1

 Chesapeake Energy

3/18/2015 2:50:03 PM

PAGE

Fax Server

2/002

INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

IOGCC STANDING COMMITTEES
Be a voice for our nations oil and natural gas res()Urces. Get involved.
Our mission is to promote our nations oil and gas resources, buc we can't do it alone. We must pull together and
capitalize on the strength of our membership. We urge you to participate in one or more IOGCC standing. Please
express your interest to yot1r srn.te governor and/or official representat:ive, who may appoint you to the committee/s,
or complete the form below and i·eturn to the address listed. Once received, someone will assist you with contacting
the appropriarc official.

Company/OrganJzation
...,

Title
Addrcs.
Citr

Email

C,he,sq •YJP.ctfCr. £ne,v0
\/
'7'7

biv-e,e tor -Gll....S &4u lccfory AJJa !rs

A/. (1/e,,5/e,vn Ave.
OleJa hotna C/fy, 0 k(' Smte'..--.Jc2~~---- Zipcode 7g //?'
ti/DO

6riah . waodard-2@ ehlG

ccam

Have you notified your scite gove.mor or official representative of your interest?

yes

~

Would you. like IOGCC staff to notify the appropriate official on you!" behalf?

l'f.§}

no

COLLECTIVELY REPRESENTING THE STATES

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Hannah Barton <hannah.barton@iogcc.ok.gov>
Monday, April 27, 2015 1:28 PM
ntew@ogb.state.al.us; cathy.foerster@alaska.gov; daleaudrey@comcast.net;
larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us; mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov;
matt.lepore@state.co.us; tschultz@idl.idaho.gov; rmcahron@dnr.in.gov;
s.feist.albrecht@kcc.ks.gov; 'William Daugherty' (billd@blackridgeusa.com);
jimw@dnr.state.la.us; elarrimore@mde.state.md.us; fitchh@michigan.gov;
livshin@ogb.state.ms.us; wcaefta@midrivers.com; bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov;
rmperry@govmail.state.nv.us; david.catanach@state.nm.us; bjfield@gw.dec.state.ny.us;
lhelms@nd.gov; rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us; Michael Teague; scperry@pa.gov;
derric.iles@usd.edu; paul.schmierback@state.tn.us; david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us;
johnbaza@utah.gov; butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov; joe.pettey@yahoo.com;
Mark.watson@wyo.gov
Draft Resolution submitted for 2015 IOGCC Annual Business Meeting
PDF Draft Resoultion 15.103.pdf

In accordance with the Bylaws of the IOGCC, there has been one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the
headquarters office of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
Draft Resolution 15.103 has been submitted by Lynn D. Helms, North Dakota Official Representative, and is entitled
"Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to
Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public
Lands." The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at the Grand
America Hotel in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution. For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions
Committee after April 17, 2015, a two-thirds vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as
a two-thirds vote of the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting. The Business
Session is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand America Hotel. Please find the
attached enclosure, Draft Resolution 15.103. A copy has also been mailed to the IOGCC Governors. If you have any
questions or concerns feel free to contact myself, or Mr. Mike Smith at (405) 525-3556.
Thank you,
Hannah Barton

Member Services Coordinator
Assistant to the Director
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Conunission
POBOX53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-35 56 Ex, 101

1

 I N T E R S T AT E

P.O no.-<

~lj"l27

Okl<ihnrna City, Oklnhon)<; '1315/.-3127

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

Alabarna
t\J r:i ska

f.'honu: '-lOS,5;:s.J':<)6.

f<ix: .:JIJS.525.3592

\:Veb: wwvv,logcc.state.ok.us

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Governors and
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact•Commission fficial Representatives

FROM:

Mike Smith, Executive Director

C(1!or;;;do

RE:

Draft Resolution for the 2015 Annual Business Meeting

F !ori d C1

DATE:

April 27, 2015

Ca!i!'ornia

I! I\ nr.1

IS

There was one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the headquarters office of
the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
Draft Resolution 15.103 was submitted by Lynn D. Helms, Notih Dakota Official Representative,
and is entitled "Urging the Congress oftlie United States, the U.S. Department oflnterior, and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for
the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands."
The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at
the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution.
For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions Committee aft1>r April 17, 2015, a two-thirds
vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as a two-thirds vote of
the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting.

N<-:·vv Niexit'.o

The Business Session is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand
America Hotel.
HB

l\lo;rh DaLota

Enclosure:

Draft Resolution 15.103

Ohio

Oklahon1ri
Pennsylvania

Solilh Dokota

Texas

Utah
Virginia

VVyornin9

COLLECTIVELY REPRESENTING THE STATES

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

RESOLUTION
(submitted after deadline, for consideration)

Urging the Congress of the United States, the u:s. Department of Interior, and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to
the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands
WHEREAS, the member states of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission have
endorsed and support the States First Initiative established by IOGCC in 2013,
WHEREAS, States have historically demonstrated the ability to efficiently and effectively
regulate oil and gas operations within their respective borders,
WHEREAS, State regulatory processes have proven successful in ensuring responsible,
economic, and environmentally protective development of oil and gas resources,
WHEREAS, State oil and gas regulatory agencies have the local and regional knowledge and
experience to make scientifically sound decisions to promote economic recovery of oil and gas
while protecting the enviromnent,
WHEREAS, examples of effective federal primacy delegation from federal government to the
states exist both in the U.S. Department ofinterior and other federal organizations,
WHEREAS, delegation of primacy to the states for regulation of oil and gas operations would
allow the BLM to devote its administrative resources to other necessary resource management
functions such as mineral leasing and associated analysis,
WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate recently approved the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act
of2014 reauthorizing the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005,
WHEREAS, federal primacy delegation of oil and gas regulation to the states could be
considered as part of a permit streamlining pilot project,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the IOGCC urges Congress, the
Department of Interior, and the BLM to establish the appropriate mechanism to allow federal
primacy delegation to the States for the regulation of oil and gas operations either legislatively or
through innovative use of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of2005.

(()LLEC-\!\/E.LY

\~EPflESEJ\JTING

THE s·rJ\TE:)

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

ACTION PLAN FOR DRAFT RESOLUTION
.
Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior,
and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for
Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations
on Federal Public Lands

1. Send copies of the resolution to all IOGCC Governors and Official Representatives,
including all directors of member state oil and gas divisions.
2. Send copies of the resolution to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and key administrative officials
urging them to work with IOGCC in implement the objectives of this resolution.
3. Send copies of the resolution to Congressional leaders and provide testimony to
Congressional Committees, as appropriate.
4. Send copies of the resolution to state and national industry associations.
5. Monitor status of legislation, advocate in Congress for the objectives of this resolution,
and keep states informed and involved in the process.

COLLECTIVELY HEPl\ESENTING THE STATES

 Michael Teague ·
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Hannah Barton <hannah.barton@iogcc.ok.gov>
Monday, April 27, 2015 2:50 PM
ntew@ogb.state.al.us; cathy.foerster@alaska.gov; daleaudrey@comcast.net;
larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us; mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov;
matt.lepore@state.co.us; tschultz@idl.idaho.gov; rmcahron@dnr.in.gov;
s.feist.albrecht@kcc.ks.gov; 'William Daugherty' (billd@blackridgeusa.com);
jimw@dnr.state.la.us; elarrimore@mde.state.md.us; fitchh@michigan.gov;
livshin@ogb.state.ms.us; wcaefta@midrivers.com; bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov;
rmperry@govmail.state.nv.us; david.catanach@state.nm.us; bjfield@gw.dec.state.ny.us;
lhelms@nd.gov; rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us; Michael Teague; scperry@pa.gov;
derric.iles@usd.edu; paul.schmierback@state.tn.us; david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us;
johnbaza@utah.gov; butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov; joe.pettey@yahoo.com;
Mark.watson@wyo.gov
FW: Corrected Draft Resolution submitted for 2015 IOGCC Annual Business Meeting
Correct Memorandum.pdf; 15.103.pdf

Please find the attached correct Memorandum. The previous document was not correct. The Resolution 15.103 was
drafted by John R. Baza of Official Representative of Utah, not Lynn Helm of North Dakota.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
From: Hannah Barton

Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 1:28 PM
To: 'ntew@ogb.state.al.us'; 'cathy.foerster@alaska.gov'; 'daleaudrey@comcast.net'; 'larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us';

'mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov'; 'matt.lepore@state.co.us'; 'tschultz@idl.idaho.gov'; 'rmcahron@dnr.in.gov';
's.feist.albrecht@kcc.ks.gov'; 'William Daugherty' (billd@blackridgeusa.com); 'jimw@dnr.state.la.us';
'elarrimore@mde.state.md.us'; 'fitchh@michigan.gov'; 'livshin@ogb.state.ms.us'; 'wcaefta@midrivers.com';
'bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov'; 'rmperry@govmail.state.nv.us'; 'david.catanach@state.nm.us'; 'bjfteld@gw.dec.state.ny.us';
'lhelms@nd.gov'; 'rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us'; 'michael.teague@ee.ok.gov'; 'scperry@pa.gov'; 'derric.iles@usd.edu';
'paul.schmierback@state.tn.us'; 'david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us'; 'johnbaza@utah.gov'; 'butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov';
'joe.pettey@yahoo.com'; 'Mark.watson@wyo.gov'
Subject: Draft Resolution submitted for 2015 IOGCC Annual Business Meeting
In accordance with the Bylaws of the IOGCC, there has been one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the
headquarters office of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
Draft Resolution 15.103 has been submitted by Lynn D. Helms, North Dakota Official Representative, and is entitled
"Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to
Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public
Lands." The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at the Grand
America Hotel in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution. For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions
Committee after April 17, 2015, a two-thirds vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as
a two-thirds vote of the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting. The Business
Session is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand America Hotel. Please find the
attached enclosure, Draft Resolution 15.103. A copy has also been mailed to the IOGCC Governors. If you have any
questions or concerns feel free to contact myself, or Mr. Mike Smith at (405) 525-3556.
Thank you,
1

 Hannah Barton
Member Services Coordinator
Assistant to the Director
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
POBOX53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 Ex, 101

2

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas

90D N.t. 23rd St«.>cct Old<.hornC1 City" Oklahoma ;:nos

COMPACT COMMISSION

1~1~1bn1ni3

Ca!iforni~1
Coinrc~dn

iiiinol<;

MEMORANDUM
TO;

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Governors and
Interstate Oil and Gas CompactCommission Official Representatives

FROM:

Mike Smith, Executive Director

RE:

Draft Resolution for the 2015 Annual Business Meeting

DATE:

April 27, 2015

There was one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the headquarters office of
the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
Draft Resolution 15.103 was submitted by John R Baza, Utah Official Representative, and is
entitled "Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department oflnterior, and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for the
Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands."

fvli 1_ \\i 9<; n

The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at
the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution.
For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions Committee after April 17, 2015, a two-thirds
vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as a two-thirds vote of
the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting.
The Business Session is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand
America Hotel.
HB

North Dakota

Enclosure:

Draft Resolution 15. l 03

Ohio

Oklohnr112
p,~nn~y!vania

South Dakc·t.i

re-xa<;;
lJ ta h

VVest Virginia

V\lyo1nin9

COLLECTIVELY HEPRESEhlT!NG THE STATES

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

RESOLUTION 15.103
(submitted after deadline, for consideration)

u:s.

Urging the Congress of the United States, the
Department of Interior, and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to
the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands

WHEREAS, the member states of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission have
endorsed and support the States First Initiative established by IOGCC in 2013,

WHEREAS, States have historically demonstrated the ability to efficiently and effectively
regulate oil and gas operations within their respective. borders,

WHEREAS, State regulatory processes have proven successful in ensuring responsible,
economic, and enviromnentally protective development of oil and gas resources,

WHEREAS, State oil and gas regulatory agencies have the local and regional knowledge and
experience to make scientifically sound decisions to promote economic recovery of oil and gas
while protecting the environment,
WHEREAS, examples of effective federal primacy delegation from federal govermnent to the
states exist both in the U.S. Department ofinterior and other federal organizations,

WHEREAS, delegation of primacy to the states for regulation of oil and gas operations would
allow the BLM to devote its administrative resources to other necessary resource management
functions such as mineral leasing and associated analysis,

WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate recently approved the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act
of 2014 reauthorizing the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of2005,

WHEREAS, federal primacy delegation of oil and gas regulation to the states could be
considered as part of a permit streamlining pilot project,

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the IOGCC urges Congress, the
Department of Interior, and the BLM to establish the appropriate mechanism to allow federal
primacy delegation to the States for the regulation of oil and gas operations either legislatively or
through innovative use of the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.

COLLECTIVELY REPRESEl\ITING THE STl\TES

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

ACTION PLAN FOR DRAFT RESOLUTION
Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior,
and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for
Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations
on Federal Public Lands

1. Send copies of the resolution to all IOGCC Governors and Official Representatives,
including all directors of member state oil and gas divisions.

2. Send copies of the resolution to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and key administrative officials
urging them to work with IOGCC in implement the objectives of this resolution.
3. Send copies of the resolution to Congressional leaders and provide testimony to
Congressional Committees, as appropriate.
4. Send copies of the resolution to state and national industry associations.
5. Monitor status oflegislation, advocate in Congress for the objectives of this resolution,
and keep states infom1ed and involved in the process.

COU.ECTIVELY REPRESENTINC THE STA HS

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Hannah Barton <hannah.barton@iogcc.ok.gov>
Monday, April 27, 2015 4:50 PM
ntew@ogb.state.al.us; cathy.foerster@alaska.gov; daleaudrey@comcast.net;
larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us; mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov;
matt.lepore@state.co.us; tschultz@idl.idaho.gov; rmcahron@dnr.in.gov;
s.feist.albrecht@kcc.ks.gov; 'William Daugherty' (billd@blackridgeusa.com);
jimw@dnr.state.la.us; elarrimore@mde.state.md.us; fitchh@michigan.gov;
livshin@ogb.state.ms.us; wcaefta@midrivers.com; bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov;
rmperry@govmail.state.nv.us; david.catanach@state.nm.us; bjfield@gw.dec.state.ny.us;
lhelms@nd.gov; rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us; Michael Teague; scperry@pa.gov;
derric.iles@usd.edu; paul.schmierback@state.tn.us; david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us;
johnbaza@utah.gov; butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov; joe.pettey@yahoo.com;
Mark.watson@wyo.gov; Mankowski, Mike
Gerry Baker; Mike Smith
Final Draft Resolution for 2015 IOGCC Annual Business Meeting
PDF Draft Resolution.pdf

In accordance with the Bylaws of the lOGCC, there has been one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the
headquarters office of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
The Draft Resolution has been submitted by John R. Baza, Utah Official Representative, and is entitled "Urging the
Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish
Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands."
The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at the Grand America Hotel
in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution. For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions Committee after
April 17, 2015, a two-thirds vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as a two-thirds vote
of the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting. The Business Session is
scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand America Hotel. Please find the attached
enclosure, Draft Resolution 15.103. A copy has also been mailed to the IOGCC Governors. If you have any questions or
concerns feel free to contact myself, or Mr. Mike Smith at (405) 525-3556.
Thank you,
Hannah Barton
Member Services Coordinator
Assistant to the Director
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact C01m11ission
PO BOX 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 Ex, 101

1

 I N T E R S T AT E

r~.o.

Gox 5-t127 O!dahoma City, Oklahoma

73~52-'.J127

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Governors and
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Official Representatives

FROM:

Mike Smith, Executive Director

Colo1·0.Jo

RE:

Draft Resolution for the 2015 Annual Business Meeting

F !orida

DATE:

April 27, 2015

I\: kan:;<).'>
CaJifornic1

! ! ii 11 (1 i:)

lndivn;:i

\;'.·ntti(k'/
Lo1:1s1nn<~

There was one draft resolution filed by the April 17 deadline with the headquarters office of
the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission for consideration at the 2015 Annual Business
Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 18-20, 2015.
The Draft Resolution was submitted by John R. Baza, Utah Official Representative, and is
entitled "Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for Delegating Primacy to the States for the
Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands."
The IOGCC Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 19th, at
the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City to consider the drafted resolution.
For a resolution to be considered by the Resolutions Committee after April 17, 2015, a two-thirds
vote of the members of the Resolutions Committee is necessary, as well as a two-thirds vote of
the members of the states present and voting at the IOGCC Annual Business Meeting.
The Business Session is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20th, at the Grand
America Hotel.
HB

North Dakoti1

Enclosure:

Draft Resolution

Ohio
Oidwhornri
fle11nsylvr.111ia

South Dakota
Tex as

Utah

Vi 1 g\ n i a

'IA/yo1nlng

COLLECTIVELY Rf.PRE',Ei"TING THE STl\TfS

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

DRAFT RESOLUTION
Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Proc.esses for Delegating Primacy to
the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Public Lands
WHEREAS, the member states of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission havv
endorsed and support the States First Initiative established by IOGCC in 2013,
WHEREAS, States have historically demonstrated the ability to efficiently and effectively
regulate oil and gas operations within their respective borders,
WHEREAS, State regulatory processes have proven successful in ensuring responsible,
economic, and environmentally protective development of oil and gas resources,
WHEREAS, State oil and gas regulatory agencies have the local and regional knowledge and
experience to make scientifically sound decisions to promote economic recovery of oil and gas
while protecting the environment,
WHEREAS, examples of effective federal primacy delegation from federal government to the
states exist both in the U.S. Department ofinterior and other federal organizations,
WHEREAS, delegation of primacy to the states for regulation of oil and gas operations would
allow the BLM to devote its administrative resources to other necessary resource management
functions such as mineral leasing and associated analysis,
WHEREAS, the U.S. Senate recently approved the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act
of2014 reauthorizing the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of2005,
WHEREAS, federal primacy delegation of oil and gas regulation to the states could be
considered as part of a permit streamlining· pilot project,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the IOGCC urges Congress, the
Department of Interior, and the BLM to establish the appropriate mechanism to allow federal
primacy delegation to the States for the regulation of oil and gas operations either legislatively or
through innovative use of the Federal Pe1mit Streamlining Pilot Project established as part of the
Energy Policy Act of2005.

COLLECTIVELY nEPflESENTll''~ THr STf\TES

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

ACTION PLAN FOR DRAFT RESOLUTION
Urging the Congress of the United States, the U.S. Department of Interior,
and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to Establish Processes for
Delegating Primacy to the States for the Regulation of Oil and Gas Operations
on Federal Public Lands

1. Send copies of the resolution to all IOGCC Governors and Official Representatives,
including all directors of member state oil and gas divisions.
2. Send copies of the resolution to the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of the
Interior, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and key administrative officials
urging them to work with IOGCC in implement the objectives of this resolution.
3. Send copies of the resolution to Congressional leaders and provide testimony to
Congressional Committees, as appropriate.
4. Send copies of the resolution to state and national industry associations.
5. Monitor status oflegislation, advocate in Congress for the objectives of this resolution,
and keep states informed and involved in the process.

COLLECTl\IEL Y 11EPRESENTING THE STf\TES

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Gerry Baker <gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, May 13, 2015 10:30 AM
Lynn Helms; Bill Sydow; Larry Bengal; John Baza; David Porter; Michael Teague
Mike Smith; Amy Childers; Carol Booth; Hannah Barton
Special meeting re: IOGCC/EPA MOU
EPA MOU agenda-Utah.pdf; 201505140922.pdf

Dear all -As part of our meeting in Salt Lake City, we are having an off-agenda meeting with U.S. EPA officials on the
Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations. I have attached an agenda for the meeting as well as the
most recent MOU for your information.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the possibilities for improving communication between the organizations through
the MOU. The meeting is scheduled for 4 p.m. Tuesday, May 19 in the Grenoble Room at the Grand America Hotel.
Please contact Mike Smith or me if you have any questions.

Gerry Baker
Associate Executive Director
(405) 52.5-3556, ext. 112
(405) 664-7362

1

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

AGENDA
IOGCC/ US EPA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WORKING SESSION
IOGCC ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
Grand America, Grenoble (Third Floor)
Salt Lake City, Utah
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
4:00 pm - 5:00 pm

I.

Introductions

II.

History of MOU development and function

Ill.

Current MOU meeting structure, participants and process of issue identification

IV.

Discussion of process revisions to assist in accomplishing MOU objectives
A.

Venue

B.

Effectively identifying timely and future topics of discussion

C.

Identifying appropriate participants

V.

Next steps

VI.

Adjournment

COLLECTIVELY REPRESENTING THE STATES

 Memorandum of Understanding
Between
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission (IOGCC) and the Uniti::d States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding
environmental regulatory oversight of oil and natural gas exploration and production activities.
Whereas, the IOGCC is a congressionally chartered organization of governors of the oil and natural gas
producing states, with the responsibility to protect and develop the states' oil and gas resources, avoid
waste of those resources and protect the environment, and
Whereas, the governors through the IOGCC seek to develop and conserve oil and gas resources in an
efficient and effective manner, and
Whereas, the EPA is chargoo with protecting the nation's public health and environment, and
Whereas, this MOU between the IOGCC and EPA is intended to continue to facilitate more open and
timely conunnnication resulting in better integrated, transparent, and more collaborative protection of the .
environment.
Now, THEREFORE, the lOG:CC and the EPA enter into this MOU, which renews the shared interests of
the IOGCC and EPA and replaces the MOUs signed between IOGCC and EPA in December 2002, March
2005, May 2007, and August 2011:
The pUipose of this MOU is to improve regulatory cooperation among the states and BPA, in a manner
that promotes protection of the environment in a cost-effective manner consistent with applicable
requirements, minimizes duplication, increases efficiencies, enables the exchange of infonnation and
expertise, and increases communication.
Background: In some instances, the states and EPA have concurrent jurisdiction relating to a host of oil
and gas :regulatory efforts. In other instances, the states and BPA have independent authorities that may
be complementary when effectively coordinated. IOGCC and EPA signed a MOU to facilitate this
relationship in December 2002, which was renewed in March 2005, May 2007, and August 2011.
The objectives of the MOU are to renew a joint Task Force to:
1. Continue long-term improvement in communication between the states and EPA.
2. Continue a high-level IOGCC/EPA relationship that is intended to foster environmental protection
based on mutual understanding of each other's missions, responsibilities, and authorities.
3. Address through ad hoc, issue-oriented working subgroups, issues that may result from concurrent
jurisdiction between 1he states and EPA.

 4, Identify issues of concern between the sllltes and EPA that then can be addressed in the short and
longterm.
5. Maintain a pennanent means of consultation..
6. Identify and implement mutually beneficial joint activities.
Responsibilities of!OGCC and EPA;
1. IOGCC and EPA resolve to assemble a renewed Task Force to accomplish the objectives
described herein and provide periodic reports of their findings and recommendations to the
Administrator of the EPA, to the IOGCC Chairman and to the public.
2. The Task Force is to include senior representatives from state oil and gas commissions, the
IOGCC, and EPA headquarters and regional offices; such representatives must be employees of a
state, the IOGCC, or EPA.
.
3. IOGCC and EPA intend to identify areas of concern and recommend awropriate actions and
solutions.
4. IOGCC and EPA intend to consult and coordinate with other state and federal agencies, Indian
tribes, and other organizations as issues and solutions are developed.

Authorities and Limitations:

L EPA enters into this MOU pursuant to section 104 of the Clean Water Act, section 103 of the
Clean Air Act, section 8001 ofthe Solid Waste Disposal Act, and section l 02(2)(G) of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
2. Nothing in this MOU alters the responsibilities or statutory authorities of EPA or the individual
states. This MOU does not supersede existing agreements or restrict any future agreements
between EPA and the individual states or other state associations.
3. This MOU does not, in and of itself, obligate either party to expend funds. All conunitments
made by EPA are subject to the availability of appropriated :funds. Any endeavor involving
reimbursement, contribution, or financial assistance between the parlies to th.is MOU will be
handled according to applicable laws, regulations, and procedures, including policies relating to
competition for contracts and 3$Sistance agreements, and subject to separate agreements. Neither
party will submit a claim for compensation to the other party for activities carried out under this
MOU.
4. Nothing in this MOU precludes individual MOUs between the IOGCC, state oil and gas
regulatory agencies, and EPA regional offices.
S. This MOU is not legally binding on any party and does not create any rights or benefits,
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any person against any party to the
MOU.
6. Under Federal ethics rules, EPA may not endorse products or services provided by private
entities. Nothing in this MOU constitutes an endorsement by either party of the products,
services, and/or fundraising activities of the other. The IOGCC agrees not to make statements to
the public at workshops and meetings, promotional literature, on its web site or through other
media that imply that EPA endorses IOGCC or any service or product offered by it. In addition,
IOGCC agrees not to make statements that imply that EJ>A supports IOGCC's efforts to raise
public or private funds. Any statements or promotional materials prepared by lOGCC that
descnoe this MOU must be approved in advance by EPA.
2

 This MOU is to take effect upon the signatures of the parties listed below and remains in effect for three
years or until modified by mutual written consent. At the end of three (3) years, IOGCC and EPA agree
to discuss an extension of the MOU for mutual benefit. Either party may tenninate its participation in this
M0 U by providing written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the de$ired
tennination date.
SIGNED:

U.

Gina

• vironmental Prot~tion Agency

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Cammi sion
Governor Robert Bentley, State of Alab a
ChairofIOGCC

cCarthy, Administrator

Date:

3

~(}

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:

To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Michael Teague
Friday, May 29, 2015 1:59 PM
'Mike Smith'; Gerry Baker (gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us)
FW: Republican Governors Urge President Obama to Lift Restrictions on Crude Oil &
LNG Exports
ATTOOOOl.htm; GOP Governors Letter on Crude Oil & LNG Exports.pdf; ATT00002.htm

Here is a copy of the RGA letter on exports that I mentioned at the Business Meeting.
Mike
From: Craig Sundstrom
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:25 PM
To: Michael Teague; Tyler Powell
Subject: Fwd: Republican Governors Urge President Obama to Lift Restrictions on Crude Oil & LNG Exports

Begin forwarded message:
From: "RGA Press Office" <press@rga.org>
To: "RGA Press Office" <press@rga.org>
Subject: Republican Governors Urge President Obama to Lift Restrictions on Crude Oil & LNG Exports

1

 o~Lou.,..,,.

m

ir- . . . . 'ft;
i;1')

'

,

·o~

7

* ..:·") .··-·Lio/.! .'·'\ *

···-···

Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:
Governors know firsthand the economic potential presented by the United States energy
revolution. American energy producers, manufacturers and workers deserve a sensible national
energy strategy to support the economic growth we are experiencing in our states. Now is the
time to end the federal ban on crude oil exports and lift existing restrictions on liquefied natural
gas (LNG) exports.
The United States oil and gas industry is literally fueling economic growth in our states. Recent
studies show lifting the ban on crude exports would create as many as 300,000 jobs nationwide
by 2020. LNG exports would also significantly boost employment, adding 155,000 jobs in
natural gas producing states and an additional 38,000 jobs in large manufacturing states. Without
a change in the federal approach to energy exports, these jobs will be left on the table during a
critical time in the nation's economic recovery.
Updated energy export policies would also enhance American national security in a global
energy economy punctuated by conflict and civil unrest. United States energy policy should seek
to strike a balance between bolstering our national security by maintaining domestic reserves and
opening up economic and diplomatic opportunities to American interests around the globe. The
federal government's current approach to energy expotts was set in motion when domestic
production was down, impo1ted energy was dominating our resource mix and the global market
was threatened by hostile international players. The United States now stands as the world's top
producer of oil and natural gas, though we continue to import energy from nations adverse to
American interests. This approach is impractical and dangerous.

 American ingenuity and advances in technology have unlocked vast reserves of crude oil and
natural gas here at home. We should be seeking new opportunities for these energy resources by
providing customers around the globe unblocked access - driving investment in American
energy.
The outdated federal export restrictions on crude oil and LNG are detrimental to American
workers, our collective security and economic recovery in our states. A broad coalition of United
States Senators has introduced legislation, S. 1312 - Energy Supply Distribution Act, to move
sensible export policy fotward and we applaud that effort. We ask you to end the ban on crude
oil exports, to lift restrictions on LNG exports and to set in motion a cohesive federal energy
export strategy.
Sincerely,

Gove1nor Asa Hutchinson
Arkansas

Governor Susana Martinez
New Mexico

Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana

Governor Phil Bryant
Mississippi

Governor Jack Dalrymple
North Dakota

Governor Mary Fallin
Oklahoma

~fl~-r
Governor Greg Abbott
Texas

Governor Matthew H. Mead
Wyoming

Governor Gary R. Herbert
Utah

Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, June 01, 2015 3:56 PM
Mike Smith
Re: Time for a phone call?

Anytime in the next hour or tomorrow before noon. Call my cell 405-343-4605.

On Jun 1, 2015, at 14:31, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Mr. Secretary Time for a phone call some time this week?
Thanks, Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Amy Childers <amy.childers@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:43 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey;
Jim Welsh; joe.pettey@yahoo.com; John Baza; Jon Williams; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa
Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom ; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Paul Schmierbach;
Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow; Barry Williamson; Bill Myler; Bridget Hill;
Charlie Williams Jr.; Chris Weiser; Christi Craddick; Craig Perry; Craig Sundstrom; D.
Michael Wallen; Daniel Seamount; Gary Ross; Ginny Brannon; Herschel McDivitt; Jarod
Tufte; John King ; Kimberly Anne Doane; Rick Cooper; Ricky Calhoon; Robert Finley;
Scott Lampert; Thomas Kerr; Thomas Stewart
Carol Booth
Article Daily Oklahoman/SSEB 2014 Resolutions
Daily Oklahoman 10-2-14.pdf; SSEB 2014 Resolutions.pd!

Attached is an article from the Daily Oklahoman as well as the resolutions passed this week at
Southern States Energy Board.
Avi.tf:j M. c.11avlers
Federal Projects Manager
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Business phone (405) 525-3556, Ext. 117
Cell phone (405)642-8074
amy.childers@ioqcc.state.ok.us

1

 -- -------------------- ---

-~==---~---

THE OKLAHOMAN I NEWSOK.COM

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014

Ol<LAHOfviA'S ENERGY !NDUSTRY REGULATION !\/iAKES CHANGES FOR ENVlRONr111ENT

tes', grou
,ater rules
receive praise 1 new reoort
llill

State regrilators in the
country's 27 energyprod:ucing states have
strengthened
oversight
and rules designed to protect groundwater over the
past five years as oil and
natural gas production has
boomed, according to a report released Wednesday
from the Groundwater
Protection Council.

llllll

111111

states have continued to
''There's no question update and strengthen
that state agencies are on their rules addressing the
the forefront of oil and gas critical areas in nearly evregulation and are dili- ery subject area we have
gently working to address examined. In addition,
the safety and environ- state oil and natural gas
mental issues surrounding regrilatory agencies have
modern energy develop- adopted new practices to
The report provides an ment;' council Executive address the technological,
update to a previous study Director Mil<e Paque said. legal and practical changes
the group released in
"Since our 2009 report, in oil and gas exploration
Adam

Wilmoth

2009.

and production!'
The Groundwater Protection Council is a national association of state
agencies designed to protect and conserve the
country's ground water.
The 122-page report details both areas found to
have strong regulation,
SEE WATER, PAGE 4C

 Water: Protective efforts are urged
FROMPAGElC

ONLINE

and areas that were
deemed to need improvement. The group found
oversight has been sb:engthened,
paiticularly
around clisclosure rules for
hydraulic fracturing fluids,
mechanical integrity testing, pit siting and lining
requirements and data
management.
What needs work?
Among areas that need
the most improvement,
the report called for adcli tional research into the
risks to water from hydraulic fracturing, or
tracking, and from the

To read the full report, go online to
http://tinyurl.com/
groundwater
protection.

i':,,

presence of natura!Jy. occurring raclioactive 'Materials that are brought to the
smface with oil and natural gas production.
"When states update
their rules, consideration
should be given to focusing
on areas that will increase
protection for water resources, inclucling well integrity, smface fluid management and cleanup

standards for spills!' the milting to a process of
report stated. "Inter- continual improvement to
agency and interstate co- ensure the clean water
orclination of activity will protections communities
also become more critical, expect and deserve.
as will the need for data Jn "The momentmn docutegration between dis- mented in this report ls
parate data systems:•
encouraging, yet the fact
The repmt drew praise remains that the oil and
from the Environmental gas industiy ls rapidly exDefense Fund on Thursday panding without imporfor highlighting both what tant public health and enstates are dolng right and vironmental protections
what more needs to be for our air, water and communities. It's why EDF bedone.
"Effective environmen- lieves that states continue
tal regulation is not a set- to have work to do to reit-and-forget-it exercise;' vise, create and expand
fund senior policy adviser their rulebooks and devote
Scott Anderson said. "This the necessaiy resources to
report demonstrates that enforce those rules!' Anstates realize it takes com- derson said.

 2014 Adopted Resolutions
1. 2014 -

of the Southern States Energy Board

Resolution to Support a Robust 2017-2022 Outer
Continental Shelf Leasing Program

Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Senator Eddie Joe Williams of Arkansas
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana
Senator Bob Rucho of North Carolina
Representative Mike Hager of North Carolina

2.2014 -

Resolution Concerning Clean Water Act Regulations
andEPA's Definitions of"Waters of the U.S."

Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Jose Diaz of Florida
Representative Lynn Smith of Georgia
Senator Robeit Adley of Louisiana
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana

3.2014 -

Representative Raymond Garofalo of Louisiana

Representative Joe Harrison of Louisiana
Representative Weldon Watson of Oklahoma
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Mark Norris of Tennessee

Resolution Supporting Fuel and Technology Diversity in
the U.S. Electricity Generation Portfolio

Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Rocky Miller of Missouri
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina

4.2014 -

Resolution Concerning U.S. EPA's Proposed
Greenhouse Gas Emission Guidelines for Existing
Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

Sponsored by: Representative Jim Gooch of Kentucky
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Art Kirkendoll of West Virginia

5.2014- Resolution

Questioning Nuclear-Specific Provisions of
U.S. EPA's Proposed 111 (d) Carbon Rule

Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Roclcy Miller of Missouri
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Camlina

 Unanimously Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Senator Eddie Joe Williams of Arkansas
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana
Senator Bob Rucho of North Carolina
Representative Mike Hager of North Carolina
Resolution to Support a Robust 2017-2022
Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program

1. 2014 -

WHEREAS, offshore energy development supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs,
generates billions of dollars in government revenue annually, and lessens America's dependence
on overseas oil; and
WHEREAS, the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) produced I.3 million barrels of oil and 1.3
trillion cubic feet of natural gas a day in 2013, helping to supply U.S. energy consumers with
stable sources of American energy1; and
WHEREAS, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates conservatively that the
federal U.S. offshore holds 89.93 billion barrels of oil and 404.63 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas"; and
WHEREAS, eighty-seven percent of federal offshore areas remain off-limits to developmentiii;
and
WHEREAS, despite America's abundant domestic oil resources, the United States continues to
import approximately 40 percent of its crude oil needs'v; and
WHEREAS, the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is developing its next Five-Year
Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Natural Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022 and, as part of this
evaluation, the agency will consider whether to offer leasing opportunities in areas not included
in the cun·ent leasing program, including off the Atlantic Coast and in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico (which is under congressional moratorium until 2022), as well as evaluating whether to
continue leasing in the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska; and
WHEREAS, a July 2014 poll ofregistered voters found that 68 percent of Americans support
offshore drilling for oil and natural gasv; and
WHEREAS, the governors of Virginia, Nortl1 Carolina and South Carolina have written the
Department of the Interior and President Obama to support seismic testing and new leasing in
the Atlantic; and
WHEREAS, federal legislation, most notably the Fixing America's Inequities with Revenue
(FAIR) Act, is necessa1yto ensure that all coastal states that develop offshore energy share
equitably in the revenues generated from activities off their coasts; and
WHEREAS, energy production in the Atlantic OCS is projected to support 160,000 jobs 15 years
after initial leasing and generate $95 billion in government revenue over the course of 18 years
after leasing'"; and
WHEREAS, broad and predictable access to offshore oil and natural gas resources will help
grow more jobs and activity in the U.S. offshore industry, reduce America's reliance on overseas
imports, and increase revenues to federal and state governments; and
WHEREAS, offshore operators and regulators have significantly improved their abilities to
prevent and respond to an oil spill since the tragic Deepwater· Horizon blowout and oil spill with
new containment and capping systems and an enhanced regulatory regime.

 Unanimously Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Senator Eddie Joe Williams of Arkansas
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana
Senator Bob Rucho of North Camlina
Representative Mike Hager of No11h Carolina
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southern States Energy Board respectfully calls on
the Obama Administration to expand access to additional offshore resources in its upcoming
2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Natural Gas Leasing Program by including lease sales
in the Western, Central and Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Mid and South Atlantic, and off the
coast of Alaska,
1

U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Crude 011 Production," htlp:l/www.e!a.gov/pelroleumldata.cfm#crude.

•eureau of Ocean Energy Management, 79-FRH34349, hllp://www.boem.gov/79-FR-34349/.
Ii

American Petroleum Institute, "Offshore Access to 01! and Natural Gas Resources,D July 2014. http://www.apl.org/pollcy-and-

lssues/policy-ltemsfexploratlonf-/medla/Files/Oll-and-Natural-Gas/Offshore/OffshoreAccess-prlmer~hlghres.pdf,

"'U.S. Energy Information Administration, ulmporls, Exports and Movements," http:/{Www,ela.gov/petroleum/data.cfm#lmports.
v

Nielsen, "Production and Offshore Drilling: Created for American Pelroleum lnstilute,n July 2014.

http:/Jwww.api.orgf-fmedlafFiles/News/2014/14~JulyJWhat-America-ls·Thlnklng-Producllon-and-Offshore-DrilHng·July-2014-IS.pdf.
11

Quest Offshore Resources, Inc., "The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S. Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources In
the Atlantia," December 2013. http:/fquestoffshore.com/wp-conterit/uploads/Economic-Benefl!s-Full-Dec.13.pdf.

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Raymond Garofalo of Louisiana
Representative Joe Harrison of Louisiana
Representative Jose Diaz of Florida
Representative Lynn Smith of Georgia Representative Weldon Watson ofOldahoma
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Robert Adley of Louisiana
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana
Senator Mark Norris of Tennessee
2.2014 -

Resolution Concerning Clean Water Act Regulations
and EPA's Definitions of"Waters ofthe U.S."

WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act (CWA) and implementing regulations of the past four decades
recognize the partnership between federal, state, and local governments to achieve the
objectives of the Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 101(g) of the CWA expressly states that it is "the authority of each state to
allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction [that] shall not be superseded, abrogated, or
otherwise impaired by this Act"; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have
proposed a rule to redefine "waters of the U.S." that could significantly increase the cost and
regulatory requirements for state and local governments and ultimately the costs for state and
local residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rule has no prescribed limits to federal jurisdiction, impairs state
authority and therefore contravenes congressional intent and is not consistent with three
distinct rulings by the Supreme Court regarding the limits of federal jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rule will apply to all programs of the CWA and therefore subject more
activities to CWA permitting requirements, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses,
mitigation requirements, and citizen suits challenging local actions based on the applicability
and interpretation of new-found authorities; and
WHEREAS, the costs of obtaining Corps wetlands permits are significant: averaging 788 days
and $271,596 for an individual permit; 313 days and $28,915 for a nationwide permit-not
counting costs of mitigation or design changes and the greatest burden will fall on small
landowners and small businesses least able to absorb the ·costs1; and
WHEREAS, the proposing agencies' economic analysis for this rule did not consider impacts of
the full range of CWA programs affected or of economicimpacts to small businesses and the
analysis relies on nearly 20-year old cost data that has not been adjusted for inflation and, in
concluding that the proposed rule would increase the waters subject to permitting rnquirements
by only 2.7 percent, the p1·oposing agencies rely on a data base that is incomplete and not
representative of those waters that are subject to jmisdiction under current regulation; and
WHEREAS, the justification for the scope of the proposed rule rests on a scientific analysis that
is still under review and tbe pmposing agencies decided to proceed with development of a
proposed rule addressing issues associated with the connectivity of waters prior to being
informed by the Science Advisory Board Review and the implications of its findings; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rule does not provide an explanation or clear understanding about
how the. proposed expansion of CWA jurisdiction and transfer of ultimate authority might affect
other CWA programs, state laws and responsibilities, water rights, land use, governances, and
regulated parties; and

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Raymond Garofalo of Louisiana
Repl'esentative Joe Harrison of Louisiana
Representative Jose Diaz of Florida
Representative Lynn Smith of Georgia Representative Weldon Watson of Oldahoma
Senator Robert Adley of Louisiana
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Gerald Long of Louisiana
Senator Mark Norris of Tennessee
WHEREAS, EPA and the Corps have failed to fully consult with the states thus undermining the
cooperative federalism intent at the heart of the CWA.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as co-regnlatol's of water resources, states should be fully
consulted and engaged in any process that may affect the management of their waters; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Southern States Energy Board urges member states to
engage their congressional delegations as well as introduce resolutions on the EPA and Corps of
Engineers' proposed rule on waters of the U.S.; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Southern States Energy Board urges the EPA and the
Corps of Engineers to defer adopting any redefinition of the waters of the U.S. rule until:
a) The ScienceAdviso1y Board concludes its review and the EPA and the Corps of
Engineers incorporate the conclusions of the Science Adviso1y Board review; and
bl An economic analysis is completed that fully identifies impacts of the proposal and any
revised proposal on economic development, including the impact on efforts to streamline
infrastructure permitting and siting under current executive orders, guidance, and
regulations, and it should include a thorough analysis of economic impacts to the
economy as a whole; and
c) The redefinition provides clarity on definitions and federal jlll'isdiction consistent with
previous Supreme Court rulings and should affirm that there is a limit to federal
jlll'isdiction under the CWA.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when this resolution is approved, copies of it shall be
transmitted to the President, all members of Congress, the Administrator of the U.S. EPA, and
the leadership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1

David Sunding and David Zilberman. The Economics of Envlronmental Regulation by Licensing: An Assessment of Recent
Changes to the Wetland Permllllng Process. Available at:
http:f/areweb.berke!ey.edu/-i;;undingff.conomcs%20of%20Environmantalo/o20Regulatlon.pdf.

 Unanimously Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Rocky Miller of Missouri
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
3.2014 -

Resolution Supporting Fuel and Technology Diversity in
the U.S. Electricity Generation Portfolio

WHEREAS, fuel and technology diversity historically have been key strengths of the electricity
generation sector serving the South aud the United States as a whole, helping to ensure price
stability, system reliability, technical innovation, effective resource planning and integration,
environmental protection, job creation, and strong economic growth; and
WHEREAS, IHS Energy has issued a report entitled "The Value of US Power Supply Diversity,"
which concludes that diversity of fuels and technology in the U.S. electricity portfolio is
"fundamental to a properly functioning electricity system"; and
WHEREAS, the HIS Energy report finds that the United States is moving toward a "significant
reduction" of diversity in its electricity mix with much of the Nation's baseload supply capacity
at risk; and
WHEREAS, the IHS Energy report further finds that continuing shutdowns of the country's
baseload nuclear and coal generating assets would decrease a typical household's annual
disposable income by more than $2,ooo, drive down the annual U.S. gross domestic product by
nearly $200 billion, increase wholesale and retail electricity prices by 75 percent and 25 percent
respectively, and cause the loss of approximately one million jobs while degrading electricity
reliability for consumers; and
WHEREAS, implementing an effective all-of-the-above energy policy and dil'ecting new energy
infrastructure investment requires properly internalizing the value of fuel diversity; and
WHEREAS, market flaws distort wholesale power prices downward resulting in uneconomic
retirement and replacement of existing cost-effective generation resources.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Southern States Energy Board
recognize the importance and value of fuel and technology diversity in the U.S. electricity
generation portfolio and urge federal, state, and local officials to work with the electric sector to
preserve portfolio diversity and its benefits to the economy; and
THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the Southern States Energy
Board commend the findings of IHS Energy's report, "The Value of US Power Supply
Diversity," to the President of the United States, the United States Congress, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Southeastern Association of
Regulato1y Utility Commissioners, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners.

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Representative Jim Gooch of Kentucky
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Art !GrkendoJI of West Virginia

4.2014 -Resolution Concerning U.S.

EPA's Proposed Greenhouse
Gas Emission Guidelines for Existing Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register a proposal ("Clean Power Plan") for reducing carbon dioxide
(C02) emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants based on Clean Air Act Section 111(d);
and
WHEREAS, EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan establishes significant C02 emission reductions
for power plants in the Southern States Energy Board member states that will cause disruptive
changes in the region's well diversified electricity mix; and
WHEREAS, states would only bave 12 to 24 months after EPA approves their implementation
plans to progress towards meeting their interim emissions target on January 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, EPA, in its Regulatory Impact Analysis and databases, lists potential plant unit
retirements for states and predicts that 46 to 49 gigawatts of coal-fueled generation in the U.S.
will be shut down between 2016 and 2020 due to its Clean Power Plan and 75 percent of that
lost capacity will disproportionately come from the 16 states in the SSEB region; and
WHEREAS, these retirements are in addition to the 71 gigawatts of coal-fueled generation that
EPA acknowledges has retired or will retire between 2010 and 2020, for a total loss of
generation to power 60 million homes due to other recent regulations and factors; and
WHEREAS, the promotion and funding of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology
development is essential to continuing the progress of facilities, such as Plant Barry in Alabama,
the largest carbon capture and storage demonstration project to date; and
WHEREAS, another component of the proposed regulations that has serious implications for
the Southern region is the EPA's treatment of under-construction nuclear energy facilities. In
calculating state benchmarks, the EPA credited under-construction nuclear energy facilities as if
they were currently operational. This disproportionally affects states in the southern region, as
the only nuclear energy facilities currently being constructed are in the states of Georgia, South
Carolina, and Tennessee. It is inappropriate to reflect the completion of these units in state
goals, as the units are not currently completed. As a result, the affected states will have to make
more drastic emissions reductions in order to meet the proposed goals; and
WHEREAS, EPA does not recognize the CO, emission reductions states have made before 2012,
although the U.S. leads all other countries in reductions made since the year 2005; and
according to EPA's modeling, would lead to 11 of the 16 SSEB states reducing their power plant
CO, emissions more than the 30 percent national reduction from 2005 levels; and
WHEREAS, the 16 states in the Southern States Ene1·gy Board region currently produce over 50
percent of the U.S. energy supply, and $5 trillion of the nation's $16 trillion economic output
with a commensurate number of high quality jobs in the manufacturing and agriculture sectors
and with much lower electricity rates and higher economic growth than states with self-imposed
carbon limits; and
WHEREAS, SSEB, individual state and other associations oflegislators, financial regulators,
attorneys general, and environmental commissioners have previously expressed their concerns

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Representative Jim Gooch of Kentucky
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Art IGrkendoll of West Virginia
with EPA's plans to regulate C02 emissions, have supported reasonable environmental policies
as long as they maintain predictable, stable, affordable, and reliable supplies of electrfoity and
have expressed the need to preserve the rights and powe1·s of the states, including the sovereign
right of each state to determine the appropriate mix of energy resources to meet its electricity
needs; and
Whereas, EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan would establish an unprecedented program for EPA
to regulate the production, delivery and use of electricity in the SSEB states and the entire
United State.s by requiring each state to achieve an emission rate that cannot be achieved by the
emitting 111( d) designated facilities so that states must rely on the production of electricity from
non-emitting sources and from avoided generation attributed to consumer end use efficiency
measures; and
Whereas, Congress did not empower EPA to expand its environmental policy role beyond the
requirements in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and EPA would be intruding upon the authority
reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; now
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southern States Energy Board requests thatthe U.S
EPA withdraw the proposed guidelines and issue new guidelines that allow the southern states
to establish policies that are in the best interest of the region and each of its states, The
guidelines should:
1.

Respect the primacy of states by allowing states to develop plans that establish
peiformance standards and discretion and flexibility in establishing compliance
mechanisms.

2.

Maintain an adequate, reliable, affordable electrical generating fleet.

3, Be based on EPA guidelines for cost-effective, achievable reductions at the affected
power plant units, rather than the states.
4. Establish emissions guidelines based on adequately demonstrated systems that are fuel
and technology specific.
5. Provide credit for significant emissions reductions already made or being made.
6.

Avoid premature retirements and stranded assets.

7.

Be fair and equitable to all electricity consumers; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that EPA should adopt policies that do not conflict with the
responsibility of each state to provide affordable and reliable supplies of electricity for its
citizens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy
should receive an increased appmpriation to provide funding to further develop carbon capture
and storage technology essential to ensuring that coal remains a vital and competitive asset in
the United States' energy portfolio; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, SSEB recommends that state legislators work with other
policymakers in their states to:

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Representative Jim Gooch of Kentucky
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina
Senator Art Kirkendoll of West Virginia
a) Provide comments to EPA on the legal, reliability, affordability, achievability, timing,
implementation scheduling, and other issues that need to be considered for individual
and groups of states to eliminate or minimize the aforementioned risks; and
b) Jointly develop state implementation plans to protect residential, industrial, and
commercial electricity users and ensure continued reliability of the electric system; and
c) Continue to engage EPA and other relevant federal agencies and congressional
delegations after the regulation is finalized to eliminate or minimize the aforementioned
risks and consequences.

 Adopted on September 29, 2014
Sponsored by: Senator Cam Ward of Alabama
Representative Rocky Miller of Missouri
Representative Bill Sandifer of South Carolina

5.2014 - Resolution Questioning Nuclear-Specific Provisions of
U.S. EPA's Proposed 111(d) Carbon Rule
WHEREAS, there is broad consensus throughout industry, academia, the United States
government, and international organizations that zero-carbon nuclear energy is a necessary
component of any meaningful strategy to reduce carbon in the electric generation sector, and
nuclear energy presently generates nearly two-thirds of all carbon-free electricity in the U.S.;
and
WHEREAS, the existing 44 reactor nuclear fleet throughout the Southern States Energy Board
region, and five new reactors now under construction to come on-line in Tennessee, Georgia,
and South Carolina by 2019, are key assets in the South's ongoing comprehensive, mnltitechnology carbon reduction strategy; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency(U.S. EPA) has recognized that
maintaining the existing nuclear fleet is a cost-effective carbon abatement strategy, but the
agency's proposed carbon rule considers only six percent of the carbon-free electricity produced
by a state's existing nuclear power plants and would not count the output of nuclear reactors
now under construction in the U.S., all of which are being built in the South; and
WHEREAS, EPA's proposal counts all renewable electl'icityproduction regardless of when it was
placed into service, but ignores 94 percent of existing nuclear plant electricity production and all
hydroelectric plant production.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Southern States Energy Board call on
U.S. EPA to treat all sources of non-carbon generation equally and recognize that nuclear energy
is critical to any national carbon reduction strategy so that states have sufficient incentive to
preserve existing nuclear capacity and build new reactors.

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:50 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James Martin ; Jami
Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa
Ivshin ; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson;
Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ron Dunkin; Ronald Efta; Ryan
Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Amy Childers
Question to members: Wellhead failures

One of our states is needing some help with a particular issue they are encountering and would like some input from
other states. If each of you could please answer the question below by the end of the week, I will compile the
information and send final results to all next week.
Has your state experienced any wellhead failures during hydraulic fracturing or other high pressure stimulation?

If so, what details can you share with us relative to the root cause?

Thanks for your help and participation. Please contact me if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, December 09, 2014 9:52 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey;
Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M.
Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore;
Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta;
scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Amy Childers; Hannah Barton
Article: OK AG denies 'secret alliance'
OK AG Pruitt denies 'Secret Alliance'.pdf

Please find an article attached regarding Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and his letter to EPA. Also, here is the
link to the actual article on NewsOK.com, http://newsok.com/oklahoma-attorney-general-denies-secretivealliance/article/5374189.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Oklahoma attorney general denies
'secretive alliance'
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Monday took strong exception to a
weekend New York Times article that characterized him as participating in a
"secretive alliance" with energy companies to push back against the Obama
administration's regulatory agenda.
by Randy

Ellis Modified: December 8, 2014 at 9:37 pm •

Published: December 9, 2014

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Monday took strong exception to a weekend
article in The New York Times that characterized him as participating in a "secretive
alliance" with energy companies to push back against the Obama administration's
regulatory agenda.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt in his office during an interview with an Oklahoman
repmter on Wednesday, April 10, 2013. by Jim Beckei The Oklahoman.

"I don't think there is anything secretive in what we've done," Pruitt said. "We've been
very open about the efforts of my office in responding to federal overreach."
Pruitt said he strongly believes the Obama administration has exceeded its regulatory
powers on a wide range of issues including health care, banldng, endangered species and
energy.
The attorney general said he has consistently shown his willingness to work with
constituents and others who share his concerns about federal overreach.
"Clearly, this administration has had anti-fossil fuel mentality," Pruitt said, accusing the
federal government of interfering in oil and gas regulatory matters that fall within the
purview of state government.
"That's a state interest that has to be protected and we've been unapologetic about that,"
he said.

 The New York Times repo1ted that Pruitt is among attorneys general in at least a dozen
states who have assisted energy producers in pushing back against federal attempts to
regulate the oil and gas industry.
The article said those attorneys general have been rewarded with at least $16 million in
political contributions this year.
The newspaper cited a letter Pruitt sent to the Environmental Protection Agency
accusing federal regulators of grossly overestimating the amount of air pollution caused
by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in the state.
Emails reveal the letter was actually drafted by attorneys for Devon Energy Corp., The
New York Times reported.
"The attorney general's staff had taken Devon's draft, copied it onto state government
statione1y with only a few word changes, and sent it to Washington with the attorney
general's signature," the newspaper reported.
The article quoted David B. Frohnmayer, a Republican who served a decade as attorney
general in Oregon, as being critical of the practice.
"When you use a public office, pretty shamelessly, to vouch for a private party with
substantial financial interest without the disclosure of the true authorship, that is a
dangerous practice," Frohnmayer was quoted as saying. "The puppeteer behind the
stage is pulling strings, and you can't see. I don't like that. And when it is exposed, it
makes you feel used."
Pruitt said he believes he has been transparent.
Pruitt said his office frequently signs on to friend of the court briefs and letters
originated by other states, when it agrees with their positions.
"Many times we sign on to those amicus (friend of the court) requests or we sign on to
those letters without any changes and the reason we do so is we agree with the content
of the communication or the brief that is being filed in the court," he said.
"Here it was no different. Here was a situation a constituent, an Oklahoma company,
made us aware of the overreach of the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) around
something as important as hydraulic fracturing."
"That's actually called representative government in my view of the world," he said.
Federal agencies "have taken a very aggressive posture at trying to involve themselves in
either displacing the state's role in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing or duplicating
it, both of which would be very damaging to the state of Oklahoma and state industry,
but, more than that, inconsistent with federal law," he said.
"What the New York Times failed to address was that we were right," Pruitt said. "The
communication was a communication that goes to the heart of state primacy and state

 sovereignty and the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and that the BLM was exceeding
its authority. They haven't acted, because they don't have that authority, to date."
John Porretto, media relations manager for Devon, said its involvement with Pruitt and
other attorneys general was consistent with its "commitment to engage in conversations
with policymakers on a broad range of matters that promote jobs, economic growth and
a robust domestic energy sector."
"It is important and practical for states to resolve legal questions related to jurisdictional
conflicts with the federal government, and these matters can only be resolved in federal
courts," he said. "Oil and natural gas production is a state-regulated industry, and we
have an obligation and a right to seek clarity and solutions when our interests are being
harmed."

Devon often serves as a "resource with useful information and expertise for decisionmakers," Porretto said.
Pruitt contends he has been motivated to take action by concerns that the federal
gove1nment has been overstepping its constitutional and legal authority, not by political
contributions.
"I think contributions by various industries across the country follows leadership," he
said.

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, December 15, 2014 8:40 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster;
David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; fitchh@michigan.gov; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey; Jennifer Steber; Jim Welsh; John Baza;
Jon Williams; Joseph Pettey; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa Ivshin ; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom
assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael
McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Paul
Schmierbach ; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; Sandy MacMullin;
scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
RE: DOC Daily Press Report for Friday, December 12, 2014

The IOGCC and other member states are receiving more interest from media. Please read below as the California
Department of Conservation will be appearing on Al-Jazeera sometime this week.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

From: Mike Smith

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 7:06 AM
To: Nechodom, Mark@DOC

Cc: Gerry Baker; Carol Booth
Subject: RE: DOC Daily Press Report for Friday, December 12, 2014
MarkThanks for the "heads up"!
Carol Please forward to all Official Reps.

From: Nechodom, Mark@DOC [mailto:Mark.Nechodom@conservation.ca.qov]

Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:01 PM
To: Mike Smith

Subject: FW: DOC Daily Press Report for Friday, December 12, 2014
Mike,
Please pass along as you see fit. Al-Jazeera (English) is getting into the act. They were not very sophisticated about the
issues, and in fact were trying to provoke Jason (of whom I am increasingly proud as a DOC spokesperson). But just
wanted to give you and our IOGCC colleagues a heads up that there are others out there interested in our work.
best

1

 mn

From: Drysdale, Donald@DOC

Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2: 18 PM
To: Wilson, Ed@DOC; Stapler, Richard@CNRA; Sandoval, Gloria@CNRA
Cc: Nechodom, Mark@DOC; Marshall, Jason@DOC; Parrish, John@DOC; Bohlen, Steven@DOC; Haas, Clayton@DOC;
Geroch, John@DOC; Agusiegbe, Vincent@DOC; Habel, Rob@DOC; Lowrie, John@DOC; Reeves, Bruce@DOC; Pierce,
James@DOC; Turner, Justin@DOC; Cory, Loraine@DOC; Maldonado, Debbie@DOC; Paman, Alexander@DOC; Gordon,
Paul@DOC; Speaks, Joshua@DOC; Avakian, Vicki@DOC; Gomez, Saul@CNRA; Watson, Krista@DOC; Chan, Crina@DOC
Subject: DOC Daily Press Report for Friday, December 12, 2014

DOC: SB4, Water Usage
Al-Jazeera reporter Jennifer London, producer David Douglas and cameraperson
Sandra Stojanovich recorded a 40-minute interview with Department of
Conservation (DOC) Chief Deputy Director Jason Marshall regarding SB4
regulations, hydraulic fracturing and water usage. A number of questions related to
the amount of water used for hydraulic fracturing in California and whether that
should be allowed, given the ongoing drought. Marshall each time reminded the
reporter that DOC has no authority over water rights and usage, but has regulations
designed to protect water quality. The reporter also asked a number of questions
related to land-use; for example, the proximity of oil production to schools and
homes. Again, Marshall pointed out that while DOC' s regulations are designed to
protect health and safety, land use is a local matter per the California constitution.
The reporter also asked why the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
waited for the Legislature to pass SB 4 before regulating hydraulic fracturing.
Marshall explained that, in fact, the Division was drafting regulations at the time SB
4 was signed and adjusted its regulations accordingly. In response to a question,
Marshall also noted that efforts to outright ban the use of hydraulic fracturing had
failed in the Legislature. The Al Jazeera crew had interviewed environmental
groups and also some residents near the Inglewood Oil Field in Los Angeles prior
to visiting DOC and was planning to visit the State Water Board on Friday
afternoon. Story likely to air next week.

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, December 15, 2014 3:07 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster;
David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; fitchh@michigan.gov; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey; Jennifer Steber; Jim Welsh; John Baza;
Jon Williams; Joseph Pettey; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom
assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom ; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael
McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Paul
Schmierbach; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Etta; Sandy MacMullin ;
scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Article: How Big Oil Lobbies Permission for Fracking on Public Lands

An article has been pasted below, found on the Global Research website, that includes IOGCC
staff, regulators and government officials. Or you can read the article direct from the site,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-big-oil-lobbies-got-permission-for-fracking-on-public-landsincluded-in-the-us-defense-authorization-act/5419925 .

How Big Oil Lobbies Got Permission for Fracking on Public
Lands Included in the US Defense Authorization Act
By Steve Horn

Global Research, l)eccn1ber 15, 2014
DeSmogBlog

Region: USA

Theme: Environment, Oil and Energy

The U.S. Senate has voted 89-11 to approve the Defense Authorization Act o( 2015, following the December
4 U.S. House of Representatives' 300-119 up-vote and now awaits President Barack Obama 's signature.
The 1,616-page piece of pork barrel legislation contains a provision - among other controversial measures- to
streamline permitting for hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") on U.S. public lands overseen by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), a unit of the U.S. Department of Interior.

1

 Buried on page 1,156 of the bill as Section 3021 and subtitled "Bureau of Land Management Permit Processing," the
bill's passage has won praise from both the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Independent Petroleum
Association of America (]PAA) and comes on the heels of countries from around the world coming to a preliminaty
deal at the United Nations climate summit in Lima, Peru, to cap greenhouse gas emissions.
"We applaud the Senate ... and are hopeful the president signs this measure in a timely fashion," said Dan
Naatz, !PAA lobbyist and former congressional staffer, in a press release.
Alluding to the bottoming out of the global price of oil, Naatz further stated, "In these uncertain times of price
volatility, it's encouraging for America's job creators to have regulatory certainty through a streamlined
petmitting process."
Streamlined permitting means faster turn-around times for the industry's application process to drill on public lands,
bringing with it all of the filr,groundwater and climate change issues that encompass the shale production process.
At the bottom of the same press release, IPAA boasted of its ability to get the legislative proposal introduced
initially by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) as the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act of 2014 after holding an
"educational meeting" with Udall's staffers. Endorsed by some major U.S.environmental groups, Udall took more
than $191 ,000 from the oil and gas indusliy during his successful 2014 re-election campaign.
IPAA's publicly admitted influence-peddling efforts are but the tip of the iceberg for how Big Oil managed to stuff
expedited petmitting for fracking on U.S.public lands into the National Defense Authorization Act of2015.

IPAA, API Lobbying Blitz
According
to
Open
Secrets, IPAA, API, ExxonMobil, America's
Natural
Gas
Alliance
(ANGAl, ConocoPhillips and private equity fitm KKR- employer of former head of the CIA David Petraeus - all
deployed lobbyists to ensure passage of the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act, now Section 3021 in
the NOAA of2015.
In quatier two and three, KKR deployed Akin Gump's Ryan Thompson, chief-of-staff for climate change
denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) between 2002-2010, to lobby for the bill. A self-described "mini oil and gas
company," the New York City-headquatiered KKR owns numerous oil and gas assets in N01ih Dakota's Bakken
Shale basin.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Energy, fonnerly !mown as MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company and
owned by his holding company Berkshire Hathaway, also lobbied for the bill. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF),
owned by Berkshire Hathaway, is a major carrier of Bakken crude-by-rail.
Pilot Project Lifts Off
One of the original Senate-side co-sponsors of the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act was U.S. Sen. John
Hoeven CR-ND), who has also also served as a ringleader of other efforts to expedite permitting for fracking on
public lands. First elected to the Senate in 2010, before which he was the Governor of North Dakota, the oil and gas
industry has given Hoeven close to $325,000in contJ·ibutions since his preliminary Senate run.
In 2013, a bill he sponsored- the BLM Streamlining Act- passed by Congress with only one dissenting
vote between both chambers combined. It was signed into law by President Obama on the day after Christmas.
That Streamlining Act created a pilot project for expedited permitting of fracking on public lands in the Bakken
Shale. It was lobbied for by ExxonMobil,KKR, Marathon Oil, Chesapeake Energy and IPAA, among others.
By comparison, the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Act of 2014 and now its equivalent Section 3021 in the
National Defense Authorization Act of2015, expedites permitting offracking on all public lands.

2

 (1) in the .~e,cfJi<m. heading, by striking "P1LOT";

(2) by sfriking "PilDl Pro.iect" each place U ap-

vears a.nd inserting "Pro}ect";
(3)

in subsectfon (b)(2), by sfriking "Wymn'ing,

1l!ontana, ColDrado, Uta.It, and New 1llimico" and inserting "the States ·in which Project offietlS are lD(4) ·in subsecti&n (d)(A) in the subsection hemling, by striking
"l'ILO'l'"; and

(B) by a(lding (d the end the follDwing:
"(8) Any other State, dist1•ict, or jfeld office of
the Btweau qf' Land Management determined b:IJ the
Secnitary. ";
Image Credit: U.S. Government Printing Office
Hoeven had previously attempted to pass a bill to streamline fracking permitting on BLM public lands and
"recognize the primacy of States," calling it the Empower States Act of 2013. That bill was lobbied for by both
ExxonMobil and APL
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). formerly chaired by Hoeven, is another key organization
that has worked behind the scenes to expedite fracking permitting on public lands.
Founded by Oklahoma Governor E.W. Marland in 1935, the commission embodies the "deep state," bringing
regulators, industry lobbyists and executives all under the same tent with a key shared mission: maximize oil and
gas production.

3

 Prior to serving as Governor, Marlon headed Marland Oil Company, which eventually morphed into Continental Oil
Company and then Conoco. Conoco is now a spin-off of oil major ConocoPhillips.
At the indust1y-sponsored 2014 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commissionannual meeting in Columbus, Ohio that
I attended, the commission'sresolutions committee deliberated upon a model resolution to expedite permitting of oil
and gas drilling on BLM public lands in the spirit of Section 3021.

Coffee station sponsored by !HS-CERA at 2014 JOGCC annual meeting in Columbus. OH; Photo Credit:
Steve Horn
Sitting to my left in the small room was Tom Yarnick, environmental and regulatory advisor for XTO Energy, an
ExxonMobil subsidiary.
According to a conference attendance roster obtained by DeSmogBlog, Yarnick was one of 70 industry
representatives present in Columbus out of 179 total registrants, equaling 46 percent of attendees.
Due to some legal complications and hang-ups in nuances in the resolution's language, it was tabled until IOGCC's
2015 Annual Business Meeting scheduled in May and set to take place in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Lynn Helms, a resolutions committee member and director of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, told the
committee that Hoeven was working on legislation aiming for a similar outcome.
Helms - who used to work for the oil company Hess Corporation - was likely referring to the BLM Permit
Processing Improvement Act of2014, which Hoeven co-sponsored and had passed unanimously in the Senate just a
month earlier. Helms told his IOGCC colleagues that he was in touch with Ryan Bernstein, Hoeven's legal counsel
and chief-of-staff, on the issue.
Carol Booth, communications manager for !OGCC, confirmed in an interview with DeSmogBlog at the Columbus
meeting that Helms - in his IOGCCcapacity- is working with Hoeven's office to push for a "states first"
approach for BLM permitting offracking. Booth also spoke to the importance of IOGCCmodel resolutions at-large.

4

 "Those usually start as the process for somewhere else we need to go," she said. "Lynn Helms is taking that
resolution to Senator Hoeven and Senator Hoeven will look at it and it's kind of us urging Congress [to do
something] and we will write the bill or work with his staff to write a bill to introduce."
IOGCC, which also runs the States First Initiative, was also a major behind-the-scenes player behind the push for the
passage of the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. The bill mandated fast-tracked
permitting for fracking by essentially removing the federal govemment from the process altogether.

"SEC. 44. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
REGULATION.

"(a) IN GENERAl1.-'I1he Department of the Interior
shall not enforce any Federal regulation, guidance, or permit requirement regarding hydraulic fracturing, or any
component of that process, relating to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities on or under any land in any
State that has regulation.'5, guidance,

01·

permit require-

rnents for that activity.
"(b) STATE AUTIIOR.ITY.-The Departlnent of the

Interior shall recognize and defer to State regulations,
permitting, and guidance, for all activities related to hydraulic fracturing, or any component of that process, relating· to oil, gas, or geothern1al production activities on
Federal land.
Image Credit: US. Government Printing Office
Passed by the House in a 235-187 vote, the bill failed to make it out of the Senate. Numerous industry interest
groups lobbied on behalf of the bill, including Marathon Oil, Chevron, Devon Energy, Chesapeake
Energy, APl,ANGA, ExxonMobil and many others.
E-mails obtained via the North Dakota Open Records Statute from the Nmth Dakota Industrial Commission
reveal IOGCC coordinated with the office ofU.S.House Majority Leader Jolm Boehner (R-OH) to gather signatures
from state-level regulatory commissions in support the bill's passage.
"! would sincerely appreciate your help with obtaining state oil and gas commission letters of suppo1t
for R.R. 2728," reads an e-mail from Maryam Brown - top energy policy advisor to Boehner and fonner public
policy manager for ConocoPhillips - written to Carl Michael Smith, IOGCC's executive director.
5

 "Attached is the bill, as amended in committee," Brown's e-mail to Smith continues. "Also attached is a one pager
developed by the committee as well as letters of support from the Governor of Utah, [U.S.] Chamber [of
Commerce], [National Association of Manufacturers], [Association of Corporate Counsel], [American Energy
Alliance] and [American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers]. While there is a strong energy industry suppott, as
you can see, there is a great deal of manufacturing support as well."
Smith, former secretary of energy in Oklahoma and assistant secretary of energy for fossil energy under the George
W. Bush Administration, then forwarded the email query from Brown to a dozen and a half state-level regulators.
"As noted in Maryam's email below the Act has already received a lot of broad support," wrote Smith. "As also
noted, she is requesting your suppott as a state regulator. .. If you are able to send a letter you might consider the
language in the others attached, and please send me a copy for our files."
In between working for the U.S. Department of Energy and the IOGCC, Smith worked at The Abraham Group. The
Abraham Group is a lobbying firm founded by Spencer Abraham - Secretary of Energy under George W. Bush and
cutTent chairman and CEO of the firm - which has played an influential role in expediting permitting for fracked
gas exports.
Additional e-mails show Gerry Baker, IOGCC associate executive director, also got involved in BLM-related
fracking permitting advocacy on behalf of the oil and gas industry. In a May 2013 email, Baker mobilized state-level
regulators to write comments to the BLM on its proposed mies for fracking on public lands.
"Please feel free to share your thoughts with other state officials on your evaluation of the proposed rules as time
permits," Baker wrote in the email. "Also, a number of sources have asked for additional time to prepared (sic)
comments; however, the granting of these requests cannot be assumed. Let me know if you have any questions."
IOGCC also made the cut for a small distribution list of a July 2013 letter sent out via email by William Whitsitt,
executive vice president for public affairs for Devon, in opposition to the BLM's draft rules for fracking on
public lands.

6

 From: "Whitsitt, Bill" <§lll.Whitsjtt@dyn.com>
Date: July 10, 201;1, 10:35:14AM CDT
To: (\NGA Amy Farrell <afarre!!@anga.us>, API Erik Miiito <:m!l!toe@apl.onp, API Richard Ranger
<rangerr@apLore>, AXPC Bruce Thompson <btbompson@axpc com>, "CEI Marlo Lewis" <Mlewjs@cej.ore>,
"GWPC Mike Paque" <:mpaque@swpc orti>, IECA Paul Cicio <p~ldo@carbopleaf.net>, "IER Dan Kish"
<dkish@!erdc.org>, "IOGCC Mike Smith" <mjke.smltb@jogcc.state.ok.us>, IPAA Dan Naatz
<dnaatz®lpaa org>1 NAM Ross Eisenberg <rejsenberg@nam org>, "NGSAJeffSchrade"
<Jeff.Schrade@l!jGSA.org>, "RGPPC Marie Sanderson" <msander$on@rgppc.org>, "USC Rob Engstrom"
<rengstrom@uscharnber.CQm>
C:c: "Wright, Allen" <Allen,Wtigbt@dyo com>, "Rosen, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Roseo@dvn com>, "Rockwood,
9_9_2014

Page2
Brentll <Brent Bgckwogd@dyn rom>
Subject: BLM's Rep·Proposed HF Rule and Energy Federalism

All:
Just a note to proVide you With Devon's initial comments to the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) on the BLM's newly proposed draft rule to place sweeping and unnecessary federal regulations on
hydraulic fracturing operations on federal and lndfan lands.
As you are preparing comments to be ffled directly with the BLM bV August 23, or are involved in other matters
surrounding the rule, we thought It would be helpful to share Devon's current analysis and views ln the attached
comments-· despite the fact that we fully expect to have an even more thorough understanding of the rule's
costs, Collection burdens, operational impacts and delays as we coritinue to analyie the new draft rule for our
own August comments to Bl.M.
Image Credit: North Dakota Industrial Commission
Whitsitt e-mailed Devon's comment to IOGGC's Smith and numerous other industry officials, as well as to industryfunded think-tankers and trade association representatives.
He also called on them to suppott the Federal Land Freedom Act, a billsponsored by Inhofe, co-sponsored by
Hoeven, and lobbied for by ExxonMobil,API, IP AA and the industry-funded Heritage Foundation. Throughout
his U.S.Senate career, Inhofe has accepted over $1.72 million in campaign contributions from the oil and
gas industry.

White House Help: Heather Zichal
The Obama White House has also long shown interest in the expedited permitting approach for fracking, portending
a likely looming sign-off on the bill.
Beyond signing the BLM Streamlining Act into law on December 26, 2013,President Obama also authorized
Executive Orders in March 2012 and May 2013 calling on streamlined permitting of all energy
infrastructure projects.
During her time as Obama White House top energy and climate aide, Heather Zichal - now on the Board of
Directors for fracked gas exporting company Cheniere - oversaw the signing of an April 2012 Executive Order
mandating creation of an interagency working group to streamline regulatory oversight for fracking in the U.S.

7

 Zichal also laid the groundwork for lack of transparency on injection of fracking chemicals into the ground
on U.S. public lands, bringing the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) approach for chemical
transparency to theBLM. Before inserting the provision into the BLM draft rules currently being finalized, Zichal
"huddled" with the industry numerous times.
"Zichal met more than 20 times in 2012 with industry groups and company executives lobbying on the proposed
rule," reported EnergyWire. "Among them were the American Petroleum Institute (AP!) and the Independent
Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), along with BP America Inc., Devon Energy C01p. and Exxon
Mobil Coip."
IOGCC's Carol Booth told DeSmogBlog that Zichal used to reach out to IOGCC on a regular basis for questions
pe1iaining to fracking.
She "used to reach out to us and we haven't been contacted since [by the Obama White House]," said Booth. "She
reached out to us, especially when it came to FracFocus."
BLM's draft rules for fracking on public lands, which Zichal played a central role in mediating and crafting, chose
the IOGCC-run FracFocus as its central repository for disclosure offracking chemicals.
Brothers & Company, an Oklahoma-based public relations firm, registered the website domain for FracFocus and
an archived version of the Brothers website lists IOGCC as a client. Other Brothers clients, both past and present,
include Chesapeake Energy, ANGA, American Energy Partners and Devon Energy.
Asked if Zichal's outreach to IOGCC coincides with BLM's choice to streamline fracking permits, Booth responded,
"!couldn't tell you why that is, I really can't."

Protect Our Public Lands Act
Despite obvious extreme odds stacked against them, two members of the U.S.House Progressive Caucus - with
the support of Food and Water Watch and several other progressive groups -have introduced a bill to ban fracking
onU.S. public lands.
Sponsored by U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wl) and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), the two-page Protect Our
Public Lands Act "prohibit[s] the lessee from conducting any activity under the lease for the purpose of hydraulic
fracturing."
"We owe it to our children and grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren, to ensure the protection of
public lands," said Schakowsky of her support for the legislation. "This bill - in banning fracking on those lands helps us follow through on that important promise."
But only one thing can really receive a promise in this case: public interest groups are in a David vs. Goliath fight.
And Goliath, clearly, is well-organized and well-mobilized on the issue as 2014 comes to a close.

Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

8

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, January 05, 2015 9:01 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred
Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James Martin ; Jami
Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa
Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson;
Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman;
Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tim Baker; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Member state poll on enabling statutes

We hope all of our members had a great holiday season. We, at IOGCC, are ready to kick-off 2015 with upcoming
announcements about the Annual Business Meeting, more States First information, states' surveys and statutes
updates, developing IOGCC programs and plans, welcome new governors and members and more.
To start this year, one of our member states would like information from other IOGCC member states about the
following:
How many states and provinces include the terms "foster", "promote", or "encourage" in their enabling statutes or
policy statutes?
Please send me your information or contact me with any questions. I will have the majority of results compiled within a
couple weeks and send out final compilations.
As always, we greatly appreciate your time and input to help each member state.
Best Wishes,
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <Caro\Booth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, January 06, 2015 1:36 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey;
Jim Welsh; joe.pettey@yahoo.com; John Baza; Jon Williams; Lawrence Bengal; Lisa
Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Paul Schmierbach;
Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Amy Childers; Hannah Barton
Interior Secretary Jewell interview

Just in case you hadn't read this article or heard about the interview:

U.S. Interior Secretary Criticizes Fracking Bans, Citing 'a Lot of Misinformation'
By Jillian Kay Melchior
January 5, 2015 2:32 PM

Recent local and state fracking restrictions are "the \vrong way to go," says Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.

She spoke only \Veeks after New York imposed a fracking ban. a decision the state justified by citing a much-criticized state department of health
report on the supposed negative public-health consequences, including "community impacts associated with boom-town economic effects."

Though Jewell did not directly address New York's fracking ban, she told KOED. a northern-California public TV and radio outlet, that "there is a
lot of misinformation about fracking."

[Jewell said:] "I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don't understand the science behind it and I think there

needs to be more science."

Jewell said she's counting on government scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies to "really help us understand
what is happening on the landscapes with hydraulic fracturing and also deep water injections, induced seismicity, those kinds of things."

"What we need is sound science that is driving our decision-making," Jewell said, "and as a regulator that is exactly what we're relying
on as we are looking at releasing our own !racking regulations, which are out for public comment."

But so far, credible science has not supported many of the alarmist claims about !racking. In fact, government agencies, including
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, have found no evidence that the energy-extraction process has
contaminated groundwater. Meanwhile, many of the studies cited by !racking critics are biased, funded by green groups hell-bent on
bending the science to fit a thesis.

1

 Carol Booth

Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, January 07, 2015 12:14 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jami Bailey;
Jim Welsh; joe.pettey@yahoo.com; John Baza ; Jon Williams; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa
Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark
Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Paul Schmierbach;
Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom
Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Amy Childers; Hannah Barton
BLM leases issued in 2014

FEWEST OIL, GAS LEASES ISSUED IN FY2014 IN DECADES - BLM STATS: The Bureau of Land
Management issued fewer new oil and gas leases in fiscal 2014 than in any year since at least 1988, according
to statistics released by the agency on Monday. BLM issued 1,157 leases in FY2014, down from 1,468 the year
before. However, BLM leased slightly more acreage than 2013, and the number of producing leases on federal
lands ticked up to 23,657, the highest figure since at least 1988. While BLM said the acreage offered was "in
excess of industry demand" -BLM offered 5.7 million acres for lease last year, with the industry bidding on
1.2 million acres - oil and gas producers have long complained that the Obama administration has left many of
the richest resource areas off the table, such as much of Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve. More BLM stats:
http://on.doi.gov/1 kkwuSs

Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:09 AM
Anthony Duplechin, Jr.; Bethany Mccorkle; Brent Allen; Bret Smelser; Bruce Anders ; C.
Edmon Larrimore; Charlie Burd ; Christopher Castilian; David Chernicky; David Ford
Martineau ; David Galt; David Sykuta ; Edward Cross; F.W. Pete Brown; Gerry Baker;
Jack.ekstrom@whiting.com; James Edsel ; Jennifer Hoffman; Jep Seman; Jessica Cavens;
John Gabbard; John Rupp; Julie Williams; Lee C. Gerhard; Lynn Helms; Mark Shreve;
Mike McDonald; Mike Smith; Mike Terry; Pam Koscinski; Randy Foutch; Rhonda Reda;
Rich Haut; Robert Devine; Robert Kiker; Robert Orndorff; Robert Sullivan, Jr.; Ron
Ness; Steve Meadows; Steven Agee; Terry Adamson; Theodore Rockwell; Thomas
Price Jr. Jr. (tom.price@chk.com); Thomas Stewart; William Daugherty; Bradley C.
Lambert; Bradley Field; Brian Love; Cathy Foerster; Dan Seamount; David Porter; Derric
Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Harold Fitch; Herschel
McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph
Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom
assistant); Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael
Teague; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers;
Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht;
Steven Rauzi ; Tim Baker; Tom Schultz; William Sydow
IOGCC Annual Business project - Public Outreach

The tally is in and the Public Outreach Committee will develop an Energy Education project while reaffirming its mission
of "educating the American public about our domestic oil and natural gas industry and the IOGCC's role in its promotion
and preservation. While issues publicly arise everyday concerning our nation's oil and gas, Public Outreach strives to
communicate the IOGCC's role as the information and research authority on domestic petroleum resources."
We are now asking for our Public Outreach Committee members and other interested IOGCC members to participate in
this project. We will begin conference calls in early February.
The first conference call will discuss the direction and details of the project with a projected time line. If you would like to
participate and contribute fresh Ideas in the Energy Education project, please contact me.
The IOGCC greatly appreciates any time and support you can offer towards any of our committees' projects. Please let
me know if you have any questions.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, January 26, 2015 11:02 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; J. Dale Nations; Jim Welsh;
John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom
assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael Teague;
Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; scperry@pa.gov;
Shari Feist-Albrecht; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Invitation to The Energy Council's 2015 Federal Energy and Environmental Matters
Conference

Again this year we have been Invited to participate in the Energy Council's Spring Meeting in DC as a participant. Below
is a meeting announcement for your consideration. This gives our IOGCC Official Representatives an opportunity to visit
with their congressional delegations and various federal agencies. I plan to attend on behalf represent us.
Carl Michael Smith
Executive Director
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
From: The Energy Council [mailto:reg@theenergvcouncil.org]

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:56 PM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Invitation to The Energy Council's 2015 Federal Energy and Environmental Matters Conference

1

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 1:07 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field ; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Catanach; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok;
Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations;
James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC);
Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lori Wrotenbery;
Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael
Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard
Simmers; Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari FeistAlbrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tim Baker; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Hanson, Andrew
Invitation from IOGCC leadership to its membership

Dear Official Representatives and Oil and Gas Directors:
The US EPA has offered a briefing for state stakeholders interested in how the newly announced methane emissions
strategy could potentially affect oil and gas operations. I encourage you to participate or pass along this information to
someone on your staff who could learn more about what the Administration is planning. I would also encourage you to
reach out to the appropriate state air quality regulators in your state to participate or advise you on their understanding
of the strategy. They are welcome to participate in this briefing. Please call me if you have questions and I will attempt
to answer or advance questions you might have.

I know everyone is busy, so I appreciate any time you or your staff could spare on this issue.
GB
405.525.3556 x112
Upcoming Briefing on EPA on Methane Strategy and Forthcoming Oil and Gas Regulations, February 18, 2015
U.S. oil production is at its highest level in nearly 30years, providing important energy security and economic
benefits. The U.S. is also now the largest natural gas producer in the world, providing an abundant source of cleanburning fuel to power and heat American homes and businesses. At the same time, methane -the primary component
of natural gas- is a potent greenhouse gas, with 25 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide.
On January 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced its next steps to cut methane emissions under the Strategy
to Reduce Methane Emissions announced in March 2014. As part of that strategy, EPA will initiate a rulemaking to set
standards for greenhouse gas and VOC emissions from new and modified oil and gas production and processing sources,
and natural gas transmission and storage sources. EPA intends to issue a proposed rule in the summer of 2015 and a
final rule in 2016. Additionally, EPA plans to develop new guidelines to assist states in reducing ozone-forming
pollutants from existing oil and gas systems in areas that do not meet the ozone health standard and in states in the
Ozone Transport Region. The guidelines will help states that are developing clean air ozone plans by providing ready-toadopt control measures that they can include in those plans.
EPA plans to work with industry, states, tribes, and other stakeholders during this process. With that in mind, and
consistent with the principles put forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the IOGCC and the EPA, we
invite you to participate in a conference call during which EPA will brief you on the methane strategy and forthcoming

1

 regulatory actions. The call will take place on Wednesday, February 18, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The call in
number will be 1-866-299-3188, access code 202-565-4219.
Thank you for your attention to and assistance with this, and we look forward to hearing from you on Wednesday,
February 18 at 3:30 p.m., Eastern.

2

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:19 AM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Catanach; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok;
Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations;
James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC);
Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lori Wrotenbery;
Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael
Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard
Simmers; Ronald Efta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari FeistAlbrecht; Steven Rauzi ; Tim Baker; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Hanson, Andrew
Briefing Today - EPA Methane Strategy and Regulations

Dear Official Representatives and Oil and Gas Directors:
This is a reminder that the US EPA will hold a conference call today at 3:30 pm Eastern to brief everyone on the
forthcoming regulations and strategy to reduce methane emissions. US EPA is reaching out to state regulators to join
this conversation.
We encourage you to participate or pass along this information to someone on your staff who could learn more about
what the Administration is planning. We would also encourage you to reach out to the appropriate state air quality
regulators in your state to participate or advise you on their understanding of the strategy. They are welcome to
participate in this briefing. Please call me if you have questions and I will attempt to answer or advance questions you
might have.
I know everyone is busy, so I appreciate any time you or your staff could spare on this issue.
The call in number will be 1-866-299-3188, access code 202-565-4219.

Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

Upcoming Briefing on EPA on Methane Strategy and Forthcoming Oil and Gas Regulations, February 18, 2015
U.S. oil production is at its highest level in nearly 30 years, providing important energy security and economic
benefits. The U.S. is also now the largest natural gas producer in the world, providing an abundant source of cleanburning fuel to power and heat American homes and businesses. At the same time, methane - the primary component
of natura I gas - is a potent greenhouse gas, with 25 times the heat-trapping potential of carbon dioxide.
On January 14, 2015, the Obama Administration announced its next steps to cut methane emissions under the Strategy
to Reduce Methane Emissions announced in March 2014. As part of that strategy, EPA will initiate a rulemaking to set
standards for greenhouse gas and VOC emissions from new and modified oil and gas production and processing sources,
1

 and natural gas transmission and storage sources. EPA intends to issue a proposed rule in the summer of 2015 and a
final rule in 2016. Additionally, EPA plans to develop new guidelines to assist states in reducing ozone-forming
pollutants from existing oil and gas systems in areas that do not meet the ozone health standard and in states in the
Ozone Transport Region. The guidelines will help states that are developing clean air ozone plans by providing ready-toadopt control measures that they can include in those plans.
EPA plans to work with industry, states, tribes, and other stakeholders during this process. With that in mind, and
consistent with the principles put forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the IOGCC and the EPA, we
invite you to participate in a conference call during which EPA will brief you on the methane strategy and forthcoming
regulatory actions. The call will take place on Wednesday, February 18, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time. The call in
number will be 1-866-299-3188, access code 202-565-4219.
Thank you for your attention to and assistance with this, and we look forward to hearing from you on Wednesday,
February 18 at 3:30 p.m., Eastern.

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:40 PM
mark.deering@dmme.virginia.gov; WygantA@michigan.gov;
Frank.Lindsey@CountryMark.com; holly.kneeshaw@dec.ny.gov; kklapkowsk@pa.gov;
blebaron@utah.gov; jryder@pa.gov; clozo@arb.ca.gov; Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley
Field; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan Seamount; David Catanach;
David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok; Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry
Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations; James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim
Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC); Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin ;
Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lori Wrotenbery; Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom;
Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy
Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard Simmers; Ronald Efta; Ryan
Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tim
Baker; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
Hanson, Andrew
US EPA Briefing Summary

Today US EPA representatives held a conference call to brief interested parties about its next steps to cut methane
emissions under the Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions, specifically oil and gas sector methane reduction. These
steps are in support of a broader strategy and to implement legal requirements from the Clean Air Act.
US EPA has given us a link that will provide an overview of the discussion today and offer additional information from its
white papers and other sources (left side of the linked page). We will continue this discussion with US EPA as they move
forward in final actions that include the review of four rules for the oil and natural gas industry: a new source
performance standard for VOCs; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and
natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.
www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas
Please contact me or Gerry Baker, Gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us, if you should have any questions or need more
details. We look forward to everyone's continued participation and open dialogue with US EPA.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2:22 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; Bradley Field; Brian Love; C. Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; Dan
Seamount; David Catanach; David Porter; Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Ed Dancsok;
Ed Garrett; Fred Allen; Gerry Baker; Harold Fitch; Herschel McDivitt; J. Dale Nations;
James Martin ; Jami Bailey; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Kim Collings (EEC);
Lawrence Bengal; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lori Wrotenbery;
Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom; Mark Watson; Matt Lepore; Michael McGehee; Michael
Teague; Mike Smith; Nancy Johnson; Nick Tew; Paul Jeakins; Richard Perry; Richard
Simmers; Ronald Etta; Ryan Hoffman; Sandy MacMullin; scperry@pa.gov; Shari FeistAlbrecht; Steven Rauzi; Tim Baker; Tom Schultz; William Daugherty; William Sydow
FracFocus 3.0 Announcement
FF press release 2-26-15.pdf

As some of you may already know, GWPC and IOGCC are making some major changes to FracFocus. With some of our
states that require disclosure to the website, these changes will only improve your accessibility and data accuracy. Those
who do not already require FracFocus may want to revisit the idea of its usage as we are improving the website's
features that many of you have asked for.
I have attached the press release that will be sent out to media on Thursday, February 26'.". This press release is to
inform you of the upcoming improvements and to help if you should receive any questions.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 For Immediate Release
February 26, 2015

FracFocus
Chemical Disclosure Registry

Contact:
Ground Water Protection Council

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission

405.S 16.4972

405.525.3556

mnicklaus@gwpc.org

communications@iogcc.ok.gov

Major Improvements to FracFocus Coming Soon

As it enters its fomth year, FracFocus, the nationwide system for disclosing chemicals used in the hydraulic
fracturing process, continues to improve its performance and versatility.
The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC),
joint venture paitners in the FracFocus initiative, announce the coming release of improvements to FracFocus'
system functionality. Among the new features for 2015 include:
•
•
•
•

Reduce the number of human errors in disclosures
Expand the public's ability to search records
Provide public extraction of data in a "machine readable" format
Update educational information on chemical use, oil & gas production and impacts

The installation of new self-checking features in the system will help companies detect and correct possible
errors before disclosures are submitted. This feature will detect errors verifying that Chemical Abstract Service
numbers (CASRN's) meet the proper format.
A new "systems approach" will decrease the need for filing trade secret claims in order to protect proprietary.
fracturing ingredients. This improvement will allow companies to file a complete list of .chemicals used in a hydraulic fracturing job. This approach, which provides fuller transparency of.chemical additives, was requested
by many of the operating companies.
The public's ability to search records will be expanded by increasing the numbei' ofspec'fi
searched.
•.;!sW ..
\<'

\?~~:

Improved capability to capture data through the extraction of "machine readable" di' .
data access for the public. At present FracFocus records are available only in PDF farina ,..

c

These improvements will continue the site's goal in providing highly accurate inforrnation•lJ.!'i(>JJ,jfi
in individual hydraulic fracturing operations. An additional dozen small improvements will
companies and the public to access data more efficiently.
FracFocus is the state oil and gas agencies repotting option of choice with twenty states currently h
closures on the website. Plus, a licensed version of the system is operating in five Canadian province .
100,000 accessible disclosures and more than I million visitors to the site from 134 countries, FracFocus will
continue to expand its capabilities and enhance functionality for public use.

www.fracfocus.org

 '0,

I

i

For Immediate Release
February 26, 2015

'

v·

FracFocus
Chemical Disclosure Registry

Contact:
Ground Water Protection Council

Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission

405.516.4972

405.525.3556

mnicklaus@gwpc.org

communications@iogcc.ok.gov

Major Improvements to FracFocus Coming Soon

As it enters its fomth year, FracFocus, the nationwide system for disclosing chemicals used in the hydraulic
fracturing process, continues to improve its performance and versatility.
The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC),
joint venture paitners in the FracFocus initiative, announce the coming release of improvements to FracFocus'
system functionality. Among the new features for 2015 include:
•
•
•
•

Reduce the number of human errors in disclosures
Expand the public's ability to search records
Provide public extraction of data in a "machine readable" format
Update educational information on chemical use, oil & gas production and impacts

The installation of new self-checking features in the system will help companies detect and c01Tect possible
errors before disclosures are submitted. This feature will detect errors verifying that Chemical Abstract Service
numbers (CASRN's) meet the proper format.
A new "systems approach" will decrease the need for filing trade secret claims in order to protect proprietary
fracturing ingredients. This improvement will allow companies to file a complete list of chemicals used in a hydraulic fracturing job. This approach, which provides fuller transparency of chemical additives, was requested
by many of the operating companies.

These improvements will continue the site's goal in providing highly accurate infonnatiori~bo).l[¢hl~t!\
in individual hydraulic fracturing operations. An additional dozen small improvements will a1l1j'ifpa
companies and the public to access data more efficiently.
FracF ocus is the state oil and gas agencies reporting option of choice with twenty states currently h
closures on the website. Plus, a licensed version of the system is operating in five Canadian province .
100,000 accessible disclosures and more than 1 million visitors to the site from 134 countries, FracFocus will
continue to expand its capabilities and enhance functionality for public use.

www.fracfocus.org

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:44 PM
Bradley C. Lambert; C.Edmon Larrimore; Cathy Foerster; David Catanach; David Porter;
Derric Iles (derric.iles@usd.edu); Gerry Baker; Hannah Barton; Harold Fitch; J. Dale
Nations; Jim Welsh; John Baza ; Joseph Pettey; Lawrence Bengal ; Lisa Ivshin; Loraine
Cory (M. Nechodom assistant); Lynn Helms; Mark Nechodom ; Mark Watson; Matt
Lepore; Michael Teague; Mike Mankowski; Mike Smith; Nick Tew; Richard Perry; Richard
Simmers; Ron McAhron; Ronald Efta; Scott Perry; Shari Feist-Albrecht; Tom Schultz;
William Daugherty; William Sydow
Oklahoman article and cartoon
OK op-ed 6-10-15.pdf; Oklahoman cartoon.gif

Please see the attached op-ed article and cartoon from today's Oklahoman.
Carol Booth
Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Good news about fracking prompts
hysteria from environmentalists
They say exhaustive EPA study is 'incomplete'
by The

Oklahoman Editorial Board Published: Jwie 10, 2015

IT'S telling that the extremism of the environmental movement has reached the point
that some of its members now insist the Obama administration is engaged in a grand
conspiracy with Big Oil.
Why are those environmentalists connecting dots that don't line up (or even exist)?
Because the federal Environmental Protection Agency's initial draft of a four-year study
of hydraulic fracturing concluded that fracking doesn't have "widespread, systemic
impacts on drinking water."
The study released last week noted that between 25,000 and 30,000 new wells were
drilled and hydraulically fractured annually in the United States between 2011 and 2014,
yet ground water contamination occurred in only a relative handful of instances. And
even those instances of contamination were mostly tied to accidents or peripheral
activities, not the actual process of hydraulic fracturing.
Environmental groups responded by criticizing the report "for being incomplete and
heavily influenced by the energy industry," The Oklahoman's Chris Casteel reported.
Incomplete? The study took four years and included more than 950 sources of
information, including published papers, numerous technical reports, information from
stakeholders and peer-reviewed EPA scientific reports.
Given the mountain of evidence involved, one has to wonder just how much it will take
before environmentalists give up their obsession. At this point, the belief that fracking
causes widespread pollution of the water supply can only be described as an article of
faith untethered from reason. Thus, some have resorted to conspiracy theories to
explain away the EPA's findings.
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, claims the EPA study had
"undue influence from the energy industry." "The fate of our precious water resources
should not be decided by an industry-driven study that will be used to justify the
industry's desire to drill and frack many thousands of new wells across the country each
year," Hauter said.
That claim doesn't pass the laugh test. The Obama administration has been actively
hostile to domestic energy production. The industry and the president have been at
constant odds, and Obama has pushed numerous policies designed to curtail and
prohibit domestic energy production. No serious person truly believes the president is in
bed with oil companies.
No doubt, some environmentalists will simply jump from their now-discredited waterpollution objections to overhyping other alleged fracking problems. The link with

 inducted earthquakes could become the favored talking point for anti-energy groups.
But the link there isn't between earthquakes and fracking, but between earthquakes and
wastewater disposal wells
And scientists suggest induced earthquakes can be reduced without eliminating most
energy production. That point was made clear by Harley Benz, director of the National
Earthquake Information Center for the U.S. Geological Survey and a co-author of a
research paper that found links between oil production and earthquakes.
In a recent interview with the Tulsa World, Benz said the vast majority of injection wells
aren't causing problems, that only a handful of injection wells are seismically
problematic.
In short, we're now certain that fracking doesn't normally pollute drinking water.
Injection wells may contribute to earthquakes, but mostly in isolated cases, which
means state regulation can address that problem.
That's good news for Oklahoma's economy and for consumers needing an affordable
supply of energy, even if it leaves anti-energy zealots clinging to increasingly bizarre
arguments.

 Page 1of1

f;lp· / 111'· ITT op,-o/'J7 <;,.;<;?I A nnDoto/T .oc.e l/Mic.rosoft/Windows/Temoorarv%20Internet%20File...

7/6/2015

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:
Attachments:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:50 PM
Jay Albert; Craig Sundstrom
Jodi McKee
FW: The Global Implications of Enhanced Oil Recovery
National One Pager v 2.pdf

Any value in attending?

From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:37 AM
To: David Porter; Michael Teague; Doug Louis; Jim Welsh; Nick Tew; 'Helms, Lynn D.'; 'Grant Black'; Lisa Ivshin
Cc: Mike Moore; Kenneth J. Nemeth (nemeth@sseb.org) (nemeth@sseb.org)
Subject: FW: The Global Implications of Enhanced Oil Recovery
All Governor Bryant is hosting an EOR Symposium in Jackson on March 6 (as shown below). IOGCC is a host
organization. You are receiving this special invitation as Official Representatives of active (and potential) EOR states.
hope you can join us!
Thanks, Mike

From: Mike Moore [mailto:mmoore@fearnoil.com]

Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 9:20 AM
To: Kenneth J. Nemeth (nemeth@sseb.org) (nemeth@sseb.org); Mike Smith
Subject: The Global Implications of Enhanced Oil Recovery

Mike and Ken
Per our emails this morning here is the invite email and the attached flyer. The agenda is still draft but will get
it out to you later this week as we confirm the last of the our speakers.
All the best and thank you!
Mike

RICE UNIVERSITY and MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

Invite you to a Symposium on The Global Implications of Enhanced Oil
Recovery
1

 On March

5th,

Mississippi will welcome state and national leaders to discuss the advancement of

Mississippi's leadership in the arena of enhanced oil recovery through carbon capture and utilization. Hosts
include the Institute for 21st Century Energy, Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission, Southern States
Energy Board, North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association and the Mississippi Energy Institute.

The Symposium will begin on March 6th at 8:30 a.m. at the Jackson Marriott Hotel. Mississippi
Governor Phil Bryant will provide welcoming remarks to be followed by several guest speakers and panelists
throughout the day.

Prior to the symposium, a special reception has been planned for the evening before on March
5th.

Please RSVP today by responding to this email or by calling the telephone number listed below in order to

register for this event. Upon registering, you will be provided with additional details and the full agenda to the
Symposium.

Please note this invitation is non-transferable and a limited number of hotel rooms are available at the
Jackson Marriott at a special rate for Symposium attendees only. Please feel free to contact Adair
Cunningham at 601.948.6020 or acunningham@capitolresourcesllc.com with any questions you may have
regarding the event.

2

 RICE UNIVERSITY and MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

Invite you to a
Symposium on the Global Implications of
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Thursday, March

6th

8:30a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Jackson Marriott Hotel
200 East Amite Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant will deliver welcoming remarks.

Hosts
Institute for 21 81 Century Energy
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
North American Carbon Capture & Storage Association
Mississippi Energy Institute
Southern States Energy Board
Please RSVP and direct any questions to Adair Cunningham - 601.948.6020 or
acunningham@capitolresourcesllc,com.

Please note this invitation is non-transferable. A limited number of rooms are available at the Jackson
Marriott Hotel at a special rate for Symposium attendees (601.969.5100

http://www. ma rriott. co m/hotels/tra vel/j an mc-j ackso n-m arri ott/).

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, February 05, 2014 3:14 PM
Laurel Baird
RE: IOGCC - Dinner with Steering committee/Officers

We will plan on being there a little after 7. My wife, Dawn, is coming to the Governor's reception with me on
Monday. Do you know if any other spouses will be at dinner?
Mike
From: Laurel Baird [mailto:laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 8:24 AM
To: Michael Teague
Subject: Re: IOGCC - Dinner with Steering committee/Officers

They are having dinner on Monday at the Skirvin. They probably won't be there until 6:30 - 7:00 so Mike said please join
them when you're done with the governor.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 4, 2014, at 6:28 PM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
We will not be able to be there as we will be in Tulsa. Are they still planning on a dinner on the
10th? The Governor has a reception from 5-7 on the 101h so we could come over afterwards.
Mike
From: Laurel Baird [mailto:laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:16 PM
To: Michael Teague

Subject: IOGCC - Dinner with Steering committee/Officers
Good Afternoon,
I wanted to follow up and see if you were going to be able to join Mike Smith and the IOGCC Steering
committee for drinks and dinner on Sunday, February gth beginning at 5:30 pm?
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
{405) 525-3556 x 101
laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, February 10, 2014 8:16 AM
Laurel Baird
Re: JOGCC Steering Committee Meeting

Laurel
Something came up this morning. I'll be there by 10:30.
Mike
On Feb 7, 2014, at 16:52, "Laurel Baird" <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Good Afternoon All,
I wanted to send you my cell phone number just in case you have any questions or need anything once
you arrive in OKC. Please don't hesitate in using it. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can.
It is: (405) 990-1151.
Safe travels and see you bright and early Monday morning!!
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la ure I. ba i rd@iogcc.state. o k. us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:

To:
Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:28 PM
Mike Smith; Foerster, Catherine P (DOA); Bill Daugherty; Nechodom, Mark@DOC; Nick
Tew
Gerry Baker; Laurel Baird; Carol Booth; Erica Carr
RE: Message from "RNP00267351BES4"

The response from Gov Fallin is:
"The governor, her secretary of energy and environment, the corporation commission, researchers at OU, and the
energy industry itself all continue to monitor Oklahoma's seismic activity and to ensure that drilling and exploration in
Oklahoma are safe and responsible. Oklahoma does not, however, have a formal working group like Kansas."
-----Original Message----From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:31 AM
To: Foerster, Catherine P (DOA); Bill Daugherty; Nechodom, Mark@DOC; Nick Tew; Michael Teague
Cc: Gerry Baker; Laurel Baird; Carol Booth; Erica Carr
Subject: FW: Message from "RNP00267351BE54"
From today's Oklahoman. I am scheduling a meeting with Gov. Brown back.
Mike
-----Original Message----From: noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us [mailto:noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:27 AM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Message from "RNP00267351BE54"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP00267351BE54" (Aficio MP 301).
Scan Date: 02.20.2014 07:26:37 (-0600)
Queries to: noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Michael Teague
Monday, March 03, 2014 11:23 AM
Jay Albert; Craig Sundstrom; Tyler Powell; Scott Thompson; Lori Wrotenberry
Fwd: EPA Guidance on UIC Class VI
State AG Comment Letter on EPA Draft UIC Program Guidance on Transitioning Class II
wells to Class VI wells.pdf; ATTOOOOl.htm

All,
Would you all please read the AG's letter attached and then lets set a time to talk about this. I know there isn't
too much EOR in OK right now but we need to understand the proposed EPA rules and how we would
implement them.
Thanks
Mike

Begin forwarded message:
From: Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Date: March I, 2014 at 8:59:48 AM CST
To: David Poiter <David.Porter(ii!!Tc.state.tx.us>, Michael Teague
<Michael.Teaguelalee.ok.gov>, Nick Tew <ntew@gsa.state.al.us>, "fitchhlalmichigan.gov"
<fitchh@michigan.gov>, Grant Black <grant.black@wyo.gov>, 'Bill Sydow'
<bsydowlalnogcc.ne.gov>, "Pitts, Ted" <TedPitts@gov.sc.gov>
Cc: Ge!Ty Baker <genybaker@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Mike Moore <mmoore@feamoil.com>
Subject: FW: FW: EPA Guidauce on UIC Class VI
FYI

From: Clayton.Eubanks@oag.ok.gov [mailto:Clayton.Eubanks@oag.ok.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:18 PM
To: Gerry Baker
Cc: Laurel Baird; Mike Smith
Subject: Re: FW: EPA Guidance on UIC Class VI

Attached please find the Attorney General comment letter regarding the UIC Guidance. Six states joined
on short notice and quick turnaround, I just submitted the comment letter to the EPA.
Thank you for the information, it was helpful in getting this comment document together.
Have a great weekend!

P. Clayton Eubanks
Deputy Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General of Oklahoma
1

 313 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Tel: (405) 522-8992
Fax:(405) 522-0085
clayton.eubanks@oag.ok.gov

From:

To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:

Gerry Baker <qerry.baker@ioqcc.state.ok.us>
"Clavton.Eubanks@oag.ok,qov" <Clavton.Eubanks@oaq.ok.gov>,
Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Laurel Baird <laurel.ba!rd@ioqcc.state.ok.us>
0212012014 02:33 PM
FW: EPA Guidance on UIC Class VI

Mr. Eubanks:
IOGCC executive director Mike Smith asked that I forward this information to you regarding draft EPA
guidance on the transition of Class II UIC wells to Class VI. Let me know if you have any questions.
GB

From: Gerry Baker

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:26 AM
To: Lisa Ivshin ; Michael Teague ; Grant Black; Jami Bailey; David Porter ; r.duncan@occemail.com;
Timothy Baker; 'Leslie Savage'; 'chris.chamoion@governor.ms.gov'
Cc: Mike Smith; 'Mike Paque'; Connors, Kevin C.
Subject: EPA Guidance on UIC Class VI

Dear All:
I have attached for your infonnation connnenLs prepared on behalf of the Indush·ial Commission
of Nortl1 Dalwta regarding U.S. EPA's guidm1ce on lrm1sitioning Class II to Class VI wells in tl1e
Underground Injection Control progrmn. The deadline for submitting comments to the EPA is
March 1, 2014.
The trwsition procedure is importm1t in its relationship to Class II UIC wells mid enhm1ced oil
and gas recovery nsing cm·bon dioxide. I have attached PDF versions ofEPA's guidm1ce wd Nortl1
Dalwta's response. The link http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class6/gsguidedoe.efin takes
you to tl1e EPA website tlial has additional material regmTling the issue. Please let me know if you
have wy questions. Kevin Connors of North Dalwta has also agTeed to answer questions. His
co11tacl i1if<n·111alio11 is:

Kevin Connors
UIC/CCS Supervisor
North Dakota Industrial Commission
Dept of Mineral Resources
Oil and Gas Division
2

 Phone: (701) 328-8020
Fax: (701) 328-8022
kcconnors@nd.gov
Gerry Haker
Associate Executive Director
(405) 525-3556, ext. 112
(405) 664-7362
!attachment "EPA-M0218.pdf' deleted by Clayton Eubanks/OAG] [attachment
"cpa816p13004.pdf" deleted by Clayton Eubanks/OAG]

3

 E.

S~OTT PRUITT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

February 28, 2014

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL & E-MAIL

The Hon. Regina A. McCa1thy
Office of the Adminish·ator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Mail Code 1101A
Washington, DC 20460
Email: mcca1thy.gina@epa.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
·GS Rule Guidance Comments
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Email: GSRuleGuidanceComments@epa.gov
Re: Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Guidance on
Transitioning Class II Wells to Class VI Wells
Comments from the Attorneys General of the States of Oldahoma, Alabama,
Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming

Dear Adminish·ator McCarthy:
We are writing to express our concern over the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Guidance on Transitioning Class II
Wells to Class vr Wells (Draft Guidance), issued in December 2013. The Draft Guidance
proceeds from an inaccurate understanding of the authority of a Class VI regulator with respect
to Class II wells and therefore unlawfully interferes with the authority granted to States under the
UIC Program. We respectfully request that EPA resolve this fundamental flaw to protect vital
sectors of our economy and preserve the well-being of the citizens and businesses of our States.
The Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) UIC Program is intended to protect subsurface
· supplies of drinking water from the drilling and use of underground wells for various industrial
activities. Under this program, oil and gas wells are classified as "Class II" wells, and, pursuant
to the structure of the UI C Program and primacy agreements with BP A, our states - and not EPA

.

Page 1 of4

313 N.E. 2lsT S'nW.ET • OKLAHOMA Ctn, 01( 73105 • (405) 521-3921 •FAX: (405) 521-6246

\.I recycled paper

 - serve as the primary regulators of Class II wells. Recently, BP A created a new class of wells
under the UIC Program, known. as "Class VI" wells, for the underground injection and storage of
carbon dioxide (C02), primarily in connection with prospective carbon capture and storage
(CCS) operations. See 75 Fed. Reg. 77230 et seq. (Dec. 1, 2010). See also 75 Fed. Reg. 75060
(Dec. 1, 2010).
Notwithstanding this new class of wells intended to accommodate the underground
injection of C02 , many oil and gas producers operating Class II wells have been injecting C02
for the past 40 years to manipulate well pressure and enhance the recovery of oil and gas. This
process, commonly referred to as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), has been used in more than
10,000 wells, about 7,000 of which are currently active. EOR represents a critically important
pat1 of om· states' and our country's energy infrastructure and plays an essential role in our
nation's economic stability and energy security.
The Draft Guidance, arising from EPA's newly-created Class VI wells, is directed at the
interplay between Class II and Class VI wells as it relates to underground C0 2 injection. But
rather than provide clai·ity and avoid interfering with the production of oil and gas via EOR which, again, we emphasize has been occurring for the past several decades without increased
risk to ch'inking water and other subsurface assets - the Draft Guidance has introduced confusion
and uncertainty into the oil and gas industry and failed to resolve the business community's
outstanding issues with the UIC Program.
Specifically, the Draft Guidance indicates that a regulator in an EPA regional office
overseeing Class VI wells (i.e., the Class VI Director) has the authority to determine whether a
Class II well at which EOR operations are occurring must "transition" to a Class VI well. This
flies in the face of prevailing industry practice, as well as common sense. It also violates current
law and the proper division of authority between EPA and states under SDWA.
As pat1 of its rulemaldng in 2010 creating the Class VI well category, EPA aiticulated a
series of factors by which a Class II well with EOR operations could be reclassified a Class VI
well, presumably to perform CCS-type operations instead. 40 C.F.R. § 144.19. This included
such criteria as an increase in reservoir pressure within the injection zone, an increase in C02
injection rates, suitability of the Class II area of review delineation, the owner's or operator's
plan for recovery of C02 at the cessation of injection, the source and propei1ies of injected C0 2 ,
and any additional site specific factors as determined by the regulator. Id. Many Class II permit
holders communicated to BP A that these criteria were too vague and could lead to the
reclassification of wells in which CCS was neither intended nor actually occurring. In response,
BP A prepared and issued the Draft Guidance in December 2013.
The Draft Guidance correctly states that while C02 is stored underground during EOR
operations in a Class II well, this alone does not require the transition of the Class II well into a
Class VI well. To the contrary, EPA has plainly stated that EOR operations at a Class II well are
not to be affected by the Class VI rule:
Traditional ER projects are not impacted by this rulemaking and will continue operating under
Class II permitting requirements. EPA recognizes that there may be some C02 trapped in the
subsurface at these operations; however, if there is no increased risk to [underground sources of
drinking water (USDW)], then these operations would continue to be petmitted under Class II.
Page 2 of4

 75 Fed. Reg., at 77245. The Draft Guidance properly reiterates this point, stating "[t]raditional
EOR projects are not affected by the Class VI rulemaldng and will continue to be permitted
under Class II requirements." Draft Guidance, at 1.
But then the Draft Guidance goes on to describe scenarios in which a Class II well with
EOR operations would need to be reclassified as a Class VI well, based on the unchecked
increase in subsurface pressures caused by the injection of C0 2. This is blatantly inconsistent
with prevailing practices in the oil and gas indush·y and contrary to law.
Under the UIC Program, our states are vested with authority to permit Class II wells with
EOR for purposes of enabling the production of oil. As part of this, the state-level Class II
Director reviews maximum and average injection pressures and other information to ensure that
C02 injection will "not result in the movement of fluids into a USDW so as to create a
significant health risk." Draft Guidace, at A-4-A-5. Class II regulations specify limits on
injection pressures to prevent the movement of injection or formation fluids into a USDW or the
fracturing of the confining zone. Id. at A-8. See also 40 C.F .R. § 146.23(a). The Class II
framework is thus wholly competent to prevent unchecked increases in subsurface pressures
during EOR operations and other h·aditional oil and gas production methods. The scenario
described by EPA as a trigger for reclassification simply is not reflective of real world operating
conditions.
The actual circumstance under which reclassification would occur, also described in the
Draft Guidance, is where a Class II operator changes the primary purpose of the well from the
production of oil to the maximal underground storage of C02 and, in so doing, changes its
operations in such a way as to tr·anscend the confines of the Class II regulatory structure and
create an "increased risk to USDWs compared to traditional Class II operations using carbon
dioxide." Draft Guidance, at ii. Importantly, this is not so easily done. A Class II permit holder
cannot change from EOR to maximal C02 storage without accounting for numerous other
interests and legal and business considerations. For example, its conh·actual obligations with
land owners and/or subsurface rights holders would most likely need to be altered, if not
renegotiated, to accommodate such a transition. Similarly, state laws intended to enable oil and
gas production can, in ce1tain circumstances, interfere or even prohibit the use of oil and gas
wells for maximal C02 storage if foture production would be inhibited.
But regardless, the Draft Guidance further complicates and· confuses the situation by
erroneously implying that the Class VI Director can, on his or her own volition, preempt the
Class II Director and require the Class II permit holder to file for reclassification under ClassVI.
This is not lawful. Allowing the Class VI Director to "second guess" the Class II Director and
intervene seemingly on a whim violates EPA's own rnles regarding state primacy and flagrantly
impinges upon state authority. EPA cam1ot revoke a state's primacy lmless it can show a failure
to comply with applicable requirements. 40 C.F.R. § 145.34(b). These requirements prescribe a
series of detailed steps EPA must follow in order to do so, including providing adequate notice to
the state and allowing the state sufficient time to take conective action.
Thus the Draft Guidance, in overtly implying that the Class VI Director is empowered to
act unilaterally within, an industry in which he or she lacks requisite experience - thereby
exposing a Class II permit holder to the seemingly unbounded risk of being ordered, absent any
Page3 of4

I
11

I

i
]1

I

I

 specific criteria, to apply for reclassification - is utterly and entirely beyond the bounds of EPA
authority and carries the very real possibility of doing harm to our nation's energy infrastructure,
Moving beyond the confines of a traditional Class II well with EOR operations to maximal C02
storage is not easily nor quickly done and implicates significant economic and other business
considerations. Allowing the Class VI Regulator to intervene seemingly without basis adds an
unconscionable level of uncertainty and risk to a mature area of industrial activity already well
and thoroughly regulated.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request you take immediate action to rectify
this situation as the Draft Guidance is finalized and, additionally, through any other rulemakings
as may be necessary under the UIC Program to eliminate this uncertainty and ensure strict
adherence to applicable law.
Sincerely,

E. Scott Pruitt
Oklahoma Attorney General

Lvl:tr $\.-""~
Luther Strange
Alabama Attomey General

~~~
Greg Abbott

Texas Attorney General

~81~:, )t..,vi1µ'.A~,J
Bill Schuette
Michigan Attomey General

Peter Michael
Wyoming Attorney General

Y~1}~rJon Bmning
Nebraska Attomey General

Alan Wilson
South Carolina Attorney General
Page 4 of 4

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:03 PM
Jodi McKee
Fwd: Important IOGCC meeting business

For the Biloxi meeting.
Thanks

Begin forwarded message:
From: Carol Booth <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Date: April 3, 2014 at 14:03:22 CDT
To: "Bradley C. Lambert" <butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov>, "Bradley Field"
<bjfield@gw.dec.state.ny.us>, Brian Love <brian.love@gov.yk.ca>, "C. Edmon Larrimore"

<elarrimore@mde.state.md.us>, Cathy Foerster <cathy.foerster@alaska.gov>, Dan Sea mount
<dan.seamount@alaska.gov>, "David Porter" <david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us>, "Derric lies
(derric.iles@usd.edu)" <derric.iles@usd.edu>, Ed Dancsok <ed.dancsok@gov.sk.ca>, Ed Garrett
<ed.garrett@dep.state.fl.us>, Fred Allen <fredallen@gov.nl.ca>, "geblack19S4@gmail.com"
<geblack1954@gmail.com>, Gerry Baker <gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Harold Fitch
<fitchh@michigan.gov>, "Herschel McDivitt "<hmcdivitt@dnr.in.gov>, "J. Dale Nations"
<daleaudrey@comcast.net>, "James Martin "<James.A.Martin@wv.gov>,"Jami Bailey"
<jami.bailey@state.nm.us>, Jim Welsh <jim.welsh@la.gov>, "John Baza" <johnbaza@utah.gov>, Joseph
Pettey <joe.pettey@yahoo.com>, "Joseph Pettey" <joepettey@zoominternet.net>, "Kim Collings (EEC)"
<Kim.Collings@ky.gov>, "Lawrence Bengal" <larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us>, "Lisa lvshin"
<livshin@ogb.state.ms.us>, "Loraine Cory (M. Nechodom assistant)"
<loraine.cory@conservation.ca.gov>, "Lynn Helms" <lhelms@nd.gov>, "Mark Nechodom"
<mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov>, Matt Lepore <matt.lepore@state.co.us>, Michael McGehee
<michael.mcgehee@ferc.gov>, "Michael Teague" <michael.teague@ee.ok.gov>, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Nancy Johnson <nancy.johnson@hq.doe.gov>, "Nick Tew"
<ntew@ogb.state.al.us>, Paul Jeakins <paul.jeakins@bcogc.ca>, "Richard Perry"
<rmperry@govmail.state.nv.us>, "Richard Simmers" <rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us>, Ron Dunkin
<r.dunkin@occemail.com>, "Ronald Efta" <wcaefta@midrivers.com>, Ryan Hoffman
<r.hoffman@kcc.ks.gov>, "Sandy MacMullin" <macmulsa@gov.ns.ca>, "scperry@pa.gov"
<scperry@pa.gov>, "Shari Feist-Albrecht" <s.feist.albrecht@kcc.ks.gov>, "Steven Rauzi"
<steve.rauzi@azgs.az.gov>, Tom Schultz <tschultz@idl.idaho.gov>, "William Daugherty"
<billd@blackridgeusa.com>, "William Sydow" <bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov>, Shane Khoury
<Shane. Kho ury@a age. state. ar. us>
Cc: Amy Childers <amy.childers@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Laurel Baird <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Subject: Important IOGCC meeting business

As official representatives, state oil and gas directors and members of the IOGCC, we need to inform you
about a few items on the agenda at the Midyear Meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi.

I
Ii

1. We will be announcing a new format for our midyear meeting. This meeting will turn into our
Annual Business Meeting. The first one will be held in Utah next Spring. The Steering Committee
and IOGCC staff have worked diligently to coordinate a solution-based work meeting that will

1

i

 result in work products, projects and/or groups that will tackle issues, challenges and
opportunities that we all face. More details to follow in Biloxi.
2.

Along the lines of the business meeting and current meetings, we are seeking strong, dedicated
Committee Chairs that will lead these discussions and work with other members as well as help
with our regularly scheduled Annual Conference in the Fall. Our Chairs serve on their
committees for two years or a total of four meetings. As always, our staff liaisons will provide
the chairs with the information needed and assist with administrative tasks and responsibilities.
It is crucial we find enthusiastic chairs before or during the Biloxi meeting so these chairs can
help plan our future meetings and coordinate the groundwork for the first business meeting. As
of right now, these are the committees needing leadership:
a. Energy Resources, Research & Technology-Chair & Vice Chair effective immediately.
Please contact Amy Childers, amy.childers@iogcc.state.ok.us, if you or someone you
know might be interested.
b. Environment & Safety- Chair & Vice Chair effective June 2014. Please contact Carol
Booth, carolbooth@iogcc.state.ok.us,if you or someone you know might be interested.
c. Public Lands - Chair & Vice Chair effective June 2014. Please contact Amy Childers,
amy.childers@iogcc.state.ok.us, if you or someone you know might be interested.
d. State Review- Chair & Vice Chair effective June 2014. Please contact Gerry Baker,
Gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us, if you or someone you know might be interested.
e. Legal & Regulatory-Chair & Vice Chair effective January 2015. Please contact Carol
Booth, carolbooth@iogcc.state.ok.us,if you or someone you know might be interested.

3.

We have partnered with the Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) to provide you Social Media
Training at this meeting. We will describe each social media platform and give you details on the
best way to utilize social media. CEA will discuss their social media plan, how each platform
intertwines and how you lead your audience back to where you want them to go. IOGCC will
provide guidelines and start-up plan for a state regulatory agency. The guidelines and plan will
include how to proactively engage your audience and inform the public effectively and
efficiently.
• Social Media Training
Sunday, May 18'h
3:30pm - 4:00pm

4.

By now, hopefully, many of you have seen the new agenda. Monday will begin with General
Session and lunch as usual. Then we will hold the Council of State Regulatory Officials (CSRO)
and Council of State Oil & Gas Attorneys (CSOGA), separately. We have had requests to hold
CSRO more toward the beginning of the meeting so the regulators have more time to discuss
things going on their states. And CSOGA has requested to carry the same format as CSRO. With
the case loads the General Counsels and Lead Attorneys have encountered recently, we are
hoping that we give each state an opportunity to discuss matters happening in their respective
state. Please notify your agency attorney of this change.

We look forward to seeing all of you in Biloxi. If you haven't registered for the meeting yet, room block
and registration discount ends in three weeks. Here is a link to register for the meeting,
www.iogcc.state.ok.us/register.
Please contact us if you have any questions or need more details.
Carol Booth

Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
2

 405.525.3556 x114

 

Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 12:53 PM
Mike Smith
Re: Time for lunch?

Mike
I'm in Stillwater today, in Tulsa tomorrow and Friday, and then at a conference next week. How about a late
lunch, like 1:00 next Friday the 9th?
On Apr 30, 2014, at 8:29, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Mr. Secretary Do you have lunch availability in the near future?
Thanks, Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Friday, May 09, 2014 10:57 AM
Mike Smith
Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

I'm at OSU and doesn't look like we will finish by 1. We could meet at 2 or 2:30 today or reschedule for next
week. Your choice.
On May 9, 2014, at 10:26, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Are we still on for lunch?

1

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Friday, May 09, 2014 1:02 PM
Mike Smith
Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

We just finished so how about lunch next Wednesday? Gives us more time and we can talk about the meeting
in Biloxi.
On May 9, 2014, at 11:00, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I could do lunch next Tues, Wed, or Thurs, or you could stop by the office this afternoon. Whatever works
best for you.
Thanks!

From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teaque@ee.ok.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:57 AM
To: Mike Smith

Subject: Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

I'm at OSU and doesn't look like we will finish by 1. We could meet at 2 or 2:30 today or
reschedule for next week. Your choice.
On May 9, 2014, at 10:26, "Mike Smith" <mike(miogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Are we still on for lunch?

1

 Michael Teague

Michael Teague
Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:57 AM
Mike Smith
RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

How about 11:30 and you choose the place?
From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Michael Teague
Subject: FW: lunch at 1:00 pm?

Time and place for lunch?
From: Mike Smith
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:11 PM
To: 'Michael Teague'
Subject: RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?

Sounds great!
From: Michael Teague [mailto:Mlchael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

We just finished so how about lunch next Wednesday? Gives us more time and we can talk about the meeting
in Biloxi.
On May 9, 2014, at 11 :00, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I could do lunch next Tues, Wed, or Thurs, or you could stop by the office this afternoon. Whatever works
best for you.
Thanks!
From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:57 AM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

I'm at OSU and doesn't look like we will finish by 1. We could meet at 2 or 2:30 today or
reschedule for next week. Your choice.
On May 9, 2014, at 10:26, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Are we still on for lunch?
1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:01 AM
Mike Smith
RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?

See you then

From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:00 AM
To: Michael Teague
Subject: RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?
How about coming by the office and we can go from here?

From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teaque@ee.ok.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:57 AM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?
How about 11:30 and you choose the place?

From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 8:32 AM
To: Michael Teaque
Subject: FW: lunch at 1:00 pm?
Time and place for lunch?

From: Mike Smith

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:11 PM
To: 'Michael Teague'
Subject: RE: lunch at 1:00 pm?
Sounds great!

From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 1:02 PM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

We just finished so how about lunch next Wednesday? Gives us more time and we can talk about the meeting
in Biloxi.
On May 9, 2014, at 11 :00, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I could do lunch next Tues, Wed, or Thurs, or you could stop by the office this afternoon. Whatever works
best for you.
1

 Thanks!

From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 10:57 AM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Re: lunch at 1:00 pm?

I'm at OSU and doesn't look like we will finish by 1. We could meet at 2 or 2:30 today or
reschedule for next week. Your choice.
On May 9, 2014, at 10:26, "Mike Smith" <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Are we still on for lunch?

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:35 AM
Mike Smith
Running Late

Trying to get in with the speaker. Will be over as soon as I can.

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Michael Teague
Friday, August 15, 2014 10:50 AM
Jodi McKee
FW: IOGCC Committee Appointment Request
scleveland IOGCC app.pdf

There are two of these, I think Jay's is the other. Not sure what we have to do but lets get the letters done and then set
up a meeting with Mike Smith.
Thanks
From: Laurel Baird [laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 8:43 AM

To: Michael Teague
Cc: Carol Booth
Subject: IOGCC Committee Appointment Request
Good Morning,
Scott Cleveland from Chesapeake has turned in this request to be appointed to the Environment and Safety committee.
Please let me know if you need any further information from him and I will be happy to request it otherwise, if
appointed, please forward me a short note on his behalf on your letterhead with your signature and I will welcome him
with a letter from Mike Smith and a packet from IOGCC.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba i rd@iogcc .state. ok. us
Visit our website at iogcc.ok.gov

1

 INTERSTATE

Oil&Gas
COMPACT COMMISSION

IOGCC STANDING COMMITTEES
Be a voice for our nation's oil and natuml gas resources. Get involved.
Our mission is to promote our nation's oil and gas resources, but we can't do it alone. We must pull together and capitalize on the
strength of our membership. We urge you to participate in one or more IOGCC standing. Please express your interest to your
state governor and/or official representative, who may appoint you to the committee/s, or complete the form below and return
to the address listed. Once received, someone will assist you with conta{.l:ing the appropriate official.

N=e~~~S~c~D~7+_,__G~le~ve~lM..ot~·->=>-~~~~~~~~~~
Company/Organization,___~L~b~e~-S~a....p~ea.~IC~e..~_G~n~e~'J~'j,___=C_6~r....p~<>~r_a.~+~iO~h~------Title,______,<=--='-'-"-"---'-""-------'G=:..!..n_,_v_,ic..or_.o"'--'-'-'m-"e'-'--{)'-'--'-~=-<~-'--><O,_r..:..+h"-'-"e"-r-"-'-----'D"'--'-i-v-';5'--';_o_vi;___ _ __

_C_l-'a.s=·u.c"e""-n--'--i-----'ts"'-u._,'-'-1-'· --d'-'?J-1-~l
-I
~'-f__________

Address._=-"---'--=---'-'N"'-.
City

State._ _O_k.
_ _ _ _ Zipcode_ _ 1'~~_/1_8~--

0 kla. homo.. C..;ji

Phone_'-!_,_D"---S_-_C/_,_3=-5_---'!./_7-'3"'--3..,,___ _ _ Fax_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Email

,Sc.o++. e. leve lo.rid

@

e..hJc. C.<'.lrvi

Have you notified your state governor or official representative of your interest?

Would you like IOGCC staff to notify the appropriate official on your behalf?

COLLECTIVELY REPRESENTING THE STATES

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, August 25, 2014 12:40 PM
Mike Smith; Gerry Baker (gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us)
FW: Governor's Energy Conference Agenda

From: Carly Schnaithman
To: Michael Teague; Craig Sundstrom
Subject: Governor's Energy Conference Agenda
Below is the link for the Governor's Energy Conference website and agenda.
Thanks!
http://governorsenergyconference.com/agenda

Carly Schnaithman
Legislative Affairs
Oklahoma Secretary of Energy & Environment

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:05 AM
Carol Booth
Jodi McKee
Re: IOGCC Annual Conference participation

Would be happy to help.
On Aug 26, 2014, at 9:03, "Carol Booth" <CarolBooth@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Hello Secretary Teague,
I'm sorry I missed your visit to the office yesterday. At this year's Annual Conference in Columbus,
during the Legal & Regulatory Affairs Committee, we are putting together a panel to review and discuss
the various state emergency response programs. I thought with your background and position that you
would be the best candidate to give an overview of Oklahoma's program and maybe give additional
information from your experiences.
As of right now, Ohio is confirmed and North Dakota is looking at their schedule. You would have 15 - 20
minutes to present and then we would open for Q&A after all the panelists have gone. This committee is
meeting October 20, l:OOpm - 2:15pm. Do you think that you could participate?
I greatly appreciate your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best Wishes,
Carol Booth

Communications Manager
Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission
PO Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
405.525.3556 x114

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Friday, September 05, 2014 12:38 PM
Mike Smith
Gerry Baker
RE: Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity

Thanks and sorry we didn't get to talk more yesterday. The Council is intended to be the OK version of your bigger WG.
From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@ioqcc.state.ok.us]
Friday, September 05, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Michael Teague
Cc: Gerry Baker
Subject: Coordinating Council on Seismic Activity

Sent:

Michael Your new Council is a great idea! And, of course, encouraged to utilize the IOGCC IS Workgroup at anytime you deem
helpful.
Thanks!
Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, October 13, 2014 3:55 PM
Mike Smith
Annual Mtg

Mike
Looking forward to the mtg in OH. Are there any Seismicity mtgs?

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 4:07 PM
Mike Smith
Gerry Baker
Re: Annual Mtg

Perfect. Just didn't want to miss it ifthere was going to be a mtg.

>On Oct 14, 2014, at 07:53, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
>
>Michael>
>The IS Work Group met last week in Seattle. They decided not to meet in Columbus (since they just met). Although,
they might get together informally. Gerry can give you details.

>
>Thanks, Mike

>
>-----Original Message----> From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
>Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 3:55 PM
>To: Mike Smith
>Subject: Annual Mtg
>
>Mike
> Looking forward to the mtg in OH. Are there any Seismicity mtgs?
>
>

1

 Michael Teague

Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:53 PM
mike@iogcc.state.ok.us
Time for a Quick Call?

Contacts:

Mike Smith

From:

Sent:
To:

Mike,
Do you have time for a quick phone call?
Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, November 26, 2014 1:02 PM
Mike Smith
Re: Time for a Quick Call?

This was the email from yesterday. Thanks

On Nov 26, 2014, at 13:01, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I do

From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:53 PM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Time for a Quick Call?
Mike,
Do you have time for a quick phone call?
Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:40 AM
Mike Smith
Fwd: IOGCC

You have a chairwoman.

Begin forwarded message:
From: William McPherson <William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov>
Date: December 10, 2014 at 10:12:54 EST
To: Michael Teague <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>, Craig Sundstrom <Craig.Sundstrom@ee.ok.gov>,
Tyler Powell <Tyler.Powell@ee.ok.gov>
Subject: IOGCC
All,
I just got word that Governor Fallin has agreed to chair IOGCC!
Let me know if you have any questions.
William McPherson
Policy Advisor and Legislative Liaison
Office of Governor Mary Fallio
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405.522.8804
Wi 11 ian1.McPherson(clJ gov .ok. gov

DISCLAIMER-Any and all communications sent to and received from this email address may be subject to the
Oklahoma Open Meetiogs aod Open Records Act. Accordiogly, please be advised that should your communications
be responsive to an Open Records Request and not subject to any privilege, they may be turned over to a third party.
This disclaimer does not waive any right or privilege that may be claimed by the State of Oklahoma, the Office of
the Governor, or the sender of this message.

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Michael Teague
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:25 PM
Mike Smith
Re: IOGCC

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Yes with steering comm. Sorry for not getting back to you on Greenpeace. Do you want to talk today?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 12:35, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
GREAT!! Am I free to pass the news to the Steering Comm during today's conf call? Also, I need to talk
about Greenpeace.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:39 AM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
You have a chairwoman.

Begin forwarded message:
From: William McPherson <William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov>
Date: December 10, 2014 at 10:12:54 EST
To: Michael Teague <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>, Craig Sundstrom
<Craig.Sundstrom@ee.ok.gov>, Tyler Powell <Tvler.Powell@ee.ok.gov>
Subject: IOGCC

All,
I just got word that Governor Fallin has agreed to chair IOGCC!
Let me know if you have any questions.
William McPherson
Policy Advisor and Legislative Liaison
Office of Governor Mary Fallin
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405.522.8804
William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov

DISCLAIMER-Any and all communications sent to and received from this
email address may be subject to the Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open
Records Act. Accordingly, please be advised that should your communications
be responsive to an Open Records Request and not subject to any piivilege, they
may be turned over to a third party. This disclaimer does not waive any right or
1

 privilege that may be claimed by the State of Oklahoma, the Office of the

Governor, or the sender of this message.

2

 Michael Teague
Michael Teague
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:07 PM
Mike Smith
Re: IOGCC

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

I'm driving to the JAX airport. How about 4 your time?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:06, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
What is a good time for you to talk.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 1:25 PM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Yes with steering comm. Sorry for not getting back to you on Greenpeace. Do you want
to talk today?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 12:35, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
GREAT!! Am I free to pass the news to the Steering Comm during
today's conf call? Also, I need to talk about Greenpeace.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:39 AM, "Michael Teague"
<Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
You have a chairwoman.

Begin forwarded message:
From: William McPherson
<William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov>
Date: December 10, 2014 at 10:12:54
EST
To: Michael Teague
<Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>, Craig
Sundstrom
<Craig.Sundstrom@ee.ok.gov>, Tyler
Powell <Tyler.Powell@ee.ok.gov>
Subject: IOGCC

1

 All,
I just got word that Governor Fallin has
agreed to chair IOGCC!
Let me know if you have any questions.
William McPherson
Policy Advisor and Legislative Liaison
Office of Governor Mary Fallin
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405.522.8804
Willian1.McPherson@ gov .ok. gov

DISCLAIMER-Any and all
communications sent to and received from

this email address may be subject to the
Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open
Records Act. Accordingly, please be advised
that should your communications be
responsive to an Open Records Request and
not subject to any privilege, they may be
turned over to a third party. This disclaimer
does not waive any right or privilege that
may be claimed by the State of Oklahoma,
the Office of the Governor, or the sender of
this message.

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:25 PM
Gerry Baker
Re: water conference

Gerry
Thanks. OWRB looked at it but couldn't get the logistics lined up.
Mike

On Mar 9, 2015, at 14:34, Gerry Baker <gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Mr. Secretary:
Just passing this along when it occurred to me that perhaps the governor's office was not aware of the
invitation the IOGCC, GWPC and National Rural Water Associate extended to the Governor's Water
Conference planning team. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
GB

From: Whitley, Darla [mailto:Darla.Whitley@owrb.ok.gov]

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:57 PM
To: Gerry Baker; 'ben@gwpc.org'; 'matt@nrwa.org'; 'becca@nrwa.org'
Cc: Perryman, Cole
Subject: water conference

Dear Gerry, Ben, Matt, and Becca:
Thank you for meeting with us a couple of weeks ago regarding the opportunity to merge the annual
Governor's Water Conference with your respective conferences here in September. After careful
consideration, our conference planning committee has decided that holding our conferences
concurrently would not be a practical option for us. Two major concerns were (1) not being able to
provide parking and lodging on site to our conferees and (2) the necessity of holding our conference at
the end of the week rather than the beginning due to space issues. We also heard from our partners at
the Oklahoma Water Resources Center that this would not be a good week to hold their symposium.
It was nice to meet all of you and I hope to be able to work with you again in the future.
Sincerely,
Darla Whitley
Public Information Manager
Oklahoma Water Resources Board

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, March 24, 2015 7:47 PM
'Mike Smith'
Gerry Baker
RE: IOGCC 2nd Vice Chairman for 2016

Of course

From: Mike Smith [mailto:mike@iogcc.state.ok.us]
Friday, March 20, 2015 8:06 AM
To: Michael Teague
Cc: Gerry Baker
Subject: IOGCC 2nd Vice Chairman for 2016

Sent:

Michael Can I twist your arm to be 2nd VC next year? You will serve with Gov. Fallin and David Porter (VC).
Thanks!
Mike

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, March 30, 2015 8:48 PM
'Hannah Barton'
RE: IOGCC committee appointment for your consideration

Brian is a great resource and would be a very good member of the committees.
Mike
From: Hannah Barton [mailto:hannah.barton@ioqcc.ok.gov]

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 8:42 AM
To: Michael Teague
Subject: IOGCC committee appointment for your consideration
Good Moring Mr. Teague,
My name is Hannah Barton, and I am Mr. Mike Smith's new assistant, here at the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission. I wanted to take a moment to reach out to you and introduce myself, as well as forward on a request we
received from Brian Woodard, the Director of EH&S Regulatory Affairs for Cheaspeake Energy. Mr. Woodard would like
to come aboard our Legal and Regulatory, Public Lands, as well as State Review committee. I have attached a copy of the
documents to this e-mail for your consideration.
As the Official Representative, please take a moment to consider Mr. Woodard's request and let us know your verdict.
I greatly appreciate your time, and look forward to opportunity to work with you in the future,

Thank you!
Hannah Barton
Assistant to the Director
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Conunission
PO BOX 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152

(405) 525-3556 Ex, 101

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Friday, June 26, 2015 11:28 AM
Craig Sundstrom
Accepted: Meeting at Devon

1

 IOGCC ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR STATE
OIL & GAS REGULATORY PROGRAMS

May1994

{GRAPHIC EXCLUDED: IOGCC LOGO}

INTERSTATE OIL & GAS COMPACT COMMISSION
GOVERNOR GASTON CAPERTON, CHAIRMAN

 Christine Hansen, Executive Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword ...

...... iv

Introduction ......................................................... .

....... v

Membership ................................................................ .

................................ vii-ix

Section 1 - Introduction
1.1

Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

EPA's Regulatory Determination for E&P Waste ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3

IOGCC's Council on Regulatory Needs................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4

Implementation Strategy.....................

1.5

State and Federal Relations ................ .

................................................................................

............................................... 3

........................................... 4

Section 2 - Scope of the Criteria
........................................................................................... 7

2.1

General ......................................................................... .

2.2

Class II Injection Wells ................................................................................. .

2.3

NPDES- Permitted Discharges.

2.4

Definition of Solid Waste ....

2.5

Hazardous Waste .. .

2.6

Waste Mixtures ........................................................... .

2.7

EPA's List of Exempt E&P Wastes .................................................... ..

2.8

EPA's List of Non-exempt E&P Wastes.......................................................... .

2.9

Requirements for Non-exempt wastes ....................................................... .

................................................................................. 7

............................................ 8
....................................... 8
....................................... 9
......................................................................... 9
............ 10
··················· ........................ 11
............................................................................. 12

Section 3 - General Criteria

3.1

General .................................................... .

..... 16

3.2

Goals ....................................................... ..

..... 16

3.3

State/Regional Variations in Criteria... .

............................ 16

Section 4 - Administrative Criteria

....... 17

4.1

Basic Requirements

4.2

Additional Program Requirements ....................... .

... 20

4.3

Personnel and Funding.................................................................................. ..

... 23

4.4

Coordination Among Agencies ........................... .

··················· ......................................................... 25

Section 5- Technical Criteria

5.1

General.. ...

............... 27

5.2

Waste Characterization ..................................................................................... .

............... 28

 5.3

Waste Management Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................................................ 29

ii

 ..................................................................................... 30

5.4

Quantitative Elements ................................. .

5.5

Techical Criteria for Pits .................................. .

5.6

Technical Criteria for Landspreading..........

5.7

Technical Criteria for Burial and Landfilling ......................................... .

5.8

Technical Criteria for Roadspreading.............................................................. .

........................................................................................ 31
............ ,., ...... .

.............................................................................. 35
..................... 36
........................................................................... 37

5.9

Technical Criteria for Tanks ...................................................................................... .

5.10

Technical Criteria for Commercial and Centralized

........................................................... 38
............... 39

Disposal Facilities

Section 6 ~Abandoned Sites
6.1

Abandoned Oil and Gas Sites .............................................. .

..................................................................................................... 45

6.2

Definition of"Oil and Gas Site" and "Abandoned Site".

...................................... 45

6.3

Identification of Abandoned Sites ......................................................................... .

..................................... 45

6.4

Funding for Abandoned Site Remediation .................................................................... .

.46

6.5

Criteria for Prioritizing Remediation.................................................................................................................. . ...................

.46

6.6

Standards for Remediation.......................................................................

...............................................

............... 47

6.7

Public Participation..........................................................................................

................................................ 48

6.8

Avoid Future Abandoned Site Problems........

................................................ 49

.........................

Section 7 - Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials

7.1

Background

7.2

General

7.3

Elements of an Oil-Field NORM Program

7.4

Regulatory Development and Research

Section 8 - Recommendations for Future Work ............................................................................................................. .................................................... 53

 FOREWORD

For 58 years, the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission's (lOGCC) purpose has been to promote and encourage the conservation of oil
and gas through established state agencies.

Currently representing 35 states, (29 members and six associates) the IOGCC member states

are the guardians of this nation's oil and gas resources.

Representing the governors and state agencies charged with regulating the oil and gas industry, the IOGCC's involvement in environmental
concerns with respect to exploration and production (E&P) waste management is an essential element in the IOGCC's continuing role in
sound conservation and production practices by the states.

This report represents the IOGCC Council on Regulatory Needs' update of the original December, 1990 EPA/IOCC Stucfy ofState Regulation

ofOil and Gas E&P Wastes.
In the original report, the council recommended that the "Guidelines" be reviewed after three years for potential updates. This report
represents the effort of the council and five committees who reviewed each section of the original report and developed this updated,
consensus, Guideline document.

The lOGCC member states voted unanimously to accept this repon at their guarrerly meeting in Charleston, West Virginia.

The IOGCC

member states also accepted the Council's implementation strategy and recommendations for future work. We also appreciate the
opportunity to work with the EPA for improved environmental protection.

As Chairman of the lOGCC, J express

my appreciation to the EPA for the financial support of this effort and thank the Council Co-chairman,

Governor Mike Sullivan, of Wyoming, and Governor john Engler, of Michigan, for their interest in making this a successful project.

I would

also like to thank the Council members, advisors, observers, and each person that participated on one of the committees, for the time and
energy they put into this project.

(GRAPHIC EXCLUDED: SIGNATURE}
Gaston Caperton
Governor
West Virginia

iv

 INTROOUCTION

In December, 1990 the IOGCC Council on Regulatory Needs, published the EPA/!OCC Study of State Regulation of Oil & Gas E&P Wastes

(Guidelines).

In that report, it was recommended that the "Guidelines" be reviewed and updated if necessary after three years.

This

report represents the efforts of five, multi-interest, Guideline review committees, who reviewed the original report and recommended
changes to the Council in December 1993.

This report represents a consensus view of the participants, and illustrates the importance of this diverse group working together on these
issues.

Those involved are to be congratulated on a job well done.

They have shown their interest in environmental issues and a

willingness to work toward improvement for the benefit of all.

The need for an economically viable domestic oil and gas industry while protecting human health and the environment should be the goal of
state and federal governments, industry and environmental/public interest groups.

As Council Co-chairmen, these were the goals under

which we expected the Council to work.

We would like to thank the EPA for its financial support and cannot over emphasize our appreciation to the participants.
We urge the continued support of the IOGCC membership, federal government, industry and environmental organizations in addressing
environmental issues.
Finally, we believe the report's implementation strategy and recommended future work sections must be accepted and acted upon by all
interested groups.

{GRAPHIC EXCLUDEO: SIGNATURE)

{GRAPHIC EXCLUDEO: SIGNATURE)

Mike Sullivan

John Engler

Governor

Governor

Wyoming

Michigan

v

 COUNCIL ON REGULATORY NEEDS

CO-CHAIRMEN

GOVERNOR MIKE SULLIVAN

GOVERNOR JOHN ENGLER

Jerry R. Simmons, Staff Director

 IOGCC COUNCIL ON REGULATORY NEEDS

Council Members

Co~Chairman:

Mike Sullivan, Governor ............................................................................................................................................................... Wyoming
John Engler, Governor .......................................................................... ,.,,,,,,,, ............................................................................... Michigan
Member:

Donald B. Basko ..................................................................................................................................... Wyoming. Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Theodore M. Streit............................................................................................................................................................. West Virginia, Office of Oil & Gas
William R. Bryson ............................................................. .

.......................................................................................... Kansas Corporation Commission

Valarie Orr ..................................................................................................... .

.................................................. Ohio EPA Division of Groundwater

Mark Coleman ........................................................................ .

.. Oklahoma, Department of Environmental Health Services
.......................... California, Department of Oil & Gas Resources

Mike Stenner.
James E. Erb ...... .

.. .......... Pennsylvania, Bureau of Oil & Gas Management

Heather Stockard ....... .

. ... Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation
. ............... Wyoming Environmental Quality Council

Terri Lorenzon ........................ .
HerbercW. Thompson ................................................................................................................... .
Lori Wrotenbery .............................................................................................................. .

.. .......................... Louisiana, Office of Conservation
................................ Railroad Commission ofTexas

Advisory Panel

Patricia C. Beaver ........................................................................................................................................ Colorado, Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Wesley D. Norton ................................ .

............................................................................. North Dakota, Industrial Commission

Randolph C. Bruton

.................................................................................. Texas, Mitchell Energy Corporation

R. Thomas Segall.. ............................................................................................................................................. Michigan, Department of Natural Resources
James W. Collins...

.............................................................

Chris Shuey.............

.........................................................

David M. Flannery..................

.............................................

Wilma Subra .......................... .

.........................

.............................................................................. Texas, Arco Oil & Gas
........... New Mexico, Southwest Research & Information Center
........................................ West Virginia, Robinson & McElwee

.............................................................................................. Louisiana, Subra Company

William j. LeMay ..... .

. New Mexico, Oil Conservation Division

David Lennett

............................. Maine, Audubon Society

 GUIDELINE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Abandoned Sites Committee

Member:

Affiliation

Dr. Diane Neilson, Chairman .... ,.. ,........................•..... ,.... ,, ............................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ... ,.. ,,,,, .. ,, .. Utah, Dept. of Environmental Quality
Tricia Beaver ......... ,

.......................................... ,........ Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
......... Texas, Henry, Kelly & lowerre

Melinda Taylor .... .

Jim Roderick. ........ .

..........................................................Alaska

Randy Burton..........................................................................

...................................................... , ....... ,.Texas, Mitchell Energy Corporation

Donald L. Gallaher. ...................................................................................................................................... Colorado, Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc.
Nancy Johnson................................................

.. ................................................................... Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy

Dan Derkics ................................................................................................................................. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

General Committee

James E. Erb ..................................................................................................................... Pennsylvania, Bureau of Oil & Gas Management

Heather Stockard .......................................................... .

...................... Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation

Patty Saunders ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Alaska
Paula Ford .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Pennsylvania
Barry Russell ........................................................................................................................................................................................... Washington, D.C., IPAA
..................................................... West Virginia, Robinson & McElwee

Kathy Beckett ............. .
Bill Hochheiser ................ ..

.................................................................................................. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy

Terri lorenzon ...................................................................... .

......... Wyoming Environmental Quality Council

Administrative Committee

William R. Bryson, Chairman .................. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ............................ ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ................................... Kansas Conservation Commission

Tom Segall ....... ..
Ted Streit ......... ..
Michelle McFaddin

....... Michigan, Department of Natural Resources
........................ West Virginia, Office of Oil & Gas
.. ..................................... Texas, Gordon & Lawton, Inc.

Shirley Sinn ...... .

... Ohio

Amy Carmen .....

........................................................................................................... Texas, TIPRO

Frederick G. Kolb ...

................................................. West Virginia, Columbia Natural Resources

 

 

 

Technical Committee
Bill Guerard, Chairman .................................................. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ,,,,,,,,,,,, ................... California, Department of Conservation

Wesley D. Norton .... .
Donald B. Basko ................................... .
William

J. LeMay ......................................................... .

......................................... N. Dakota, Industrial Commission, Oil & Gas Division
.. ......................................... Wyoming. Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
.............. New Mexico, Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources
.. .......................... Oklahoma, Department of Health

Catherine Sharp ......... .
David Lennen .................................................. .
Chris Shuey ......................................................... .

.. ................................................ Maine, National Audubon Society
.. ............................................ New Mexico, Southwest Research & Information Center

Sue Melhoff ............................................................................. ..

.. ....................... Washington, D.C. Bureau of Land Management

Debra Eno ....... .

............................................... Texas, Amoco Production Company
........ West Virginia, Robinson & McElwee

David Flannery ............................. .

Washington, D.C., U.S. EPA

Mike Fitzpatrick

NORM Committee
Lori Wortenbery, Chairman ................................................................................................................... ,,,,, Railroad Commission of Texas

Carroll Wascom .....
WilmaSubra
Ann Hunt ............ ..
Buck Steingraber ... ..

... Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
.... Louisiana, Subra Company
............. Michigan, C.A.C.C.
..Texas, Mobil Exploration & Production U.S. Jnc.

Mark Pierce ............ .

.. ... Texas, Ashland Exploration, Inc.

Bill Russo .............. ..

............... Washington, D.C. U.S. EPA

 

 

 

SECTION1

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background
The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) is the organization of the Governors of the 29 oil and gas producing states.
JOGCC has been assisting states in developing their oil and gas regulatory programs since 1935.

The

More than 99 percent of the oil and gas

produced onshore in the United States is produced within the borders of, and is regulated by, member states of the IOGCC.

In recent years,

with the creation of an Environmental Affairs Committee, the IOGCC has become increasingly involved in environmental issues related to oil
and gas production.

1.2. EPA's Regulatory Determination for E&PWaste

The federal government's increasing interest in environmental and potential human health impacts associated with exploration and
production of crude oi! and natural gas arose from a [Wo-year study of exploration and production (E&P) wastes and their associated waste
management practices by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1986 and 1987. The study, a Report to Congress, was required by
1980 amendments to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Based on the findings of the Report to Congress, and on

oral and written comments received during public hearings in the spring of 1988, on June 30, 1988, EPA decided not to recommend federal
regulation of E&P wastes as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA {EPA 1988).

The Agency gave the following reasons for its

determinations:

a.

"Subtitle C does not provide sufficient flexibility to consider costs and avoid the serious economic impacts that regulation would create for
the industry's exploration and production operations;

b.

"Existing state and federal regulatory programs are generally adequate for controlling oil, gas, and geothermal wastes.

Regulatory gaps

in the Clean Water Act and UJC {Underground Injection Control) program are already being addressed, and the remaining gaps in state and
federal regulatory programs can be effectively addressed by formulating requirements under Subtitle D of RCRA and by working with the
States;

c,

"Permitting delays would hinder new facilities, disrupting the search for new oil and gas deposits;

d.

"Subtitle C regulation of these wastes could severely strain existing Subtitle C facility capacity;

e.

"It is impractical and inefficient to implement Subtitle C for all or some of these wastes
because of the disruption and, in some cases, duplication of state authorities that administer programs through organizational structures
tailored to the oil and gas industry; and

f."lt is impractical and inefficient to implement Subtitle C for all or some of these waste
because of the permitting burden that the regulatory agencies would incur if even a small percentage of these sites were considered
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)."

(53 FR 25456, July 6, 1988).

In the determination, EPA found that "existing state and federal regulations are generally adequate... Certain regulatory gaps do exist and
enforcement of existing regulation in some states is inadequate."

To address those concerns, EPA announced a three-pronged approach that

consists of:

Effective July 1, 1991, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission officially became the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
to "IOCC" in these guidelines reflect the use of the acronym prior to July 1991.

References

 •

"Improving federal programs under existing statutory authorities in RCRA Subcicle D, che Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking
Water Act;

•

"Working with states to encourage improvements in the states' regulations and enforcement of existing programs; and

•

"Working with Congress to develop any additional statutory authority chat may be required."

1.3. IOGCC's Council on Regulatory Needs
IOGCC formed a Council on Regulatory Needs in January 1989 to assist EPA wich the second prong of the Agency's approach for E&P wastes.
Funded by an initial two-year, $300,000 grant from EPA, the Council is comprised of twelve state regulatory agency members.

The Council

is supported in its efforts by a nine-member advisory committee, of whom three represent state regulatory agencies, three represent industry,
and three represent public-interest/environmental groups.

The Council is assisted by representatives of EPA, U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), and Bureau of land Management (BLM) who act as official observers. Governors Garry Carruthers and George Sinner were the first
co-chairs of the Council.
The purpose of the Council is to recommend effective regulations, guidelines, and/or standards for state-level management of oil and gas
production wastes {!OCC 1989).

EPA has concurred in this purpose, stating that "... IOCC is leading an effort...that will use .. .information

gathered by EPA to develop IOCC guidelines for state oil and gas waste management regulations" (Lowrance 1989).
In 1990, IOCC adopted such guidelines in the form of technical and administrative criteria recommended by the Council and its advisory
committee.

Published in December 1990 in a document titled EPA/IOCC Study of Srace Regulation of 011 and Gas Explorarion and

Production Wastes (which also is known as the "IOGCC Guidelines" or the "Green Book"), the criteria were not, and are not, intended to form

the sole basis for any future federal statutory or regulatory authorities that may be sought by EPA for E&P wastes.

Rather, the criteria have

been and continue to be disseminated to the states as examples of the range of "elements" necessary for effective state regulatory programs for
E&P wastes.

The criteria also have been and continue to be used as the basis for reviews of state E&P waste regulatory programs.

December 1993, nine states had participated in reviews based on the 1990 criteria.

As of

Another six state programs were to be reviewed against

those criteria in 1994.
The 1990 guidelines recommended that the criteria be updated every three years.

In 1992, the IOGCC authorized the Council on Regulatory

Needs to initiate and carry our a process to update or revise the guidelines as may be needed.

The Council, which was chaired during this

period by Governors Mike Sullivan of Wyoming and John Engler of Michigan, formed a multi-interest Guidelines Review Committee to
consider specific areas of the original guidelines that should be updated or revised.
address the areas identified by che Guidelines Review Committee.
environmental groups, EPA, DOE and BlM.

In early 1993, the Council established five committees to

Committee members representing state regulatory agencies, industry,

(A list of committees and their members is attached on pages viii-x.

Reports developed by each of the five committees were discussed, amalgamated and edited by the Guidelines Review Committee, which
presented a final draft of proposed updates, revisions and additions to the Council on December 4, 1993.

{On that same date, the Council

recommended chat IOGCC accept the revised guidelines and publish them as an official IOGCC document.

IOGCC voted to adopt the revised

guidelines in March 1994.}

Proposed language

1.4. Implementation Strategy
a.

These guidelines were developed by IOGCC to help the states and EPA improve E&P waste management programs. These guidelines:

•

Demonstrate the commitment of the governors of oil and gas producing states, EPA, state agencies, environmental groups, and
industry to work together for environmental change and improvements;

•

Serve as a model for future efforts and substantiate IOGCC's position as an appropriate forum to develop comprehensive approaches

"

I
Ii

I

 to multifaceted and complex oil and gas related environmental issues; and

•

Establish a baseline of performance that can be used for both the administrative and technical aspects of E&P waste management.
This baseline is useful to federal and state regulators, legislators, and oil and gas operators.

b. To achieve successful implementation, the Council has supported and continues to supp on the following strategy:

•

Secure grants and continue to encourage individual states to provide adequate funding for implementation of follow-up
recommendations and continued active participation of all affected parties;

•

Communicate the criteria of this report to EPA, state agencies, operators, and other interested parties through direct contact, at E&P
waste management conferences and symposia, in a series of one-day workshops hosted by state agencies and involving regional EPA
offices, state and tribal agencies, oil and gas operators, trade associations, environmental groups, and through other mechanisms as
may be appropriate;

•

Build consensus and improve this document as an on-going effort

To chis end, IOGCC

has widely circulated it to federal agencies

(EPA, DOE, DOI), state oil and gas agencies, state environmental protection agencies, national and regional trade associations, and
other interested parties seeking full or qualified endorsement.
years.

The Council further recommends updating this document every three

The Council also recommends updates include status reports from participating states that address:

1) progress of the

states in using and implementing the repon's criteria; and 2) any unresolved or new issues;

•

Continue use of this document as a basis for conducting IOGCC coordinated reviews of state E&P waste management programs, and
as a basis for review of federal agency programs.

Teams of state regulatory personnel and representatives of the oil and gas

industry and environmental groups will continue to visit agencies and review programs using this document as a baseline of
performance, and for making recommendations for improvement;

•

Use IOGCC as a clearinghouse for changes and revisions to state and federal regulatory and legislative programs;

•

Pursue improvements in the areas identified in Section

8 of this report.

1.5. State and Federal Relations
Periodic evaluations of scare and federal E&P waste management programs have proven useful in improving the effectiveness of those
programs and increasing cooperation between federal and state regulatory agencies.

Peer review-based evaluation mechanisms have

demonstrated the need for establishment of a performance baseline by which E&P waste management programs can be evaluated.

Those

mechanisms have led to the identification of strategies that will improve communication and program understanding between the states and
the federal government.
1.5.1.

Strategies for Maintaining a Successful Relationship Between State and Federal Agencies
As stated in EPA's regulatory determination for E&P waste, "... existing state and federal regulations are generally adequate to control
the management of oil and gas wastes.
states is inadequate."

Certain regulatory gaps do exist, however, and enforcement of existing regulations in some

The key is that overall state programs are adequate.

To address these gaps, the focus of future efforts

should be to utilize information developed through EPA studies and investigations, and augmented by the criteria and information
developed by the Council.

Given that information, EPA, working through the IOGCC, can meet with and provide guidance and

assistance to states that need to improve their programs.
The Council has identified ten interrelated strategies that, if implemented, would enhance state and federal relations and promote

 effective management of oil and gas wastes.
a.

Commitment to Work Cooperatively.

State and federal agencies should take steps to encourage open communications

among state and federal agencies, the regulated industry, and other interested parties pertaining to the management and
regulation of E&P wastes.
The states and federal agencies should maintain a commitment to work cooperatively to improve the design,
implementation, and enforcement of state and federal programs for managing E&P wastes.
b.

Recognition of Different Priorities.

States should recognize the interest of federal agencies in achieving national goals and

objectives and assuring adherence to federal and state statutory and regulatory reguirements.

At the same time, federal

agencies should recognize the authorities, responsibilities, and capabilities of states to regulate certain activities within their
borders.
c.

Recognition of Different Statutory Objectives.

Each of the federal statutes governing protection of the environment {e.g.,

RCRA, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act) has provisions for state implementation of certain provisions and for federal
oversight.

The objectives of and authorities granted by each statute differ.

As such, it should be recognized that federal

and state authorities and implementation approaches may differ.
d.

As discussed in the Report to Congress and the legislative history of the Safe Drinking

Recognition of Regional Diversity.

Water Act, variable approaches to the management of E&P wastes are necessary.

These variable approaches are partly a

result of the varying geologic, hydrologic, or historic conditions in different states and in different areas within a state, the
diverse characteristics of oil and gas activities, and differences in state government structures among the producing states.
Guidelines or criteria, whether issued by a federal agency such as EPA or as advocated by the IOGCC, should be sufficiently
flexible to permit states to take into account these varying conditions.
e.

Baseline of Performance.

The criteria developed by the Council should be used by any federal or state agency that is

responsible for any portion of the E&P waste management program.
performance by which the effectiveness of programs can be judged.

These criteria should serve as a baseline of

The criteria provide states flexibility to address unigue

conditions while accomplishing the goals set forth in Section 3.
f.

State Responsibility for Enforcement.

Enforcement is a critical component of a state E&P waste management program.

Federal government involvement should occur only if the state agency fails to enforce the reguirements or reguests federal
assistance.
g.

State Program Review Process.

The IOGCC should continue its state program review process that

provides states with

an independent evaluation of their E&P waste management programs using criteria developed by the Council.

The state

review committee includes representatives of state oil and gas and environmental agencies, federal agencies, industry, and
the public.

The review process

also increases the knowledge of participating states as to the content and operation of

other state E&P waste management programs.
h.

Resolving Conflicts/Building Consensus.

Where there are unresolved national issues or concerns regarding E&P waste

management, a task force should be created which is similar in makeup and form to that established for the EPA's Office of
Drinking Water MidMCourse Evaluation of Class II UIC programs.

The creation of this task force would bring knowledgeable

federal and state regulators together to discuss issues, to ascertain whether problems associated with these issues are real or
perceived, and to decide how best to address the issues.

This process should be based on the best available information

and could be initiated by either the federal government or the states.
i.

Effective MulriMAgency Coordination.
of these guidelines.

Coordination among the state agencies is addressed in more detail in another section

However, each state should recognize that coordination among various agencies is necessary for

 building and maintaining trust between the state agencies and the federal agen9' that has oversight responsibilities.

j.

Technical and Financial Assistance.

The federal government should provide technical and financial assistance to states to

improve the design, implementation, and enforcement of state E&P waste management programs.
in the areas of training, enforcement, and data management.
could be a condition of such assistance.

Such assistance may be

Federal oversight of a state E&P waste management program

 SECTIONZ

SCOPE OF THE CRITERIA

2.1. General

a.

These criteria are intended to guide states in assessing and improving their regulatory programs for E&P waste management.

This

document, therefore, sets out the elements of an effective program using "should" rather than the mandatory "shall".

b.

IOGCC criteria address waste management practices that are unique to E&P operations and wastes that were determined by EPA to be
exempt from the hazardous waste management requirements of Subtitle C of RCRA.
muds and cuttings, produced water and associated waste.

These narrowly defined wastes include drilling

The chemical and radiological characteristics of these wastes and the

management practices associated with the storage, treatment, and disposal of these wastes are covered by these criteria.

Wastes that

are uniformly regulated by RCRA hazardous waste management requirements, as well as general industrial wastes such as solvents,
off-specification chemicals, commercial products, household wastes, and office refuse are not addressed by these criteria.

c.

These criteria apply to all new and currently operating E&P waste management facilities.

In addition, the criteria in Section 6 apply to

abandoned sites.

d.

These criteria do not address disposal of E&P wastes by injection or surface discharge when those waste management practices
regulated by EPA or by the states under authority of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and federal Clean Water Act, respectively.
descriptions of the regulatory frameworks authorized by those laws follow in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

are
Brief

To the extent that waste

management practices are not regulated under those statutes, these guidelines are intended to apply.

e.

In addition to a review of provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act that are applicable to E&P wastes, this section also
contains definitions of solid wastes and hazardous wastes, reviews EPA's waste mixture rule, lists examples of exempt and non-exempt
E&Pwastes, and describes general requirements for the management of non-exempt wastes.

f.

It is recognized that ponions of these criteria address areas other than E&P wa.ste management practices, such as some tanks at enhanced
oil recovery operations.

2.2. Class II Injection Wells

The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes a special class (Class II) of injection wells used for the disposition of oil-field fluids.
this class are used for E&P waste disposal, enhanced oil recovery, and, in some cases, storage of liquid hydrocarbons.

Injection wells in

Class II UIC programs

are administered directly by the states through primacy delegated by EPA or by EPA in states that have not sought or obtained primacy for the
UIC program.

Some states have negotiated primacy agreements with EPA and in return have received authorization and federal funding for

program implementation, conditional upon meeting minimum EPA standards.
from the EPA, largely dictate what can be injected in Class II wells.

Primacy agreements, which may be amended with approval

The EPA determines which wastes can be injected in Class II wells in

non-primacy states.

'

Nearly 21 hi/lion barrels ofproduced water C or 98 percent ofall E&P wastes C were generated in the U.S. in 1985, according to American

Petroleum Institute (AP!) figures cited by EPA (EPA 1987).

Most ofthat produced water was disposed by injection, with much smaller volumes discharged

to surface waters or disposed in pits, by land application, or at commercial disposal facilities.

Drilling wastes (i.e., drilling fluids and cuttings) accounted

for about 2 percent ofall E&P wastes generated in 1985, totalling 361 million barrels, according to AP/ (EPA 1987).

6

 Among the minimum requirements for Class II wells are:

a.

Only approved fluids may be injected.

b.

No well may endanger an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW).

c.

Unless permitted by rule, all wells must be permitted before construction.

d.

All wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity at least once every five years.

2.3. NPDES-Permitted Discharges
All point-source discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the United States must comply with the requirements of permits issued under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

The NPDES program is administered by EPA under the authority of the federal

Clean Water Act or by the states through programs delegated by EPA.
requirements for discharges.

NPDES permits establish effluent !imitations and monitoring

Effluent limits are based upon the more stringent of levels which can be achieved through the use of available

technology and levels necessary to meet EPA-approved state water quality standards.
waste discharges to surface water.

The Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits for E&P

Currently, effluent guidelines prevent any discharge to surface waters except in the following categories:

a.

Discharges to coastal areas containing brackish waters not suitable for human use;

b.

Discharges of low salinity produced waters which are of beneficial use in arid regions west of the 98th meridian; and

c.

Discharges from stripper oil wells.

2.4. Definition of Solid Waste

a.

Jn simplest terms, a solid waste is any material that is discarded or intended to be discarded.
solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contain gaseous material.

According to RCRA, solid wastes may be

Commercial products are not wastes unless, and until, they are discarded.

Commercial products and their releases are regulated under other statutes such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (OSHA).

b.

EPA has also determined that produced water injected for enhanced recovery is not a waste for purposes of RCRA Subtitle C or D, since
produced water used in enhanced recovery is beneficially recycled and is an integral part of some crude oil and natural gas production
processes.

2.5. Hazardous Waste
Under RCRA, a solid waste may be designated as hazardous waste if it is specifically listed as a hazardous waste or if it exhibits one or more of
the characteristics of hazardous wastes.

(See 40 CFR 261).

Enhanced recovery describes all efforts to increase ultimate production of oil and gas from a reservoir, and this terminology will be considered
to encompass other nomenclature in common usage such as pressure maintenance, secondary recovery, and tertiary recovery.

All enhanced recovery

techniques include methods for supplementing natural reservoir forces and energy, or otherwise increasing ultimate recovery.

Such techniques include

water injection, gas injection, gas cycling, and miscible chemicals and thermal processes.

7

 2.5.1.

Listed Hazardous Waste
a.

EPA has listed numerous types or classes of solid wastes as hazardous waste because they typically exhibit one or more
of the characteristics of hazardous waste, or have been shown to exceed certain human toxicity criteria, or contain any
one of more than 50 chemical compounds or substances that are listed as hazardous constituents.

(40 CFR 261 APP

VIII.)

b.

EPA's regulations contain four lists of hazardous wastes:

1) hazardous waste from non-specific sources; 2) hazardous

waste from specific sources; 3) commercial chemical products that become acutely hazardous waste when disposed; and
4) commercial chemical products that become toxic wastes when disposed.
2.5.2.

Characteristically Hazardous Waste
a.

EPA considers any solid waste to be a hazardous waste if it exhibits any one of the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivicy, reactivity, or toxicity.

b.

EPA has expanded the toxicity category (toxicity characteristic (TC)), and adopted a revised laboratory procedure (toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure {TCLP)).

2.6. Waste Mixtures
EPA's RCRA regulations provide that the commingling of any listed hazardous waste with a non-hazardous waste generally renders the entire
mixture a hazardous waste.

The intent of this mixture rule is to prevent avoidance of hazardous waste regulations through dilution.

For

example, discarding a listed hazardous waste (e.g., a half-empty container of a listed solvent) in a reserve pit could cause the otherwise exempt
pit contents to become a hazardous waste and result in the expensive dosing of the reserve pit under RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
likewise, the mixing of a characteristic hazardous waste with an exempt waste could render the entire mixture a hazardous waste.

Also, in

those cases where the mixture is no longer considered a hazardous waste, the process of rendering the hazardous waste non-hazardous could
be considered treatment of a hazardous waste and RCRA Subtitle C would apply.

Unused commercial products are not exempt wastes

when disposed and if hazardous (or potentially hazardous} should not be disposed with exempt oil-field waste.

All reasonable efforts should

be made to completely use commercial produces, return them to their vendor if they are not fully used, or segregate them from other waste for
management and disposal.
2.7. EPA's List of Exempt Exploration and Production Wastes
EPA's regulatory determination for E&P wastes (53 FR 25453, July 6, 1988) found that the following wastes are exempt from RCRA hazardous
waste management requirements.

The list below identifies many, but not all, exempt wastes.

generated in "primary field operations", and not as a result of maintenance or transportation activities.

•

"Produced water;

•

"Drilling fluids;

•

"Drill cuttings;

•

"Rigwash;

8

In general, E&P exempt wastes are

 •

"Drilling fluids and cuttings from offshore operations disposed of onshore;

•

"Wei! completion, treatment, and stimulation fluids;

•

"Basic sediment and water, and other tank bottoms from storage facilities that hold produce and exempt waste;

•

"Accumulated materials such as hydrocarbons, solids, sand, and emulsion from production separators, fluid treating vessels, and
production impoundments;

•

"Pit sludges and contaminated bottoms from storage or disposal of exempt wastes;

•

"Workover wastes;

•

"Gas plant sweetening wastes for sulfur removal, including amine, amine filters, amine filter media, backwash, precipitated amine sludge,
iron sponge, and hydrogen sulfide scrubber liquid and sludge;

•

"Cooling tower blowdown;

•

"Spent filters, filter media, and backwash (assuming the filter itself is not hazardous and the residue in it is from an exempt waste stream);

•

"Packing fluids;

•

"Produced sand;

•

"Pipe scale, hydrocarbon solids, hydrates, and other deposits removed from piping and equipment prior to transportation;

•

''Hydrocarbon-bearing soil;

•

"Pigging wastes from gathering lines;

•

"Wastes from subsurface gas storage and retrieval, except for the listed non-exempt wastes;

•

"Constituents removed from produced water before it is injected or otherwise disposed of;

•

"Liquid hydrocarbons removed from the production stream but not from oil refining;

•

"Gases removed from the production stream, such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, and volatilized hydrocarbons;

•

"Materials ejected from a producing well during the process known as b!owdown;

•

"Waste crude oil from primary field operations and production; and

•

"Light organics volatilized from exempt wastes in reserve pits or impoundments or production equipment."

9

 On March 22, 1993, EPA provided "clarification" regarding the scope of the E&P waste exemption for waste streams generated by crude oil and
tank botrom reclaimers, oil and gas service companies, crude oil pipelines, and gas processing plants and their associated field gathering lines.
(See 58 FR 15284-15287.)

EPA stated that certain wasce screams from these operations are "uniquely associated" with primary field

operations and as such are within the scope of the RCRA Subtitle C exemption.
may not be exempt if they are mixed with non-exempt materials or wastes.

EPA's clarification cautioned, however, that these wastes

The Council recommends that the states carefully review EPA's

clarification, and if necessary seek guidance from the agency, in adopting or revising program elements that address wastes generated by
reclaimers, service companies, crude oil pipelines, or gas plants.
2.8. EPA's List of Non-exempt Exploration and Production Wastes
EPA's 1988 regulatory determination lists the following wastes as non-exempt.
wastes, as well as transportation (pipeline and trucking) activities.

The list below identifies many, but not all non-exempt

While the following wastes are non-exempt, their regulatory status as

"hazardous wastes" is dependent upon a determination of their characteristics or whether they are listed as hazardous waste.

Non-exempt

wastes should be managed as described under Section 2.9.

•

"Unused fraccuring fluids or acids;

•

"Gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes;

•

"Painting wastes;

•

"Oil and gas service company wastes, such as empty drums, drum rinsate, vacuum truck rinsate, sandblast media, painting wastes, spent
solvents, spilled chemicals, and waste acids;

•

"Vacuum truck and drum rinsate from trucks and drums transporting or containing non-exempt waste;

•

"Refinery wastes;

•

"Liquid and solid wastes generated by crude oil and tank botrom reclaimers;

•

"Used equipment lubrication oils;

•

"Waste compressor oil, filters, and blowdown;

•

"Used hydraulic fluids;

•

"Waste solvents;

•

"Waste in transportation pipeline-related pits;

•

"Caustic or acid cleaners;

•

"Boiler deaning wastes;

•

"Boiler refractory bricks;

10

 •

"Incinerator ash;

•

"Laboratory wastes;

•

"Sanitary wastes;

•

"Pesticide wastes;

•

"Radioactive tracer wastes; and

•

Drums, insulation, and miscellaneous solids."

EPA did not specifically address, in its 1988 regulatory determination, the status of
reclaimed by reinjection into a crude stream.

hydrocarbon-bearing material that is recycled or

However, under existing EPA regulations, recycled oil, even if it were otherwise hazardous,

could be reintroduced into the crude steam, if it is from normal operations and is to be refined along with normal process streams at a

petroleum refinery facility.

(40 CFR 261.6 (a)(3)(vi).)

2.9. Requirements for Non-exempt Wastes

a.

EPA's hazardous waste regulations, including the toxicity characteristic (TC), may apply to non-exempt waste generators at E&P sites.

b.

Non-exempt wastes should be tested whenever there is reason to believe they may exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics.

Although there is no requirement that a non-exempt waste be tested to determine if it is hazardous, civil and criminal

penalties may be imposed if the waste is not managed in a safe manner and according to regulations.

c.

Depending on actual hazardous waste volume generated, stored, or managed on-site, RCRA hazardous waste requirements for treatment,
storage, or disposal or corrective action may apply.

d.

Non-exempt waste should also be segregated whenever possible from exempt waste.

Jf the non-exempt waste

was a listed

hazardous waste, its mixture with an exempt waste could make the entire commingled waste stream subject to stringent RCRA Subtitle C
requirements, including the requirement that the waste be disposed at a hazardous waste facility.

Even if the resultant waste mixture

were not a hazardous waste, the process of rendering the hazardous waste nonhazardous could be considered treatment of a hazardous
waste, in which case RCRA Subtitle C would apply.

When segregation is not practical, the non-exempt waste should be examined

closely to assure that it is not a hazardous waste.

e.

Some states have adopted hazardous waste regulations which differ from those that EPA has promulgated.
specific areas, those state programs, by law, still must be at least as stringent as the federal programs.

11

While different in many

 Waste From
Exploration,
Development,
or Production?

r-- No

I

-~1

Yes

I

I

1

II

I
r

No

J

T

v

Yes

I
v
Yes

If- Yes

No

v
Uniquely
Associated
?

Listed
Hazardous
Waste
?

I

Waste Mixture?

Exhibit
Hazardous
Characteristic?

No

No

I

I

v

II
I

v

Exempt From
RCRA Subtitle C
(Subject to
Subtitle D and
Other State
and Federal
Statutes)

Non-hazardous
Waste
(Subject to
Subtitle D and
Other State
and Federal
Statutes)

II

See
Mixture
Flowchart

12

Hazardous
Waste
Subject to
RCRA
Subtitle C

I
I

Yes

I

 Exempt/Non-Exempt Flowchart

Exempt Waste

J--

t----

NonHazardous
Waste

f--

~

);>II

Exempt Waste

~

1

1

"=~~~~~~~~=="

~------}>I

No
Exempt Waste

J

Exempt Waste
(but Subject to
appropriate
RCRA Hazardous
Waste Treatment
Requirements)

f--

Does Mixture
Exhibit Any
Hazardous
1--);>I
Characteristic
Exhibited by
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt Waste?
Characteristic ~
Hazardous Waste

I

I

Yes
~---}>I

Exempt Waste

II

);> I

II

Listed

II

Listed
Hazardous
Waste

I
13

Non-Exempt
Characteristic
Hazardous Waste

 Hazardous
Waste



14

Mixture Flowchart

 

SECTION3

GENERAL CRITERIA

3.1. General

An effeccive program for the regulation of E&P wastes should include, at a minimum:

a.

Statutory authority which adequately details the powers and duties of the regulatory body;

b. Statutory authority to promulgate appropriate rules and regulations;
c.

Statutes and implementing regulations which adequately define necessary terminology;

d. Provisions to adequately fund and staff the program;
e.

Mechanisms for coordination among the public, government agencies, and regulated industry; and

f.

Technical criteria for E&P waste management practices.

3.2.Goals
An effective state program should contain a dear statement of the program's goals and objectives.

Such goals should include, at a minimum, protecting

human health and the environment from the mismanagement of E&P wastes while maintaining an economically viable oil and gas industry.

When

establishing regulations and policies for E&P waste management, states should use the waste management hierarchy set forth in Section 5 to encourage
waste minimization and source reduction.

3.3. State/Regional Variations in Criteria
These criteria are intended to provide guidance to the states in the formulation, development, and evaluation of oil and gas environmental regulatory
programs.

Fundamental differences exist from state to state, and within regions within a state in terms of climate, hydrology, geology, economics, and

method of operation which may impact on the manner in which oil and gas exploration, development, and production is performed.

State oil and gas

programs can and should vary from state to state and within portions of a state.
The process by which these criteria are incorporated into state programs is a function of, and within, the discretion of the responsible state agency.

It is

recognized that state programs must vary in order to accommodate differences in climate, hydrology, geology, economics, and method of operation or to
accommodate individual differences in state administrative procedures or law.

Furthermore, in some instances, in order to accommodate regional,

areal, or individual differences within a state, it is appropriate for site-specific waivers or variances to be allowed for good cause shown.
variations should be consistent with the goals of Section 3.2.

15

All such

 SECTION4
ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA

4.1. Basic Requirements

Various federal regulations applicable to the delegation to states of federal environmental programs provided the Council with a useful framework for the
development of criteria for an effective state program.

Such a program for E&P waste should, at a minimum, include provisions for permitting,

compliance evaluation, and enforcement.
4.1.1.

Permitting

A state

should have a regulatory mechanism to assure that wastes generated during oil and gas E&P operations are managed in an

environmentally responsible manner.

A program to achieve that objective may rely on one or more mechanisms, including issuance of

individual permits, issuance of permits by rule, establishment of regulatory requirements by rule, issuance of general permits, registration of
facilities, and/or notification of certain activities undertaken pursuant to general regulations.

The regulating state agencies should have

authority to refuse to issue or reissue permits or authorizations if the applicant has outstanding. finally determined violations or unpaid penalties,
or if a history of past violations demonstrates the applicant's unwillingness or inability to comply with permit requirements. Where the operator
responsible for E&P waste management changes, state requirements should address the new operator's financial responsibility and compliance
history.

An effective state program should provide that a state permit does not relieve the operator of the obligation to comply with federal,

local, or other state permits or regulatory requirements.
Individual permits for specific facilities or operations should be issued for fixed terms.

In the case of commercial or centralized facilities,

permits, generally, should be reviewed and revised, if necessary, no less frequently than every five years.
mandated by two or more regulatory programs, those requirements should be combined where feasible.

Where similar requirements are
The process for obtaining permits

should also involve prompt consideration and response to permit applications while preserving the integrity of the permit review process,
inclt.iding appropriate public participation.

For the purposes of these guidelines, the terms "license" or "licensing" as used in Section 7 of these

guidelines, criteria for the management of oil-field NORM, will be synonymous with the terms "permit" or "permitting" as they are used
throughout these guidelines.
4.1.2.

Compliance Evaluation

4.1.2.1.
State programs should contain the following compliance evaluation capabilities:
a.

Procedures for the receipt, evaluation, retention, and investigation for possible enforcement action of all notices and reports required of
permittees and other regulated persons.
submit these notices and reports.

Investigation for possible enforcement action should include determination of failure to

Effective data management systems as prescribed in Section 4.2.8. can be used to track compliance.

b. Inspection and surveillance procedures that are independent of information supplied by regulated persons and which allow the state to
determine compliance with program requirements, including:
(1) the capability to

conduct comprehensive

investigations of facilities and activities subject to regulation in order co identify a

failure to comply with program requirements by responsible

16

persons;

 (2) the capability to conduct

regular inspections of regulated facilities and activities at a frequency that is commensurate with the

risk to the environment that is presented by each facility or activity; and
(3) the authority to investigate information obtained regarding violations of applicable program and permit requirements.
c.

Procedures to receive and
report perceived violations.

evaluate information submitted by the public about alleged violations and

to encourage the public to

Such procedures should not only involve communications with the public to apprise it of the process to

be followed in filing repons or complaints, but should also communicate how the state agency will assure an appropriate and timely
response.

d. Authority to conduct unannounced inspections of
including the authority

to inspect, sample, monitor,

any regulated site or premises where E&P activities are being conducted,
or otherwise investigate compliance with permit conditions and other program

requirements.
e.

Authority to enter locations where records are kept during reasonable hours for purposes of copying and inspecting such records.

f.

Investigatory procedures that will produce

a paper trail

to support evidence

which may be admitted in

any enforcement

proceeding brought against an alleged violator, including dear inspection and inspection reporting procedures.

4.1.3.

Enforcement

4.1.3.1.
With respect to violations of the state program, the state agency should have the authority to take some or all of the following enforcement
actions:
a.

Issue a notice of violation with a compliance schedule;

b. Restrain, immediately and effectively, any person by order or by suit in state court from engaging in any impending or continuing
unauthorized activity which is causing or may cause damage to public health or the environment;
c.

Establish the identity of emergency conditions which pose an imminent and substantial human health or environmental hazard chat
would warrant entry and immediate corrective action by the state agency after reasonable efforts to notil)i the operator have failed;

d. Sue or cause suit to be brought in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any impending or continuing violation of any program
requirement, including any permit condition, without the necessity of a prior revocation of the permit;
Require, by administrative order or suit in state court, that appropriate action be undertaken to correct any harm to public health and the

e.

environment that may have resulted from a violation of any program requirement, including, but not limited to, establishment of
compliance schedules;

f.

Revoke, modify, or suspend any permit upon a determination by the state agency that the permittee has violated the terms and
conditions of the permit, failed to pay an assessed penalty, or used false or misleading information or fraud to obtain the permit; or

1

Jn some states, enforcement remedies include authorities to cause cessation ofproduction or transportation ofproduct, and/or seizure ofillegal

product.

17

 g.

Assess administrative penalties or seek, in court, civil penalties or criminal sanctions including fines and/or imprisonment.

h.

Forfeiture of financial assurance instruments.

4.1.3.2.
States should

develop guidelines for calculations of penalties that include factors such as the economic benefit resulting from the violation,

willfulness, harm to the environment and the public, harm to wildlife, fish or aguatic life or their habitat, expenses incurred by the state in
removing, correcting or terminating the effects of the unauthorized activity, conservation of the resource, timeliness of corrective action,
notification of appropriate authority, and history of violations.

Benefits of guidelines for calculation of penalties include consistency in the

assessment of penalries and development of readily defensible assessments.

Penalties should be such that an operator does not benefit

financially from unlawful conduct, and should provide compliance incentive to other operators.

States should evaluate their enforcement

options and policies to assure that the full range of actions available are effectively used.
4.1.3.3.
The right to appeal or seek administrative and/or judicial review of agency action should be available to any person having an interest which is or
may be adversely affected, or who is aggrieved by any such action.

18

 4.2.Additional Program Requirements
Beyond basic requirements, an effective state program should also include some or all of a variety of other administrative requirements that are discussed
below.
4.2.1.

Contingency Planning and Clean-up Requirements
4.2.1.1.
a.

State Contingency Plan
The state should develop and adopt a state contingency plan for responding to spills and releases.

The plan should define the volume

of a spill or release of a petroleum product or waste which triggers implementation of the spill contingency plan and response
requirements as well as the types of spills and/or releases covered by the program requirements, the time in which notification and
subsequent clean-up should occur, and guidance or criteria relating to final remedial verification provisions to ensure that appropriate
remediation has been accomplished.
b. The state contingency plan should also contain funding provisions which enable the state agency to undertake immediate response
actions for significant spills or releases which constitute a threat to human health or the environment in the event that a responsible
operator cannot be located or is unwilling or unable to respond to the spill or release.

Jn addition, state program requirements should

contain provisions allowing the state agency to pursue a responsible operator for reimbursement for state monies expended in
responding to such a spill or release.
4.2.1.2.

Requirements for Operator Responses to Spills and Releases

The state agency should require an operator to comply with requirements to address any unauthorized spill or release of petroleum products
or waste that may occur at an E&P waste management facility.

These requirements should include a description of the action which the

operator will take to prevent or respond to spills and releases, including provisions for notification, remedial action, training, and names of
operator representatives to be contacted in the event of an incident.
4.2.2.

Public Participation

4.2.2.1.
State program legislation or regulations should require that the affected public be provided with adequate notice of the agency's intention to
issue a permit or license that addresses E&P waste management
comment on a permit or license prior to issuance.

The public should be provided with an appropriate opportunity to

Wherever possible, this notice should be coordinated with the notice requirements of

other concurrently applicable state or federal programs.

For commercial or centralized disposal facilities, the operator should also be

required to provide written notice to adjacent landowners of record for such area and in such manner as may be prescribed by the state
agency.
Agency records related to this program should generally be available for review by the public.
and pit locations and any required analytical data.

Where

informatio~

Such records are to include waste disposal

submitted by an operator is of a "confidential business" nature, an

agency should have procedures for segregating that information and protecting it from disclosure.
should be available to the public.

In all cases, spill and violation records

Agencies should establish a minimum record keeping time period of three years which should be

automatically extended while any unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated activity is pending.

4.2.2.2.

19

 States should provide for the dissemination of program information to the regulated industry and the public.

Such educational materials

should include information or guidance on contingency planning. spill response, permitting. operating. monitoring and other requirements.
Such efforts should be part of an ongoing process through which information is exchanged in an open forum.

Because E&P waste

management requirements are undergoing numerous changes, states have the obligation to inform the regulated industry and the public of
changes.

Industry associations and other organizations may provide a convenient and effective mechanism for dissemination of

information.

States should actively make use of seminars, newsletters, special mailings, association committees, incentive programs and

other mechanisms.

4.2.2.3.
States should use advisory groups of industry, government, and public representatives to obtain input and feedback on the effectiveness of
state programs for the management of E&P wastes.

Provision should be made for education or training as is appropriate to give such

advisory groups a sound basis for providing input and feedback.
4.2.3.

Program Planning and Development
States should have a sound regulatory development process which includes both short-term and long-term strategic planning for defining goals
and objectives, setting priorities, and evaluating the effectiveness of the E&P waste management program.

In formulating waste management

regulations, states should use the best available scientific and technical information and should consider the economic and energy impacts of the
regulations.
4.2.4.

Financial Assurance
All states should have an adequate financial assurance program to provide resources to the state to close or remediate a site should an operator
fail to meet its obligations under the !aw.

Most states have financial assurance programs, although they vary widely in the specific activity

covered, the type of assurance allowed, the amount of assurance required, and the mechanism for forfeiture of the financial instrument.
States should identify those activities such as closure and remediation and other relevant activities for which criteria have been set forth in Sec.
5., that need to be covered by financial assurance.

Some states require financial assurance for inaccive wells, some for drilling and/or plugging.

some for waste disposal facilities, and some for the life of the well.
bonds.

Some states require performance bonds and some states require penal

States should consider combining their financial assurance requirements to allow a single instrument to provide coverage for an

operator's various activities.
States Should determine the types of financial assurances that will provide reliable monetary resources to the state.

Types of financial

assurance include surety bonds; self-bonding; letters of credit; certificates of deposit; cash, federal, state, or municipal bonds; and other forms of
collateral.

Some states accept a nonrefundable fee to be paid into the well plugging fund in lieu of a bond.

Some states allow phased

payments of collateral into a fund so that small operators can develop a collateral bond over a specified period of time.
develop financial assurance options which facilitate an operator's compliance with bonding requirements.
well bonds, many states allow blanket bonds.

States should

For example, in addition to single

This allows operators to assure that an established minimum level of financial assurance is

provided without the commitment of an unnecessary amount of operating funds.
States should periodically review the amount of assurance required to determine if the amount is adequate to provide incentive for proper
plugging of a well and reclamation of a site, and to assure proper management of E&P wastes.
In the case of commercial and centralized facilities as defined in Section S.10., including those that manage oil-field NORM, state financial
assurance requirements should be sufficient to cover the costs of appropriate facility decontamination, reclamation, and closure, and should
extend through any post-closure care, monitoring, or control period. Also see Sec. 5.10.2.2.e.

20

 States should develop appropriate procedures to access an operator's financial assurance when the operator does not meet the obligations
covered by the financial assurance.

These procedures should include provisions for notice, hearings, and forfeiture.

Some states have special funds, such as well~plugging funds, that are available for state use to correct problems where an operator is unable to
comply with state requirements.

Although the availability of such funds may be a consideration in some states when determining bond

coverage amounts, special funds should be used to supplement rather than completely take the place of other forms of financial assurance
provided by the operator.
unavailable.
4.2.5.

The use of special funds should be limited to instances where the responsible operator cannot be determined or is

These special funds can be generated by taxes, fines, forfeitures, or fees.

Waste Hauler Certification
The appropriate state agency should have authority to require the training of drivers of trucks which are involved in the commercial
transportation of E&P waste to a commercial or centralized disposal facility.

Such training should include, among other things, emphasis on

proper record keeping, the need to deliver the waste to the designated facility and emergency response and notification procedures.

The

appropriate state agency should also have authority to require the registration of all vehicles used to commercially transport the waste and of all
commercial waste haulers.

21

 4.2.6.

Waste Tracking
Unless the state agency is utilizing an alternative method which achieves comparable results, the waste tracking requirements of these criteria
(Section

S.10.2.3.) should be used by the agency to regulate the transportation (other than by pipeline) of E&P waste to a commercial or

centralized disposal facility.

The waste generator, waste hauler, and operator of the disposal facility should retain and make available for

regulatory agency inspection all required waste tracking information for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of shipment.
4.2.7.

Location of Closed Disposal Sites
In response to RCRA Section 3001 (b)(2)(A)(i), a state program should contain authority with respect to disposal site closure, including authority
to identify the location of the disposal site and for such information to be permanently maintained by the state agency for public review.
Whether the location of a waste disposal site is disclosed in the public land records is a mauerwhich is within the discretion of the state.

4.2.8.

Data Management
Effective data management systems should be maintained due to the amount of information that states compile.

Such systems should include

permitting, operating. and monitoring information and should include those data elements that an individual state finds are necessary to make
cost-effective, risk-based decisions.
regulatory reviews.
and other users.

Data should be maintained on as detailed a level as is necessary for the agencies to conduct their

States and the federal government should undertake efforts to facilitate the sharing of data among responsible agencies
The IOGCC and federal government should continue to assist the states in developing and maintaining effective data

management systems.
4.3. Personnel and Funding
4.3.1.

Personnel
For a state program to function effectively,

sufficient, properly trained personnel to accomplish the goals and objectives of the program are

necessary.
In determining its personnel needs, a state agency should consider not only the number of activities that it muse regulate and inspect, hue also the
accessibility of those activities to agency personnel.
terrain, and road conditions.

Accessibility will be heavily influenced by the size of the area to be regulated, the local

Jn addition, a state agency should

evaluate how its personnel needs will be affected by activities occurring in

environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., in close proximity to surface water and groundwater).
Generally, personnel needs should be evaluated in each of the categories of administration, legal, technical, and field inspectors.

Jn each case, a

state agency should define the areas of responsibility for the position, as well as any prerequisite experience and background.

In addition, the

state agency

should provide for the continuing training of personnel to keep them abreast of changes in regulations, policy and technical

issues, and to increase professionalism.

This training can be accomplished through such means as seminars and university short courses.

The following discussion addresses these issues in each of the major personnel categories:
4.3.1.1. Administration
The elements of the administration of a state program should include traditional administrative functions such as program planning and
evaluation, budgeting, and personnel.

In addition, administration should be responsible for such programmatic functions as permitting.

licensing, financial assurance, and ownership transfer.
administration.

Public involvement and data collection management are also key elements of program

The conduct of public hearings, the coordination of enforcement activities, and the referral cases to legal personnel for

follow-up action should also be administrative functions.

22

 4,3.1.2, Legal
Legal support for an E&P waste management program can be provided by in-house stare agency lawyers through the support of the attorney
general's office or through independent counsel.

In any case, sufficient legal support should be provided to a state agency to assure that the

regulatory program has an effective capability to pursue appropriate enforcement actions in a timely manner against violators of program
requirements.

A critical element of this capability is that the program's legal element be capable of directing the preparation of enforcement

cases and providing guidance and direction to field inspectors and others involved in case preparation.

The legal element of a program should

also be involved in both the procedural and substantive aspects of rulemaking.

4.3.1.3. Technical
All program elements

require adequate technical support.

In supporting administrative functions, technical personnel should provide

geologic and engineering evaluation, and technical specifications on such matters as cementing and casing.

Technical support to the legal and

field personnel is necessary for the development and implementation of rules and in the preparation of enforcement cases.

In support of field

inspectors, technical personnel should be capable of mapping hydrologically sensitive areas and areas containing treatable water, and provide
support in determining pit construction requirements and guidance in waste handling.

Key technical personnel should have a bachelor of

science degree in geology, engineering, hydrology, earth science, environmental science, or a related field, or possess equivalent experience.
Technical personnel should be subject to continuing education in such areas as ongoing development of rules, policies, and technological
changes.

4.3.1.4. Field

Personnel

Field personnel should be responsible for conducting routine inspections of regulated facilities and activities to assure compliance with program
requirements.

In addition, field personnel should be among the state agency's on-site representatives to witness critical regulated activities

and to observe or supervise dean-up or remedial actions.

Field personnel also should be involved in the assembly of evidence for enforcement

actions and in the state agency's community relations.

Field personnel generally, should be high school graduates or have equivalent

experience, and otherwise be knowledgeable about oil and gas field-related work and waste management practices.
field

The ongoing training of

personnel should emphasize the range of chemical and radiological constituents in E&P wastes and at E&P sites, sampling and

investigative procedures associated with enforcement proceedings, and a thorough understanding of current rules and policies of the program, as
well as sound environmental practices.
appropriate.

In addition, field

Field personnel should be provided with training in NORM identification and management, where

personnel

should be skilled in the handling of hazardous materials and in all aspects of personnel safety:

4.3.1.5. Training Requirements
State programs should provide for adequate and effective training of state agency personnel regarding the regulations, policies, and criteria
applicable to E&P waste management.

These programs should include training for agency personnel on such issues as site maintenance,

contingency planning and spill response, permitting requirements and standards, compliance requirements and criteria, data management,
enforcement procedures, investigative procedures, court preparation, report writing, sampling and analysis, and such other issues relating to.
proper E&P waste management as may be necessary.

Training programs should be incorporated as an on-going activity to encourage

consistent enforcement of regulation throughout the state.

4.3.2.

Funding
An effective E&P waste management program should be funded at a level sufficient to allow it to accomplish its goals and objectives.

While

most state agencies will be funded through a general appropriation from that state's legislature, each state agency should evaluate other sources
of funding such as user fees, special levies on production, the dedication of fees and penalties to special accounts, and grants from various
sources.

23

 4.4. Coordination Among Agencies
Many state programs regulating the management of E&P wastes have their roots in oil and gas conservation programs that were established during the
early part of this century.

In most cases, these programs have evolved to accommodate other state and federal objectives such as protection of human

health and the environment.
In most states, multiple agencies are involved in the management of E&P wastes.

Different agencies are often responsible for the regulation of oil and

gas wells, pits and impoundments, disposal wells, surface water discharges, spill prevention and response, and disposal of drill cuttings and muds.

Each

agency has its own administrative requirements relating to permitting, operational requirements, and financial assurance, and develops its own budget
priorities.

Each has its own inspection and enforcement authorities.

Unless a high level of formal interagency coordination exists, such unilateral

program development and implementation can lead to duplication of personnel effort, duplication of regulation with sometimes conflicting standards fo·r
the industry, and duplication of funding.

Duplication of programs often diminishes the effectiveness of spill response, permitting. inspection,

enforcement, training. and other regulatory activities.

Where multiple state agencies have jurisdiction over the management of E&P wastes, budget

development should be coordinated and the agencies should develop formal coordination procedures, such as the development of interagency
Memoranda of Agreement, interagency task forces with periodic meetings, and/or interagency legislative and regulatory review panels to ensure
jurisdictional clariiy and regulatory consistency.
Additionally, states should review existing agreements to assure that they are current and effective.

Finally, interagency mechanisms should be

developed to facilitate the sharing of information among and between involved agencies so that each agency can carry out its program responsibilities.

24

 SECTIONS
TECHNICAL CRITERIA

5.1. General

These technical criteria for E&P waste management practices address waste characterization, waste management hierarchy, pits, land applications, tanks
and centralized and commercial facilities.

In most cases, these criteria are general in scope.

The states

should establish and implement specific

performance standards and design specifications based on site-specific or regional differences in geology, hydrology, climate, and waste characteristics.
State E&P waste management programs should include the following general provisions as requirements:

a.

Facilities and sites used for the storage or disposal of wastes derived from the exploration and production of oil and natural gas should be operated
and managed ac all times to prevent contamination of groundwater and surface water, soil and air, protect public health, safecy and the environment,
and prevent property damage.

b,

Facilities and sites operated for the storage or disposal of E&P wastes should not receive, collect, store, or dispose of any wastes that are listed or
defined as hazardous wastes and regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA, except in accordance with state and federal hazardous waste laws and
regulations.

c.

Technical criteria for siting, construction, and operation of E&P waste disposal facilities should be flexible enough to address site-specific or regional
conditions based on findings by the regulatory agency.

d.

Disposal of

E&P wastes into municipal solid-waste landfills should not be considered when better

management options are available.

If

such disposal occurs, it should only occur where the landfill is designed to contain such wastes, and the E&P wastes contain no free liquids and are
not mixed with non-exempt wastes prior to disposal.

e.

Siting Criteria
i.

States should incorporate siting requirements in statewide rules for pits, landspreading, landfilling and burial, and waste reclamation
facilities.

ii.

Areawide rules or site-specific permits may contain additional siting conditions.

No E&P waste management facility should be located in a flowing or intermittent stream.

iii. Where necessary to protect human health, new E&P waste management facilities should not be located in close proximity to existing residences,

schools, hospitals or commercial buildings.

iv. Generally, applicable siting requirements should address such factors as depth to and quality of groundwater, wetlands, floodplains, surface
contour,

v.

proximity to existing drinking water supplies and wells, geologic hazards, and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Siting of E&P waste management facilities should be consistent with applicable land-use requirements.

5.2 Waste Characterization

5.2. 1.

Purposes
Waste characterization should support at least the following functions of a state's E&P waste management program:

25

 a.

ensuring E&P waste managemenc practices are suited to the particular wastes involved and in compliance with applicable program
requirements; and

b. ensuring commercial E&P wasce facilities are managing only wastes they are authorized to handle.
5.2.2,

Sampling and Analysis
a.

State waste characterization requirements should include appropriate testing of E&P wastes prior to disposal for such characteristics as
organic content, pH, salinity, hydrogen sulfide, and ignitability C the chemical characteristics that are thought to be of primary concern in
E&P wastes.

Jn addition, while nothing in these criteria mandates testing for every hazardous constituent in E&P wastes, the Council

recognizes that waste management practices and regulatory requirements would be improved by obtaining a more complete knowledge,
through sampling and analysis, of the range of hazardous and toxic constituents in E&P wastes.

Accordingly, waste characterization

requirements should provide data necessary to meet the purposes of waste characterization described in Section 5.2.1. and to administer
and enforce state program requirements effectively.
b. State requirements for the assessment of E&P wastes for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) should meet the criteria of this
section and of Sections 7.3.3. and 7.3.9.
c.

Such requirements should address all types of radiacion expected in E&P wastes.

These guidelines do not address all the details of a waste characterization program, such as testing methods, frequencies, or parameters.
The details are expected to vary depending upon the waste, the proposed management practice, and ocher state program requirements.

5.2.3.

Quality Control
a.

State programs should contain provisions chat any waste sampling required follow appropriate sampling procedures, and any laboratory
analysis required be performed by qualified laboratories in order to produce valid and reliable results.

A state may rely on field testing to

satisfy waste characterization requirements where it can be determined that such testing will produce valid and reliable results.
b. Testing methods should produce data that are valid for the purpose intended.
Procedure (TCLP) may not accurately predict the leachability of oily E&P wastes.

For example, EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
(For more detailed information, see 55 FR 46371,

November 2, 1990.)
5.3. Waste Management Hierarchy
As in any aspect of waste management, there are some general, sound practices that should be employed.

These practices, which include waste

minimization, not only serve to protect human health and the environment, but also tend to protect waste generators from long-term liabilities associai-ed
with waste disposal.
a.
b.

Source Reduction:
Recycling:

Generally, the choice of an E&P waste management option should be based upon the following hierarchy of preference:
Reduce the quantity and/or toxicity of the waste generated;

Reuse or reclaim as much of the waste generated as possible, and whenever possible, hydrocarbons should be combined with crude oil,

condensate, or natural gas liquids;
c.

Treatment:

Employ techniques to reduce the volume or the toxicity of waste that has been unavoidably generated.

d.

Proper Disposal:

Dispose of remaining wastes in wastes in ways that minimize adverse impacts to the environment and that protect human

health.

26

 5.3.1.

Source Reduction Opportunities
There are significant source reduction opportunities in E&P waste management

a.

Drilling Wastes:

The use of improved solids control equipment can reduce substantially the volume of drilling wastes requiring disposal.

Similarly, the careful selection of drilling fluids and additives can minimize the toxicity of drilling wastes.

b. Product Substitution:
wastes.

The careful selection of chemical products used in exploration and production can reduce the toxicity of E&P

Potential product substitution candidates include biocides and corrosion inhibitors, coagulants, dispersants, emulsion breakers,

scale and paraffin inhibitors, gas sweetening and dehydration agents, catalysts, and pipe dope.

c.

Spill and Release Prevention:

In addition to product substitution, source reduction can be achieved by minimizing the generation of

dean-up wastes from waste management and production facilities using spill and release prevention techniques.

These techniques

include good housekeeping practices, routine inspections of equipment, an evaluation of potential spills and mitigation measures taken to
prevent their occurrence, equipment innovations, and containment systems.

Radiation surveys of equipment and sites can be helpful in

preventing or minimizing the spread of above-background levels of oil-field NORM that may be encountered during routine equipment
maintenance and servicing and site cleanup.

d.

Other Source Reduction Opportunities:

Other examples of source reduction for E&P wastes include the use of vapor recovery systems,

more efficient oil-water separation techniques to improve oil recovery, equipment made of corrosion-resistant materials, and consolidation
of production facilities where possible.

At production sites where NORM-scale formation is expected, the use of scale inhibitors may

minimize or prevent the buildup in tubulars of scales containing NORM.

5.3.2.

Recycling Opportunities
Opportunities to recycle include the use of produced water for enhanced recovery, and the recovery of hydrocarbons in crude oil tank bottoms,
skim oils, gas pipeline drips, slop oil emulsion solids and sludges, and other oily sludges.

5.3.3.

State Program Elements
State programs should contain mechanisms to encourage waste management consistent with the hierarchy of this section.

A variety of

mechanisms may be used, such as:
a.

Program requirements or policies that encourage source reduction and recycling;

b. Improved training of state personnel so they can identify source reduction opportunities;
c.

Technical assistance or incentives to operators; and

d. Educational activities aimed at informing facility operators of the options available.
The waste management hierarchy should be integrated into the other elements of a state program.
should be incorporated into facility management regulations.

For example, spill and release prevention

Similarly, state requirements should address the segregation of waste streams

that have a higher pollution potential from those with a lower pollution potential.

State information program elements should include a

component related to hierarchy planning and implementation.
State program planning activities should include goals and objectives that provide for substantial progress in this area over a reasonable time.
States should have sufficient information to evaluate whether the mechanisms used to encourage source reduction and recycling are achieving

27

 those goals and objeccives.

State program requirements should be reviewed for consistency with the waste management hierarchy and the

established goals and objectives.

State agencies should also coordinate their efforts with other agencies that are responsible for waste

management.
5.4. Quantitative Elements
Specific quantitative guidelines have been included for some waste management practices.
values for protection of human health and the environment.

The numbers cited are considered to be conservative

However, they are not intended to be the basis for nationwide standards.

Regulatory agencies may approve either less stringent or more stringent requirements where circumstances warrant as long as they afford the
protection described in Section 5.1.a., and in the goals statement of Section 3.2.

28

 S.S. Technical Criteria for Pits
S.S.1.

Definitions
a.

Reserve Pits
Pits used: (a) to store additional drilling fluids for use in drilling operations; and/or (b) to dispose of wastes generated by drilling operations
and initial completion procedures.

b,

Production Pits
i.

ii.

Skimming/Settling:
Produced Water:

Pits used to provide retention time for settling of solids and separation of residual oil.
Pits used for storage of produced water prior to injection for enhanced recovery or disposal,

off-site

transporr, or surface-water discharge.
iii. Percolation:

Pits used to dispose of waste liquids via drainage or seepage through the bottom and/or sides of the pirs into

surrounding soils.
iv. Evaporation:
c.

lined pits used to contain produced waters which evaporate into the atmosphere by natural thermal forces.

Special Purpose Pits
i.

Blowdown:

ii.

Flare Pits:

Pits used for collecting material resulting from the emptying or depressurization of wells or vessels.
Pits used exclusively for flaring gas.

iii. Emergency Pits:

Pits used to contain liquids on a temporary basis due to process upset conditions.

iv. Basic Sediment:

lined pits used for temporary storage of production wastes from tank batteries or production vessels which may

contain residual oil.
v.

Workover:

Pits used to contain liquids during the performance of remedial operations on a producing well in an effort to

increase production.
S.S.2.

Permitting
a.

A permiuing or review process should be in place for all pits.

Pits may be authorized by rule, general permit, individual permit, or as a part

of an operational permit or program.
b.

Pits may be permitted by rule based upon specific requirements in areas where geologic, topographic, hydrologic or other conditions are
similar.

c.

Authorization for a pit may be included in operational, facility, or other environmental permits (e.g., drilling, workover, gas plant, NPDES
discharge).

The permit application process may have co be expanded to include certain additional information concerning the pit (i.e.,

intake volume, soil type, fluid makeup, topography, geology, hydrology, climatology, and such other factors as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment).

29

 d.

Construction and use of rule-authorized pits should require prior notification of the appropriate regulatory agency co ensure that proper
construction, operation, and closure methods are used to protect human health and the environment.

e.
5.5.3.

State programs should include provisions to accommodate approval of pits for emergency situations.

Construction
General standards for construction of pits should be included in area or statewide regulations and should address the following items:
a.

b.

Size should be sufficient to ensure adequate storage until closure, taking into account historical precipitation patterns.
Depth should be such that the bottom does not penetrate groundwater or such that the pit contents do not adversely impact groundwater or
surface water.

A review of available information or a study should be made of the area where the pit is to be located ro determine if

shallow aquifers are present and should be protected.
c.

Berm height, slope, and material should be such that the pit is structurally sound and that pit integrity is not compromised by rerrain or
breached by heavy rains, winds, seepage, or other natural forces.

d. Jf a salt section is anticipated or oil-based muds are used during a drilling program, reserve pits should be designed to accommodate those
fluids.
e.

Construction standards for pits may differ depending upon the wastes they receive, the length of time they are used, and site-specific
conditions.

i.

The use of production pits is declining nationally because of concerns about potential contamination of air, soils, and groundwater.
Jn many instances, equipment consolidation, process modifications, or tanks can be used in lieu of pits.

The use of alternatives

is generally encouraged. Where production pits are used, they should generally be lined, except as provided below in subsection
5.5.3.e.v.
ii.

In the case of reserve and workover pits, liners should be required in certain instances based upon fluid type and site-specific
characteristics (e.g., unconsolidated soils and/or hydrogeologic conditions that create a potential for adverse impact ro surface
water or groundwater, and proximicy to environmentally sensitive areas).

iii. Special purpose pits and other pits such as dehydration, tank drain, pipeline drip collector, and compressor scrubber pits should be lined.

iv. Slowdown, flare and emergency pits may be unlined where the removal requirement of Section 5.5.4.k. will prevent adverse
groundwater quality impacts.
v.

Variances ro the above liner requirements should only be provided, and percolation pits should only be used, where it is
clearly demonstrated there is minimal potential to affect adversely groundwater quality.

vi. Liners can consist of natural or synthetic materials, should meet accepted engineering practices, and should be compatible with
expected pit contents.
f.

Requirements for fencing,

netting, and caging,

or any other method to secure a pit, should be set by area or statewide regulations, as

necessary, to protect the public, domestic animals, and/or wildlife.

30

Netting of a pit is recommended as the preferred method to protect

 wildlife in circumstances, among others, where pits have oil on the surface, where pits are used for long periods, and/or where pits are
located in areas with arid climates.

g.

Where feasible, reserve pits should be placed to directly receive the discharge from solids separation equipment and to collect rigwash water,
spills, and leaks from drilling equipment.

5.5.4.

Operational Requirements

a.

Specific restrictions on the type of wastes that can be placed in the different types of pits should be included in area or statewide
regulations.

Restrictions should consider salinity, hydrocarbon content, pH, radionudides associated with oil-field NORM, or other

characteristics which may be detrimental to the environment.

b.

General security guidelines should protect the public, the environment, and wildlife.

c.

liquids should be maintained at a freeboard level determined by the state that takes into account extreme precipitation events or other
possibilities and prevents overtopping or unpermitted discharges.

d.

lined pits should be operated in a manner that ensures liner integrity.

e.

Inspections and monitoring should be conducted at regular intervals or as

necessary to ensure that pits meet al! operating and

structural integrity requirements and to ensure that pit contents do not adversely impact groundwater or surface water.

f.

Hydrocarbons which inadvertently accumulate in an unlined reserve pit should be skimmed off the pit at the cessation of drilling and
completion operations.

g.

Separated oil or accumulated wastes should be periodically removed from unlined skimming/settling pits.

h.

Produced water pits should be used only for storage of produced water prior to injection or off-site transport.

i.

Percolation pits should be used only for disposal of produced waters and only when area or statewide restrictions established under
Section 5.5.4.a. above are met.

j.

Evaporation pits should be periodically inspected for compliance with permitted input volumes and liner integrity.

Evaporation pits

should be skimmed as necessary to maintain an optimum evaporation rate.

k.

Slowdown, flare, and emergency pits should not be used for long-term storage or disposal.
promptly of the use of emergency pits.

The regulatory agency should be notified

Fluids diverted to emergency pits should be removed as quickly as practical following the end

of the emergency.

I.

Unlined basic sediment pits should not be used for storage of oily wastes; they should be replaced by lined pits or tanks.

m. Workover pits should be open only for the duration of workover operations and should be closed within 120 days afterworkover operations
are complete.

n.

Pit wastes that exhibit oil-field NORM above regulatory action levels should be managed in accordance with the criteria of Section 7 and
any other applicable criteria of these guidelines.

5.5.5.

Closure

31

 a.
b.

Pits should be dosed in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations and, if on private property, consistent with lease obligations.
Reserve pits should be closed as soon as practical

but no later than 12 months after cessation of drilling operations.

However, che

closure of reserve pits beyond 12 months after cessation of drilling operations may be allowed in unusual circumstances if good cause can be
demonstrated.
c.

Pit liquids should have free oil removed and, when appropriate, should be sampled prior to closure for salinity, hydrocarbon content, pH,
radionuclides associated with oil-field NORM, or other characteristics which may be detrimental to the environment.

On-site disposal of

pit contents should be conducted in accordance with the landspreading. burial, and landfilling criteria of Sections S.6. and 5.7., or by NPDES
or UlC permit.
d.

liquid and nonliquid materials not satisfying the on-site criteria for landspreading or burial (Sections 5.6. and 5.7.)

should be disposed in

federal or state approved disposal facilities.
e.

Pit sires should be capped, compacted, contoured, and vegetated where necessary, and in accordance with applicable state or area
regulations to ensure ground support stability and to prevent erosion and ponding.

f.

Records should be permanently kept
copying.

5.6.

by the regulatory agency of all pit locations and should be available to the public for inspection and

A permit to drill may serve as adequate record keeping for the location of all pits within 200 feet of the well location.

Technical Criteria for Landspreading
5.6.1.

Definition and Applicability
a.

Landspreading is a method of treatment and disposal of low toxicity wastes in which the wastes are spread upon and sometimes mixed into soils
to promote reduccion of organic constituents and the dilution and attenuation of metals.

Landfarming or multiple applications are covered

under Section 5.10.
b. These criteria apply co waste disposal at or near E&P locations and do not apply to commercial disposal operations.

Commercial facilities used

for disposal of E&P wastes are covered in Section 5.10.
c.
5.6.2.

On-site landspreading of E&Pwastes containing NORM above regulatory action levels should be prohibited.

Regulatory Requirements
When landspreading practices are used at E&P sites, they should be conducted consistent with lease and landowner obligarions and local, state, and
federal regulations.

General standards for landspreading should be included in area or state regulations and should address the operational

requirements of Section 5.. 6.3.
5.6.3.

Operational Requirements
a.

Free oil should be removed from the wastes by mechanical means such as skimming or filtration before the wastes are landspread.

b.

Landspread liquids should have a pH of 6-10.

c.

Solid wastes should be spread evenly and disked into the soil.

Where needed, liquids should be neutralized to obtain this range.

32

 d.

E&P wastes should be subject to loading rates, location restrictions, and/or other appropriate requirements that promote biodegradation of
organic constituents; will not result in waste pooling, ponding. or runoff; will prevent the contamination of groundwater or surface waters; and
will protect air quality.

e.

Where enhancement of biodegradation is desired, nitrogen and other nutrients should be added to the soil before disking.

Nutrient application

can be repeated over time.
f,

Amounts of waste added to soil during landspreading are generally limited by the electrical conductivity (EC), exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP), and sodium absorption ratio (SAR).

The state should determine its criteria based on site-specific and waste-specific conditions.

For

example, some plants tolerate higher or lower salt levels, higher rainfall areas encourage salt movement out of the root-zone, or shallow
groundwater may severely limit application.
g.

After landspreading of hydrocarbon containing waste, the waste-soi! mixture should not exceed one percent by weight oil and grease.

h. Salt- and hydrocarbon-loading criteria apply to the final waste-soil mixture and are not an application standard.
required to demonstrate that these criteria are met within 12 months of cessation of drilling or production.
remediation will be required.

Nothing in this paragraph

The operator should be

If these criteria are not met,

is intended to delay any requirement for erosion control and/or site reclamation or

revegetation.

i.

Soil analyses should be performed prior to landspreading and again upon closure of the site.

Upon site closure, waste constituents should not

be present at levels that pose a significant risk to human health and the environment.

j.

Enhanced techniques, such as repetitive disking and nutrient addition, may be needed co meet the salt and hydrocarbon criteria of the final
waste-soil mixture.

k.

Under special or abnormal conditions, additional limitations and analysis requirements should be considered for wastes that may contain toxic
constituents derived from formation liquids, cuttings, drilling muds, or drilling-mud activities.

Records should be permanently maintained by

the agency of a!I waste analyses conducted pursuant to such additional requirements.
5.7.

Technical Criteria for Burial and Landfilling
5. 7.1.

Definitions and Applicability
a.

Burial of wastes involves placing the wastes in an excavation and covering the wastes with a layer of soil.

b.

Landfilling of wastes involves placing the wastes on the ground and covering them with a layer of soil.

c.

These criteria apply to waste disposal at or near E&P sites and do not apply to commercial disposal facilities.
facilities are contained in Section

5.7.2.

Criteria for commercial disposal

5.10,

Regulatory Requirements

2

A stuc(y prepared for the American Petroleum Institute determined safe limits for agriculturalpurposes as follows:

less than 15, and SAR less than 12.

EC less than 4 mmhos/cm, ESP

Lloyd£ Deuel, fr., Ph.D., ''Evaluation oflimiting Constituents Suggested for land Disposal ofExploration and Production

Wastes" (March 1990).

33

 When burial or landfilling is used at E&P sites, either should be conducted consistent with lease and landowner obligations and with local, state, and
federal regulations.

General standards for burial or landfilling should be included in area or statewide regulations and should address the operational

requirements in Section
5.7.3.

5.7.3.

Operational Requirements
a.

Wastes or waste-soil mixtures may be buried or landfilled without a protective bottom liner only when they meet the landspreading criteria of
Section

5.6. prior to burial.

The contents of such waste or waste-soil mixtures should be limited to materials such as fresh water-based

drilling muds, drill cuttings, spent iron sponge,
and

gas plant catalyst, or molecular sieve.

Closure should be consistent with Sections

5.5.5.a.

5.5.5.e.

b. A protective bottom liner, solidification, fixation, or encapsulation should be required for burial or landfilling of wastes whose salt and/or
hydrocarbon content exceeds the landspreading criteria of Section

5.6.3.

A protective bonom liner, solidification, fixation, or

encapsulation should be required for burial or landfilling of E&P wastes containing NORM above regulatory action levels.

The regulatory

agency may grant a variance from this requirement for fields or portions of fields, upon a showing by the operator that groundwater either is not
present beneath the waste site or is naturally protected from the threat of contamination.
c.

Agency records should be permanently maintained for any required analytical data taken, sites used, and types and quantities of waste disposed.
Site locations should be located on plat maps.

5.8. Technical Criteria for Roadspreading
5.8.1.

Definition

Roadspreading is the placement on roads of E&P wastes chat exhibit properties similar to commercial road oils, mixes, dust suppressants, or road
compaction

or deicing materials.

Roadspreading of E&P wastes that do not exhibit such properties should be prohibited.

Roadspreading of E&P

wastes containing NORM above regulatory action levels should be prohibited.
5.8.2.

Regulatory Requirements

When roadspreading is used, it should be conducted consiscenrwich lease and landowner obligations and local, state, and federal regulations.
standards for roadspreading should be included in area or state regulations and address the operational requirements in Section
5.8.3.

General

5.8.3.

Operational Requirements
a.

Exempt wastes such as tank bottoms, emulsions, heavy hydrocarbons, and crude oil-contaminated soi! may be used for road oil, road mix, or
asphalt if they are not ignitable (40 CFR' 261.21) and have a mixed density and metal content consistent with approved road oils or mixes.

b.

Roadspreading should be subject to loading rates and/or other appropriate requirements that prevent pooling, ponding, or runoff; prevent the
contamination of groundwater and surface water; and protect air quality.

c.
d.

Roadspreading should be subject to appropriate buffer zones established to protect waters of the state, water wells, and wetlands.
Produced water should be tested and should exhibit properties similar to commercial roadspreading products that are regulated by federal,
state,

or local agencies.

5.9. Technical Criteria for Tanks

34

 5.9.1.

Scope
a.

This section applies to permanently installed E&P waste tanks and to produced water storage tanks located at enhanced recovery operations.
Where some waste tanks are regulated under the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) requirements of the federal Clean Water
Act, states may defer to the SPCC requirements for those tanks.

b,

Except as provided in Seccion S.9.3.b., this section does not apply to:

i.

ii.

condensate and crude oil tanks;

process vessels, such as separators, heater treaters, dehydrators or freewater knockouts, except that stacks or vents on such vessels
should be equipped, where necessary, to protect migratory birds and other wildlife; and

iii. tanks used temporarily in drilling and workover operations.

c.

5.9.2.

The regulatory agency may adjust or exempt from the requirements of this section small-capacity tanks.

General Requirements

a.

States should have information, where available, on the locations, use, capacity, age and construction materials (e.g., steel, fiberglass, etc.) of
tanks as needed to administer and enforce state program requirements effectively.

Such information may be obtained through registrations,

inventories, or other appropriate means.

b. Tanks covered by this section should not be located in a flowing or intermittent stream and should be sited consistent with applicable local
land-use requirements.

c.

Tanks should be subject to spill-prevention, preventive maintenance and inspection requirements, including chose of Sections 5.3.1.c. and 5.3.3.
of these guidelines.

5.9.3.

Construction and Operation Standards
a.

A principal goal of construction and operation standards for tanks is to minimize the occurrence of and the environmental impacts from spills
and leaks.
i.

New tanks should be construcced in a manner that provides for corrosion protection consistent with the intended use of the tanks.

All

tanks covered by this section should be operated in a manner that provides for corrosion protection consistent with the use of the tanks.
ii.

Tanks should exhibit structural integrity consistent with their intended use.

Wooden tanks should receive increased scrutiny in this

regard.
iii. Tanks should be operated in a manner that protects against overtopping.

iv. Secondary containment systems or other appropriate means, such as leak detection, should be employed to minimize environmental
impacts in the event of releases.

b.

Covered tanks are preferred to open tanks.

Open E&P waste and product tanks should be equipped to protect migratory birds and other

35

 wildlife in a manner consistent with the wildlife-protection criterion of Section S.5.3.f.
c.
5.9.4.

Tanks located in populated areas where emissions of hydrogen sulfide can be expected should be equipped with appropriate warning devices.

Tank Removal and Closure
a. Tanks should be emptied prior to their retirement and the resUlting materials should be managed properly.
b. Tan ks and associated above ground equipment should be removed upon cessation of operations.
be removed as soon as practical thereafter.

For good cause, a state may allow tanks to

Site reclamation should meet all landowner and lease obligations and any other applicable

requirements.
c.

Prior to removal, closure, or release for unrestricted use, tanks and associated piping and equipment should be surveyed for NORM as provided
for in Sec.7.

When regulatory action levels are exceeded, NORM and the equipment containing NORM should be managed in accordance

with the state's NORM regulatory program (see Section 7 of these guidelines).
5.10.

Technical Criteria for Commercial and Centralized Disposal Facilities

5.10.1. Definitions and Exemptions
a.

Commercial Disposal Facility:

A facility whose owner(s) or operator(s) receives compensation from others for the temporary storage,

reclamation, treatment, and/or disposal of produced water, drilling fluids, drilling cuttings, completion fluids, and any other exempt E&P waste,
and whose primary business objective is to provide these services.

This definition also includes facilities whose owner(s) or operator(s)

receives compensation from others for oil field NORM related storage, decontamination, treatment, or disposal.
b. Centralized Disposal Facility:

A facility, other than a commercial disposal facility, that is:

(1) used exclusively by one owner or operator; or

(2) used by more than one operator under an operating agreement and which receives for collection, treatment, temporary storage, and/or
disposal of produced water, drilling fluids, drill cuttings, completion fluids, and any other exempt E&P wastes that are generated from two or
more production units or areas or from a set of commonly owned or operated leases.
facilities

that are present at Class II disposal well sites.

This definition covers the surface storage and disposal

This definition covers oil field NORM related storage, decontamination, treatment, or

disposal.
c.

Exemptions:
recovery

The definitions and technical criteria of Section

projects.

5.10.

The definitions and technical criteria of Section

Class II injection facility.

do not apply to Class II

injection wells

or to enhanced oil

5.10. are not intended to apply to emergency cleanup situations at a

The regulatory agency may adjust or exempt from the standards and requirements of this section (Sections 5.10),

centralized facilities that receive a limited number of substantially similar waste streams and limited volumes of wastes, or commercial or
centralized tank-only facilities.
5.10.2. Technical Standards and Regulatory Requirements
Commercial and centralized off-site disposal facilities should meet the technical and regulatory requirements of this. section and the general
standards of Section 5.1. of these criteria.
subsection

5.10.2.a.

Compliance with these requirements should be demonstrated in the permit application required in

Because commercial disposal facilities use advanced methods of treatment and disposal of wastes, the regulatory agency

should establish, where applicable, numerical requirements for the design of pond liners and leachate collection systems, for landfarming
operations (i.e., repeated land applications), and for

E&P waste reclamation facilities.

The requirements of this section are intended to furnish

the regulatory agency with sufficie[lt and meaningful information such that permitting decisions will lead to no environmental impact or public
health impact once the facility has commenced operations and following its closure.

36

 The regulatory agency may adjust or exempt from these requirements

centralized facilities that receive a limited number of substantially similar

waste streams and limited volumes of waste, such as the consolidated produced water disposal facilities in a large multi-operator field.
Administrative criteria for centralized facilities also may be less extensive than those for commercial facilities.
5.10.2.1.
a.

Regulatory Agency Responsibilities in Permitting

Permits.

The regulatory agency should authorize off-site commercial and centralized disposal facilities for E&P wastes by permit.

should be in force for a finite period to be determined by the agency.

A permit

The agency should use the data and information required by the

technical standards of this section to approve or deny applications for permits, to ensure compliance with permit conditions, to order corrective
actions in order to prevent or abate violations of the standards, or for any other purpose deemed necessary by the agency.
b. Acceptable Wastes.

The agency should prescribe the range of E&P wastes which can be disposed at commercial and centralized facilities and

at municipal solid-waste landfills.
c.

Waste Characteristics and Disposal.

The agency should identify the chemical characteristics of wastes likely to be disposed at commercial and

centralized facilities on the basis of published scientific data and on knowledge about regional or site-specific waste characteristics.

This

information should be used by the agency to match a given disposal apparatus (e.g., a lined evaporation pond with a leak detection system) with
a particular waste stream.

The agency should prescribe these waste disposal facilities and waste stream relationships by rule or in the

permitting process and ensure that operators of commercial or centralized facilities comply with them.
Section
5.10.2.2.
a.

5.10.2.2.c.v. and vi.

For sampling and testing. refer to

For determining radiological content, refer to Sections 7.3.3. and 5.2.2.b.

Permitting Requirements

Any new or existing commercial or centralized facility
operation or to continue to operate.

should be required to obtain a permit from the regulatory agency to commence

An individual permit should be required for E&P waste reclaimers and other commercial facilities where

waste is placed on the land (e.g., in pits, landfarmed, etc.}.

A permit should be issued only upon compliance with the general requirements of

Section 5.1. and the technical requirements of this section, and upon submittal and approval of an application that contains a Siting Plan,
Construction Plan, Operating Plan, and Closure Plan.

Operation of a facility should comply with the terms and conditions of the permit.

The regulatory agency may tailor the technical requirements for all existing facilities and for centralized disposal facilities to the conditions
present at the locations of such facilities.

In the case of centralized facilities, the regulatory agency may adjust the requirements of Section

5.10.2.2.a. b. and c. in the light of the volume and characteristics of wastes received by the facility.
b.

Siting Plan.

The specific site for a commercial facility, or to the extent possible the site for a centralized facility, should have natural features

(such as isolation from or considerable depths to groundwater, protection against flooding, presence of low permeability soils and rocks, and
topography conducive to protection against wind erosion} that prevent or minimize release of pollutants to off-site waters, lands, and air.
Additional safeguards may be required by the regulatory agency for centralized facilities that are located on sites that do not exhibit natural
protective features.
i.

An application for a permit

for a commercial or centralized facility should contain the following information:

Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of owners and the operator(s) of the facility, the owner(s) and occupant(s) of properties
within dose proximity of the site, or any nearby person who may reasonably be adversely affected by release from the site;

ii.

Topographic map showing the location of the site and any highways or roads that abut or traverse through the site and that depict all
water courses, flood plains, water wells, and dwellings located within one mile of the site;

iii. Geologic, hydrologic, engineering, chemical, and any other data or information that demonstrate disposal of wastes and operation of the
facility will not contaminate fresh water, the surrounding soils or air, endanger public health, safety or the environment, or cause

37

 property damage;
iv. Average annual precipitation and evaporation rate at the disposal site;
v.

Proximity of disposal facilities to surface water courses (priority in net-precipitation climates);

vi. Nature and permeability of vadose zone; descrlprion of the subsurface strata, identification of

the areal extent of underlying aquifer(s),

and depth to groundwater; direction of groundwater movement; data on water quality of nearby surface waters and underlying
aquifer(s) prior to commencement of operations; and points of past or current use of surface water or groundwater;
vii. Proof that all public notice requirements have been met; and
viii. Certification by an authorized representative of the applicant that information submitted in the application is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of the applicant's knowledge.
c.

Construction Plan.

In general, commercial and centralized disposal facilities should be constructed to prevent or minimize releases of wastes

or waste byproducts to surface water, groundwater, soils, and air.
Section 5.5.3.e.

Pits at these facilities should at least meet the construction requirements of

In the case of E&P waste reclamation facilities, construction requirements to prevent or minimize releases should also apply to

wastes stored before and after reclamation.

For commercial facilities, detailed engineering drawings and diagrams of engineered disposal

facilities should be required; for centralized or one-owner facilities, such extensive construction details may not be needed.

Construction

should follow guidelines and rules adopted by the regulatory agency.
d.

Operating Plan.

Applications for permits for existing or new facilities should be accompanied by an Operating Plan that describes the wastes

that will be accepted at the facility and the methods by which those wastes will be managed and disposed.

The Operating Plan should contain

the following information:

i.

Volume, rate, and type of material to be disposed at the facilities and the facilities that will be used to dispose of each waste stream (i.e.,
unlined or lined pits, above- or below-grade tanks, etc.);

ii.

Contingency plan for reporting, responding to and cleaning up spills, leaks, and releases of wastes or waste byproducts, including
provisions for notifying emergency response authorities and for taking operator-initiated emergency response actions;

iii. Plan for routine inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure and demonstrate compliance with permit requirements.

At

commercial facilities where wastes are placed on the land, such as in pits or landfarms, groundwater monitoring should be required in
the absence of site-specific or facility-specific conditions char eliminate the potential for adverse impacts to groundwater.
to ensure organic wastes are treated effectively should also be required for !andfarming operations.

Monitoring

The need for groundwater or

other monitoring at centralized disposal facilities where wastes are placed on the land should be evaluated by the stare as part of its
program development and implementation, and should depend upon the nature and size of the disposal activities.

Ar facilities that

manage oil-field NORM, monitoring should be sufficient to determine compliance with maximum permissible doses to workers and to
members of the public in unrestricted areas.
iv. Specific engineering plans for preventing or minimizing the generation and emission of hydrogen sulfide gas;
v.

A plan, including consideration of on-site sampling and testing, to assure that RCRA Subtitle C or other prohibited wastes are not
disposed of at the facility;

vi. Centralized and commercial waste disposal facilities

should submit a plan to characterize wastes received for disposal.

38

Larger facilities

I

i

II

I
II

 may require more testing requirements.

Waste characterization requirements for small centralized facilities may be more limited than

for large facilities, based on the limited types and volumes of wastes received.

At a minimum, waste characterization must consist of

testing for organics, pH, salinity, hydrogen sulfide content, and ignitability.

States should determine additional minimum testing

criteria applicable to their regions.

Testing for organics must be appropriate for the type of waste, method of disposal, and the

potential for health and environmental hazards posed by that situation;
vii. Plan for periodic removal and subsequent handling of free oil;
viii. Security plan for the facility; and

ix. Jn the case of landfarming operations, loading rates, location restrictions, and/or other appropriate requirements that ensure the treatment
of organic constituents, prevent the contamination of groundwater or surface waters, and protect air quality.
e.

Closure Plan.

i.

Applications for permits for existing or new facilities should be accompanied by a Closure Plan that describes the methods to be used to
reclaim the facility following the cessation of operations.

Closure

should comply with the general requirements of Section 5.1. and

the burial requirements of Section 5.7. of these criteria, and with any other requirements established by the regulatory agency.

ii.

For commercial disposal facilities and centralized disposal facilities of comparable nature or size, the plan should describe the site
sampling methods that will be used to determine the risks to human health and the environment posed by the site, if any, once closure is
completed; and any further measures that may be necessary to address remaining site contamination at that time.

The plan should

also include post-closure monitoring and maintenance requirements where the wastes remaining on-site after closure may adversely
affect groundwater or surface waters, or otherwise pose a significant risk to human health and che environment.

The duration of the

post-closure care period and the nature of the post-closure requirements should correspond to the continuing risks posed by the facility
after closure.
iii, The plan should include a closure schedule, a cost estimate for reclamation, and a schedule for authorized financial assurance instrument.

The cost estimate and authorized financial assurance instrument schedule
facility prior to permit approval.

39

should be used to establish a financial surety level for the

 5.10.2.3.

Waste Tracking Requirements

To assure thac only wastes derived from the exploration and production of oil or natural gas are disposed of at commercial or centralized facilities, a
waste tracking system that documents the movement of wastes from the site of their origin to their final disposition should be implemented.

The

following elements should be included in the waste tracking system:
a.

Three-Parr Form Required.

A three-part form that contains the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the generator (producer}, hauler, and

disposal facility operator; a description of the waste; the time and date it was collected, hauled, and deposited at the disposal fadliry; and the
volume of the waste hauled.
b. Maintenance of the Form.
regulatory agency.

The form should be maintained by the generator, hauler, and operator of the disposal facifiry for inspection by the

The forms should be maintained for a period of three years after the shipment date.

This record retention period should

be automatically extended for any person who is the subject of an unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated activity from the date
such person receives notice of the enforcement action until it is resolved.
c.

Attest to No Illegal Dumping.

The hauler and the operator of the disposal facility should cercil)i in writing on the three-part form that no

wastes were dumped illegally or at a location or facility not designated by the generator or permitced to receive exempt E&P waste, and that no
prohibited oil-field or hazardous wastes were mixed with the exempt wastes during transport.

d. Reporting of Discrepancies.

The operator of the disposal facility

should immediately reporr to the regulatory agency and the generator, any

discrepancy in waste descriptions, volumes, or place of origin based on personal observations or information contained in the three-part form.
e.

Permitting of Waste Haulers.

Waste hauling companies should be permitted by the regulatory agency based on a showing of minimum

knowledge about the regulatory requirements for disposition of E&P wastes transported from their point of generation to their final disposal site.
The regulatory agency may issue permits to individual waste haulers or to waste hauling firms.
5.10.2.4.

Applicability of Waste Tracking Criteria

These waste tracking requirements do not apply to wastes moved by pipeline.
report waste quantities to the regulatory agency.

40

Operators who transport wastes by pipeline should periodically

 SECTION 6

ABANDONED SITES

6.1. Abandoned Oil and Gas Sites
Introduction
States with current or historic oil and gas operations should develop and implement a program to inventory, prioritize, and remediate, as necessary,
abandoned sites.

The purpose of this section is to provide guidance for that program.

It is not the intent of these guidelines to preclude an

abandoned site from being returned to operation in accordance with state requirements.
6.2. Definition of"Oil and Gas Site" and "Abandoned Site"
The terms "Oil and Gas Site" and "Abandoned Site," as used herein, have the following meanings:

(1) An Oil and Gas Site is land or equipment, including a well bore, that is now or has been used primarily for oil or gas exploration or production, or for
the management of oil and gas wastes from exploration and production.

(2) An Oil and Gas Site is considered an Abandoned Site if the site:

(a) Was not adequately plugged or closed at conclusion of operations such that it constitutes or may constitute a threat to public health or the
environment; and

(b) Has no owner, operator, or other responsible person (hereinafter called "responsible parry") who can be located, or such responsible parry
has failed or refused to undertake actions, where required by law, to abate the threat.

A responsible party cannot be located, among

other circumstances, where no liability for remedial actions is imposed by the stare upon past or current owners and operators.

6.3. Identification of Abandoned Sites

A state should have a procedure for identifying sites which may constitute a threat to public health or the environment and for determining whether a
responsible party exists.

The state should develop and maintain an inventory of abandoned sites.

Examples of elements that may be considered in

identifying sites which may constitute a threat to public health or the environment include agency reviews or inspections, referrals by other agencies, or
citizen or landowner inquiries.

Classifications or rankings may be used to separate these sites into relative risk categories.

Examples of elements that

may be considered in determining whether a responsible party exists include the failure to file required data or reports, the failure to respond to agency
inquiries, tax defaults, information in public records, or landowner or public inquiries.

In developing an inventory of abandoned sites, the state should have procedures for attempting to notify the last known responsible parry, and providing
legal notice.

Emergency protocols should be included, so that remedial action can be initiated prior to legal notice on sites that are judged to present an immediate
threat to the public health or environment.

Where there are agencies with overlapping jurisdiction for abandoned sites, inventory procedures should be coordinated among these agencies as further
discussed in Section 4.4. of these guidelines.

41

 6.4. Funding for Abandoned Site Remediation
An effective state program to address abandoned sites should have adequate funds available to permit the state to undertake any necessary assessment,
plugging. closure, or remediation of such sites.
Adequate funding involves the development of a financial assurance program as provided in Section 4.2.4.

To ensure the continuity of financial

assurance in the event of a change of operator, notice to the state of any such change should be required. Any financial assurance provided by the
previous operator should remain in effect until the new operator's compliance with the state's financial assurance program is verified.
Section 4.2.4. describes some of the types of financial assurance a state should consider in designing a program to provide it with the necessary economic
resources while facilitating operator compliance.
to plug, close, or remediate an abandoned site.

As part of a financial assurance program, a state should consider establishing a special purpose fund
The state should have the authority to recover costs from the responsible party, where such party exists.

The state should evaluate its needs and establish such funding mechanisms as are appropriate to satisfy those needs.
mechanisms have been employed to support existing special purpose funds in various states.

A wide variety of funding

Those mechanisms include bond forfeitures; legislative

appropriations to the responsible state agency; a percentage of the taxes on oil and gas production; fines and penalty assessments; equipment salvage;
and a host of fees, among them fees or charges based on the value of oil and gas, fees or charges based on units of production of oil and gas, operator fees,
supplemental fees in lieu of bonds, inactive well fees, permit fees, and waste generation fees.
6.5. Criteria for Prioritizing Remediation
The state program should include criteria for determining whether an abandoned site constitutes a threat to public health or the environment and the
site's priority for remediation.

Among other things, the following criteria may be used: (1) the occurrence of or potential for an imminent release from

the site; (2) the nature, extent, and degree of contamination; (3) the proximity of the site to populated areas, surface water, and/or groundwater; (4)
whether the site is in an environmentally sensitive area; and (5) wellbore lithology and condition.
detailed site evaluation.

Where appropriate, the state should perform a more

The state agency should have flexibility and discretion to consider the factors associated with the individual sites, including

cost savings associated with simultaneous remediation of multiple sites that otherwise would have different priorities or similar financial considerations,
in assigning them a priority on the inventory of abandoned sites.

42

 6.5.1.

Goal for Remediation

A goal of the state program should be to remediate the abandoned sites on its inventory in a manner which assures that reasonable and measurable
progress is made.

6,5.2.

Liability for Remediation

The state should establish a liability scheme that will ensure that the goals of its abandoned sites program will be achieved.

States should consider a

range of options with respect to liability for remediation, which may include among others: (1) liability for all current and past owner(s) and operator(s);
(2) liability for the owner(s) and operators(s) found to be responsible for the contamination at an abandoned site; or (3) no liability for past or current
owner(s) and operator(s) should the state choose to finance the abandoned sites program.
Any liability scheme established by a stare should dearly define the responsibility for remediation.

A state should allow remediation of an abandoned site by a party which would not otherwise be responsible for the remediation.

6.6. Standards for Remediation
The state should ensure that abandoned sites, including well bores, be plugged or dosed in a cost-effective manner that minimizes or removes the threat
to public health and the environment and that restores the land to an appropriate condition.

6,6.1,

Wellbore Remediation

The state should consider existing rules and regulations when determining proper plugging procedures for abandoned sites.

However, the state should

have the flexibility to modify those plugging procedures, while maintaining mechanical integrity of the wel!bore adequate to ensure that public health
and the environment are protected.
In canying outwellbore remediation, the state should use existing information from well records including depth of well, depth of any old plugs, presence
of casing and tubing and depths set, perforations, existence of groundwater and hydrocarbon-bearing zones, existence of over-pressured zones, and any
junk in the hole to determine the condition of the well and the proper plugging procedure.

In the absence of the above information, data such as

existing geological and engineering field studies, water well records, interviews with nearby landowners, corporate records, and historical literature can
be reviewed.

6.6.2.

Site Remediation

The extent of surface remediation of an abandoned site should be determined based on surface and subsurface resources and !and use.
Consultation by the state regulatory agency with the surface owner, surface tenant, and other federal, state and local agencies, as appropriate, should take
place prior to remediation.
As appropriate, abandoned sites should be revegetated in accordance with state regulatOry agency rules, and with consideration given to
recommendations from the surface owner, surface tenant, and federal and local agencies.
As appropriate, soil should be evaluated to determine if hydrocarbons, chemicals, or NORM were spilled or leaked, and to determine remediation.
Surface eciuipment or materials on an abandoned site should be removed, and salvaged when possible, unless the state determines otherwise.
Procedures should be identified for handling NORM, if present.

Due to the expense and potential damage to the land, there may be situations where

43

 equipment or materials would not be removed, e.g., a gathering system might be abandoned in place with appropriate protection.
pit, the state should determine the contents of the pit and how the pit can best be remediated.
erosion from or ponding of surface water.

When reclaiming a

Pits should be backfilled and contoured to prevent

Monitoring wells at an abandoned site should be as necessary to protect groundwater resources.

The state

should develop additional remediation criteria for commercial disposal sites, as appropriate.
6.6.3.

Record of Remediation

Once remediation of an abandoned site has been completed, reports on how the site was re mediated should be maintained by the regulatory agency.
6.7. Public Participation
The state abandoned sites program should provide for public participation.

At a minimum, the public should have: (1) access to information about the

program; (2) the opportunity to participate in any rulemakings associated with the program; and (3) a statutory or regulatory mechanism to petition the
state agency to change a site's status on the inventory and/or the level of remediation required on a site.
6.7.1.

Access to Information

The state should maintain and make available to the public, records related to the abandoned sites inventory, including: (1) the location of an abandoned
site; (2) the extent and degree of contamination of the abandoned site; and (3) the method of remediation that has been or will be required for an
abandoned site.

ln addition, the state should maintain public records on the state's progress with respect to implementing the abandoned sites

program.
6.7.2.

Participation in Rulemaking

The state program should provide an opportunity for the public to participate in any ru!emakings associated with the program.
6.7.3.

Participation Regarding Priority on the Inventory and Level of Remediation

The scate program should include a mechanism by which an affected person could petition the state to: (1) add a site to the abandoned sites inventory; (2)
change the priori~ for remediation of a site on the inventory; and (3) conduct or require additional remediation of a site.

44

 6.8.Avoid Future Abandoned Site Problems
Since abandoned sites may constitute a threat to public health and the environment, the state should:
(1) Establish and implement an abandoned site program consistent with the guidance in this section; and
(2) Enforce its existing regulatory program, with modifications, if necessary, consistent with this guidance.

45

 SECTION7

NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

7.1. Background

Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) is present above background levels at some oil and gas E&P facilities and oil-field service company
locations.
waters.

NORM found in oil-field operations originates in subsurface oil and gas formations and is typically transported co the surface in produced
NORM may deposit in well tubulars, surface piping, vessels, tanks, pumps, valves, and other producing or processing eguipment and may be

found in scales, sludges, contaminated soils, and other associated E&P wastes.

7.2. General

States should adopt an oil field NORM regulatory program that addresses identification, use, possession, transport, storage, transfer, decontamination,
and disposal to protect human health and the environment.

States may choose not to adopt such a program if they find, based on field monitoring data

and other scientific information, that significant levels of NORM do not occur in a state's oil and gas E&P industry.

States that make such a finding

should periodically reevaluate the basis for that determination.

If a state determines that a regulatory program is necessary, it should tailor its program to NORM occurrence in the oil and gas E&P industry and include
the elements listed in Section 7.3.

Oil-field NORM should be managed in accordance with the pollution prevention and waste management hierarchy

provisions of these guidelines (in particular, Sections 5.1.a. and 5.3.1.c. and d.).

In addition, the other sections of these guidelines apply, where

applicable, to NORM as a constituent of E&P waste.

7.3. Elements of an Oil-Field NORM Program

7.3.1.

Definition

States should develop a definition for NORM that is consistent with that which occurs in the oil and gas E&P industry.

For purposes of these guidelines,

NORM is defined as any nuclide or combination of nuclides that is radioactive in its natural physical state (i.e., it is not man-made), but does not include
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material.

7.3.2.

Action Levels

States should establish numerical action levels above which NORM is regulated.

Such action levels should also be used to regulate the transfer or

release of equipment, materials, and sites.

7.3.3.

Suiveys

States should develop standards for survey instrumentation and procedures for identifying and documenting equipment, materials, and sites that may
contain NORM above the action levels.

State program requirements should specify the types of facilities to be surveyed, when surveys should be

performed, when survey results should be reported to the state regulatory agency, and the required training of surveyors.

State survey requirements

should provide data necessary to meet the purposes described in Section 5.2.1. and to administer and enforce state program requirements effectively.

7.3.4.

Worker Protection

State regulatory programs should include applicable state and federal standards for worker protection from exposure to radiation, including worker

46

 protection plans, and other standards necessary for the protection of workers from exposure to NORM.

Stare regulatory programs should require the

training of oil-field workers in NORM identification and radiation protection.
7.3.S.

Licensing/Permitting
a.

General licensing/permitting.

Persons who possess oil-field NORM in concentrations or at exposure rates that exceed state-adopted action

levels should be generally licensed or permitted.
b. Specific licensing/permitting.

Specific licenses or individual permits should be required for commercial storage, removal, decontamination,

remediation, treatment, or disposal of oil field NORM.

A state may require specific licenses or individual permits for the management of

oil-field NORM at centralized facilities as defined in Section 5.10.
7.3.6.

Removal/Remediation
States should establish standards and procedures for removal, decontamination, and remediation that are protective of worker and public health and
the environment.

7.3.7.

Storage
States should establish standards for storage of NORM that are protective of human health and the environment.
be constructed to prevent or minimize releases.
guidelines.

NORM storage facilities should

Tan ks used to store oil-field NORM should meet the requirements of Section 5.9. of these

A state should adopt limits on the amount of time NORM that exceeds action levels can be stored where in-state disposal alternatives

have been authorized.
7.3.8.

Transfer for Continued Use
State regulatory programs should allow for the transfer of land and equipment containing NORM for continued operation in the production of crude
oil and natural gas, with appropriate notification to affected parties.

7.3.9.

Release of Sites, Materials, and Equipment
Seate regulatory programs should address the levels below which, and conditions under which, equipment, materials, and sires containing NORM
may be released.

State regulatory programs should only authorize the release for unrestricted use of equipment, materials, and sites that exhibit

NORM below action levels.

Such regulations should provide for appropriate notification to affected persons.

47

 7.3.10. Disposal
State regulatory programs should authorize disposal alternatives within the state's jurisdiction for various E&P wastes containing NORM, including
contaminated equipment, and should include regulatory requirements for NORM disposal that are protective of human health and the environment.
landowner notification may be required as a condition of disposal.

Commercial and centralized NORM disposal facilities should meet the

criteria of Section 5.10.
7.3.11. lnteragency Coordination
Srate radiation programs, oil and gas programs, and waste management programs are frequently distributed among separate agencies.
in many states, multiple agencies may regulate NORM.

Therefore,

The various agencies should coordinate their regulatory and enforcement activities under

che guidance given in Section 4.4. of these guidelines.
7.3.12. Public Participation
State regulatory programs for NORM should meet the public participation guidelines established in Section 4.2.2.
7.4. Regulatory Development and Research
The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors has prepared a drafr of suggested state regulations for NORM, and a number of states have
developed or are in the process of developing NORM regulations.
these sources for information and assistance.

States that are developing their own NORM programs are encouraged to consult

In addition, states should encourage and keep abreast of ongoing and future research on NORM.

I

i

I
48

I

I

I
I!

 SECTIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

1.

The Council encourages industry, individual stares, and federal government to increase their efforts to characterize chemical constituents and naturally
occurring radioactive material (NORM) of exploration and production wastes.

2.

The Council encourages research by industry, the federal government, state-affiliated academic institutions, and public-interest groups into effective ways
of minimizing and reusing wastes generated in the nation's oil and gas fields.

3.

The Council encourages EPA to work with IOGCC and all interested parties in the development of any regulations or guidance that affect E&P activities.

4.

While these guidelines expressly provide for the protection of air quality, che Council recognizes thac few specifics are now included in this area.
Accordingly, as implementation of the federal Clean Air Act proceeds, the Council will review these guidelines to consider additional air quality
recommendations.

49

 SECTION9

REFERENCES

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1990.

EPA/IOCC Study of State Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes

IOCC (Oklahoma City,

OK)

Sylvia Lowrance, 1989.

Memorandum dated June 9:

"Draft Report on Waste Management Practices on Alaska's North Slope C Draft for Public Comment."

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Washington, D.C.), page 1.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy."

Report to Congress:

"Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil,

EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Washington, D.C.), December 31.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988.

"Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes."

53 FR, pages 25446-25459, July 6.

API Environmental Guidance Document, 1989.

"Onshore Solid Waste Management in Exploration and Production Operations."

American Petroleum

Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Lloyd E. Deuel, Jr., Ph.D., "Evaluation of Limiting Constituents Suggested for Land Disposal of Exploration and Production Wastes", March 1990.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1993.

"Clarification" 58 FR 15284-15287, March 22.

so

 

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

GLOSSARY

The following is a glossary of selected terms used in the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Council on Regulatory Needs Report on Regulation of
Exploration and Production Wastes (Guidelines).

The glossary is included only as an aid for the convenience of the reader.

It is not intended as an exhaustive

compilation of the terms used in the Report, nor are the definitions sec forth intended to be predusive of other potential meanings.

Terms expressly defined in

the text of the Report are not included in this glossary.

A

Acid:

A chemical compound, one element of which is hydrogen, that dissociates in solution to produce free-hydrogen ions.

For example, hydrochloric acid,

HCI, dissociates in water to produce hydrogen ions- H+, and chloride ions, Cf.

API:

The American Petroleum Institute.

and production equipment.

Aquifer:

Founded in 1920, this national oil trade organization is the leading standardizing organization on oil-field drilling

It maintains depanments of transportation, refining, and marketing in Washington, D.C., and a department of production in Dallas.

A geological formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is capable of yieldingwarer co a well or spring.

B

Barrel:

A measure of volume for petroleum products.

Basic Sediment and Water (BS&W):

Biodegradation:

Blowdown:

One barrel is equivalent to 42 U.S. gallons.

The water and other extraneous material present in crude oil.

The process of breaking down matter into innocuous products by the action of living things, such as microorganisms.

The material discarded as a result of depressurizing a vessel or well.

Brackish Water:

Water that contains relatively low concentrations of soluble solids.

Brackish water has more total dissolved solids than fresh water, but

considerably less than sea water.
Brine:

Water that has a large quantity of salt, especially sodium chloride, dissolved in it; saltwater and produced water are considered brines.

c
Climatology:

The science that deals with climates (the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period) and their

phenomena.

I

Completion Fluid:

A special fluid used when a well is being completed.

properties that minimize formation damage.

It is selected, not only for its ability to control formation pressure, but also for its

I

I

I

52

I

 Completion Operations:

Work performed in an oil or gas well after the well has been drilled to total depth.

This work includes, but is not limited to, setting

the casing, perforating. artificial stimulation, production testing. and equipping the well for production, all prior to the commencement of the actual production of
oil or gas in paying quantities, or in the case of an injection or service well, prior to when the well is plugged and abandoned.

Corrosivity (RCRA):

The hazardous characteristic of corrosiviry, for purposes of RCRA, is defined in 40 CFR 261.22, and generally includes aqueous material

with a pH less than 2.0, or greater than 12.5, and/or liquids which corrode SAE 1020 steel at greater than 6.35 mm per year.

Unrefined liquid petroleum.

Crude Oil:

crude.

It ranges in gravity from 9N to SSN APJ and in color from yellow to black, and it may have a paraffin, asphalt, or

If a crude oil, or crude, contains a sizable amount of sulfur or sulfur compounds, it is called a sour crude; if it has liccle or no sulfur, it is called a sweet

mixed base.

In addition, crude oils may be referred to as heavy or light according to API graviry, the lighter oils having the higher gravities.

D

Disking:

The process of using a tractor-pulled set of disks to mix surface soil.

Disposal Well:

A well employed for the injection of produced water into an underground formation.

Drill Cutting:

The formation rock fragments that are created by the drill bit during the drilling process.

The circulating fluid used in the rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hold and to counterbalance formation pressure.

Drilling Fluid:

A

water-based drilling fluid is the conventional drilling mud in which water is the continuous phase and the suspended medium for solids, whether or not oil is

An oil-based drilling fluid has diesel, crude, or some other oil as its continuous phase, with water as the dispersed phase.

present.

down the drill pipe and back up the hole between the drill pipe and the walls of the hold, usually to a surface tank.

Drilling fluids are circulated

Drilling fluids are used to lubricate the drill

bit, to lift cuttings, to seal off porous zones, and to prevent blowouts.

E

Electrical Conductivity (EC):

milliohm/meter.

Emulsion:

A numerical expression of the abiliry of a material to carry a current; the reciprocal of resistivity; normally expressed in

It is frequently used in soil analysis to evaluate a soil's abiliry to sustain plant growth.

A mixture in which a liquid, termed the dispersed phase, is uniformly distributed (usually as minute globules) in another liquid, called the

continuous phase or dispersion medium.
the reverse holds.

EPA:

In an oil-water emulsion, the oil is the dispersed phase and the water the dispersion medium; in a water-oil emulsion,

Emulsions occur during production processes where crude oil is prepared for pipeline transportation.

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Exploration:

The search for reservoirs of oil and gas, including aerial and geophysical surveys, geological studies, core testing. and the drilling of wildcats.

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP):

ESP

The extent to which the absorption complex of a soil is occupied by sodium.

=exchangeable sodium

x 100

cation exchange capacity

Where the units for both the numerator and denominator are in mi!liequivalents per 100 grams of soil.

53

 F
Field:

A geographic area which contains one or more producing formations.
A bed or deposit composed throughout substantially the same kinds of rock; a lithologic unit.

Formation:

Each different formation is given a name,

frequently as a result of the study of the formation outcrop at the surface and sometimes based on fossils found in the formation.
The water in place in a formation at the time production commence~.

Formation Water:

A method of stimulating production by increasing the permeability of the producing formation.

Fracturing:

down the well and out into the formation.

Fracturing Fluids:

Under hydraulic pressure, a fluid is pumped

The fluid enters the formation and parts or fractures it.

The fluids used to hydraulically fracture a rock formation.

G

Gas Plant:

A plant for the processing of natural gas, by other than solely mechanical means, for the extraction of natural gas liquids, and/or the fractionation of

the liquids into natural gas liquid produces such as ethane, butane, propane, and natural gasoline.
Groundwater:

Water below the land surface where there is sufficient water present to completely saturate the soil or rock.

H

Hydrocarbon:

Organic compound of hydrogen and carbon, whose densities, boiling points, and freezing points increase as their molecular weights increase.

Although composed of only two elements, hydrocarbons exist in a variety of compounds because of the strong affinity of the carbon atom for other atoms and for
itself.

The smallest molecules of hydrocarbons are gaseous; the largest are solid.

lgnitability (RCRA):

The hazardous characteristic of ignitability for purposes of RCRA is defined in 40 CFR 261.21 and is generally a liquid with a flash point

less than 140N F., a non-liquid that causes fire under a friction condition, an ignitable compressed gas, or is an oxidizer.

L

Lease:

A legal document executed between a landowner (or a lessor) and a company or individual as lessee, that grants the right to exploit the premises for

minerals or other products.
Liner:

The area where production wells, stock tanks, separators, and production equipment are located.

Continuous layer of natural or synthetic materials, beneath and on the sides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or landfill cell, which restricts the

downward or lateral escape of waste, waste constituents, or leachate.
Loading Criteria:

A numeric level, normally expressed in pounds per acre, below which a specific chemical compound may be applied to the soil.

54

 Location:

Place at which a well is to be or has been drilled.

M

Molecular Sieve:

Absorbents that are used to remove small amounts of H2S and/or water from natural gas, capable of being regenerated.

N

Natural Gas:

Naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the earth's surface.

The

principal hydrocarbon constituent is methane.
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM):

Any nuclide which is radioactive in its natural physical state (i.e., non manmade), but does not include

source or special nuclear material.

0

Oil-Base Muds:

A drilling fluid that is a water-oil emulsion with oil as the continuous phase.

The oil content ranges from 50-98 percent oil.

Oil muds are

used to reduce drilling torque and to stabilize reactive shales that impede the drilling process.
Operator:

The person or company, either proprietor, contractor, or lessee, actually operating a well, lease, or disposal facility.

r
Permeability:
pH:

The ability of a formation to transmit fluids.

A measure of acidity or alkalinity of a solution, numerically equal to 7 for neutral solutions, increasing with increasing alkalinity and decreasing with

increasing acidity.
Plug and Abandon (P&A or Plugging):
Produced Sand:

The placement of a plug(s) into a well designed to restrict the movement of fluids after abandonment.

The formation solids which flow into the well bore with the produced formation fluids.

In general, the lower the formation competency, the

greater the produced sand volumes.
Produced Water:

The fluid brought up from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata during the extraction of oil or gas.

ft can include formation water, injection

water, and any chemicals added downhole or during the oil/water separation process.
Production:

The phase of the petroleum industry that deals with bringing the well-fluids to the surface and separating them, and with storing, gauging. and

otherwise preparing the product for sale.

R

SS

 RCRA:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended.

Reactivity (RCRA:

The hazardous characteristic of reactivity for purposes of RCRA is defined in 40 CFR 261.23 and generally includes wastes with highly

exothermic r~actions or wastes which create toxic gases when mixed with water.
Reclamation:
Reservoir:

The process of returning a facility's site or contaminated soil back to its pre-operation or uncontaminated state.

A subsurface, porous, permeable rock body in which oil or gas or both are stored.

combination of these.

Most reservoir rocks are limestones, dolomites, sandstones, or a

The three basic types of hydrocarbon reservoirs are oil, gas, and condensate.

and water-with-oil, the dominant produce.

An oil reservoir generally contains three fluids C gas, oil,

In the typical oil reservoir, these fluids occur in different phases because of the variance in their gravities.

lightest, occupies the upper part of the reservoir rocks; water, the lower part; and oil, the intermediate section.
gas may accumulate independencly of the oil; if so, the reservoir is called a gas reservoir.

Gas, the

In addition to occurring as a cap or in solution,

Associated with the gas, in most instances, are salt water and some oil.

In a condensate reservoir, the hydrocarbons may exist as a gas, but when brought to the surface, some of the heavier ones condense to a liquid or condensate.
Ar the surface, the hydrocarbons from a condensate reservoir consist of gas and a high-gravity crude (i.e., the condensate).
called gas-condensate reservoirs.

56

Condensate wells are sometimes

 s
Salinity:

The quantitative level of salt in an aqueous medium.

Salt Section:

A formation, or part of a formation, which is predominately made up of salt; cypica11y sodium chloride.

Sodium Absorption Ration (SAR):

A ratio of the concentration of sodium to the square root of the sum of the concentrations of calcium and magnesium.
Na+

SAR~ 'J'-[Ca+ +Mg'+]
Where the cation concentrations are in millimoles per liter.

It is a measurement frequently used in soil analysis to evaluate a soil's ability to sustain plant

growth.
Solids Separation Equipment:
workover/completion fluid.
Stripper Well:

Subtitle C:

Equipment used in drilling and workover/completion operations to remove drill cutting or formation solids from the drilling or

May include liquid/solids separation devices such as shale shakers, hydrocyclones, centrifuges, and filtration units.

A well nearing depletion that produces a small volume of oil or gas.

That portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which defines and legislates the management of hazardous wastes; a

designation for hazardous solid wastes as defined by RCRA.

T

Tank Bottoms:

Topography:

Produced sand, formation solids, and/or emulsions that settle-out in production operation process vessels.

The physical features of a district or region, such as are represented on maps, taken collectively; especially the relief and contour of the land.

Toxicity Characteristic (RCRA):
thirty-one organic compounds.

The hazardous characteristic of toxicity for purposes of RCRA is defined in 40 CFR 261.24 and includes eight metal and
The toxicity characteristic is determined by analysis of the extract from a prescribed test procedure.

57

 u
Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW):

An aquifer which supplies drinking water for human consumption or for any public water system, or

contains fewer than 10,000 mg per liter total dissolved solids, and does not contain minerals or hydrocarbons that are commercially producible, and is situated at
a depth or location which makes the recovery of water for drinking water purposes economically or technologically practical.

While EPA defines an USDW as

containing less than 10,000 mg per liter TDS, certain states, such as California and Texas, have adopted a 3,000 mg per liter TDS definition for the Class ll UIC
injection well programs.

v
Vadose Zone:

A subsurface soil zone that contains suspended water.

The vadose zone is above the zone of continuous water saturation.

w
Waterflood:

A method used to enhance oil recovery in which water is injected into a reservoir to remove additional quantities of oil that have been left behind

after the primary recovery.

Usually, a warerflood involves the injection of water through wells specially designed and/or placed for water injection.

The

injected water sweeps through the oil formation and moves remaining oil co the producing wells.

Workover:

One or more of a variety of remedial operations performed on a producing well to try to increase production.

Examples of workover operations

are deepening, plugging back, pulling and resecting the liner, squeeze-cementing, etc.

Workover Fluid:

A special fluid used to keep a well under control when it is being worked over.

A workover fluid is composed carefully so it will not cause

formation damage.
Workover Wastes:

Wastes resulting from well workover operations.

The wastes usually include workover fluids, similar to drilling fluids and could include

various small volume wastes such as tubing scale, wax/paraffin, and deaning or painting wastes.

58

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:

To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mike Paque <mpaque@gwpc.org>
Friday, June 05, 2015 5:21 PM
Lepore Matt; Baza John; Tom Kropatsch; Michael Teague
Fwd: 1994 GUIDELJNES
1994 GUIDELJNES.docx; ATTOOOOl.htm

Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ben Grunewald <ben@gwpc.org>
Date: June 5, 2015 at 10:08:17 AM MDT
To: Mike Paque <mpaque@gwpc.org>
Subject: 1994 GUIDELINES

Mike -- Is this it?

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Monday, June 29, 2015 9:37 AM
Michael Teague
Gerry Baker
FW: Message from "RNP00267351BE54"
201506300719.pdf

Michael Great to be with you at WGA. Sorry we couldn't have dinner and a cigar. Are you available for both some evening
coming up?
As mentioned, attached is a copy of our roof estimate. Any help you could give would be MUCH appreciated!
Thanks, Mike
-----Original Message----From: noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us [mailto:noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 7:19 AM
To: Mike Smith
Subject: Message from "RNP00267351BE54"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP00267351BE54" (Aficio MP 301).
Scan Date: 06.30.2015 07:19:07 (-0500)
Queries to: noreply@iogcc.state.ok.us

I

I

I
1

 I,,
II

!I

I

II
I
~

Page I of I

Mike Smith
From:

Hannah Barton

Sent:
To:

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:40 PM

Cc:

Gerry Baker

Mike Smith

Subject: Insurance Roof Replacement
Mike,
I wanted to take a second to explain some documents that are on your desk, for when you return.
As you may know, our insurance company sent over a list of recommendations for us, that would keep us in
compliance with their guidelines for coverage, one of which being, getting our roof replaced. I have had several
roofing companies come out and inspect our roof and give bids for the cost of replacing it, all of which landed in
the $50,000 to low $60,000 range. When Gerry referred me to a company he knew of, and their prices were
much more reasonable, they bid the job at $39,800. That includes an energy efficient, thicker than required,
roofing material that is 'suppose' to cut our heating and cooling bill by approximately 40%. We can also op for
the regular grade of roofing materials, versus the thicker, and cut that price by $900.
The $39,800 does not include, tearing off or removing our current layer of roofing that we have on now. They
would lay the new roof directly over the old one. I talked to our insurance agent, Chris Paine, who said that
having two layers of roof will not affect our coverage at all, if anything, Central Insurance Agency may not pay
for the tear off of both layers of roofing, in the future when we again replace the roof. I have also talked with
our Insurance provider and turned in a claim for the roof, to see what we are entitled to under our roof
coverage, to help absorb the cost of the repair. I should know more by the time you return.
I would like to get your thoughts on the matter and see what you think would be best.
The roofing company has brought us a very helpful booklet outlining all the details of the job the proposed with
a pricing break down, of course I would be more than happy to go over everything with you and Gerry, if I can be
of any assistance just let me know.
Thank you!
Hannah Barton
Member Services Coordinator
Assistant to the Director
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission

POBOX53127
Oklahoma City. OK 73152

(405) 525-3556 Ex, 101

6/22/2015

 .

....
BASEY'S
...

ROOFING

& SHEET METAL

OFFICE- 405-684-9988
2820 S.W. 25TH ST.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73108

Reference:

Oklahoma Oil and Gas Commission Bldg.
900 N.E.23rd
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105

Date: 6/9/15

To Whom It May Concern:
We have reviewed the current condition of your existing membrane roof system and believe
that through age and years of storm abuse. We believe the following scope of repairs are in
order to bring the current roof system into a warranted condition:

•
•

..
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Cut any blistered areas out and allow to dry
Install a new 1.5' inch polyiso insulation with an R-factor of 8.5 (This will separate the
old membrane from the new and will be attached with screws and plates through the
deck
Install a new white .060 TPO membrane
Install new wall flashing with white TPO membrane
New roof system will be mechanically fastened through deck to meet local wind uplift
requirements.
New membrane will be tied into the current drains
Install new flashing at stone veneer
Install new pre-finished metal at perimeter
· Flash all unit curbs, vents, and exhaust curbs
Furnish a 10 year material warranty
Furnish a 2 year labor warranty
Note: An alternate price addition to the base bid will be given for a 10 NDL roof

Our price for the above referenced scope is $39,800.00
We offer an alternate deduct for using .045 mil TPO in lieu of .060 for $900.00 (Same
Warranty}
We offer an add for issuance of a manufactures 10 year NOL for $2,000.00
We offer an add for a complete tear off in lieu of a retrofit and an addtion of R-30 insulation
in lieu of R-8.5 for $18,560.00. Changing the original base bid to $58,360.00.
Respectfully submitted,
Bobby Barnes
Commercial Mgr.
"-------·~-

---

--···---·---······--·---·-----

-----

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:

To:
Cc:
Subject:

Gerry Baker <gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:32 AM
Mike Paque; Dan Yates; Monsma, David; Scott Anderson; John Baza; Lawrence Bengal ;
Matt.Lepore@state.co.us; Adam Peltz; Stephen Smith; Michael Teague; Mark Watson
Olson, Timothy; Mike Smith; Hannah Barton
Follow up meeting on SOGRE structure

Dear All -Following the breakthrough discussions held during the Aspen Institute meeting, we have scheduled a follow up meeting
to discuss a revised structure for the State Oil and Gas Regulatory Exchange (SOGRE).
As discussed in Aspen and following, the meeting is scheduled to begin the afternoon of July 30, continue all day the 31st,
and conclude around noon on Aug. 1 in Park City, Utah. We will be working on an agenda over the next week or so.
We have reserved a room block for attendees at Deer Valley Resort in Park City. The IOGCC and GWPC will cover the
room costs for participants if necessary and you need not make hotel reservations. If by chance you are planning to stay
any additional evenings at the resort, please let me know so I can advise the hotel.
It is my understanding in talking with Mike Paque, all addressees on this e-mail had indicated their availability for this time
frame. Please let me or Mike know if this is no longer the case.
Watch for additional information to come. Meanwhile, call me or Mike if you have any questions or comments.
GB

Geny Balcer
Associale Executive Director
(405) 525-355 6, ext. 112
(405) 664-7362

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:39 PM
Laurel Baird
Jodi McKee
RE: IOGCC Annual Meeting

The Tech Tour sounds very good. I've included Jodi on the cc line as I'm not sure if she has already booked the hotel
room.
Thanks

From: Laurel Baird [mailto:laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:53 AM

To: Michael Teague
Subject: IOGCC Annual Meeting
Good Morning Secretary Teague,
It was very nice meeting you yesterday and I'm so glad that you've registered for the Annual meeting in Long
Beach. You registered as a non-member and I re-registered you as a member due to the fact that you are Oklahoma's
Official Rep. I've refunded $100.00 to the credit card. I also wanted to make sure that you have room reservations at
the Renaissance. They will tell you that they are sold out but I'll be happy to call and secure you a room. Will you be
available for the tech tour on Monday, November 4'"? The busses will leave the hotel at 1:00 pm and return at about
3:00 pm.
Let me know ifthere is anything that I may help you with.
Have a great day!
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
{405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba i rd@iogcc. state. ok. us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Saturday, October 26, 2013 12:26 PM
Laurel Baird
Jodi McKee
Re: IOGCC Annual Meeting

No worries and thanks for the help. Have a great weekend.
On Oct 25, 2013, at 18:34, "Laurel Baird" <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I talked to the hotel this evening and I will have your confirmation number on Monday.
Sorry for the delay.
Have a great weekend.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
laurel. baird@iogcc.state.ok.us

I
I

I

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, October 29, 2013 2:21 PM
Laurel Baird
Jodi McKee
Re: IOGCC Annual Meeting

Yes please sign me up.
On Oct 29, 2013, at 14:14, "Laurel Baird" <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
There are still some spots on the Tech Tour if you are interested in going. It will take place on Monday,
November 4 and the busses will leave at 1:00 pm returning to the hotel at 3:00 pm.
Please let me know if your travel plans will allow you to attend and if you would like to and I will add it
to your registration.
Thanks so much.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba i rd@iogcc. state. o k. us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:27 PM
Jodi McKee
Fwd: IOGCC Annual Meeting

FYI

Begin forwarded message:
From: Laurel Baird <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Date: October 29, 2013 at 15:10:09 CDT

To: "mpaque@gwpc.org" <mpaque@gwpc.org>, Alan Coyner <nevadageo@hotmail.com>, Bob King
<bob.king@wyo.gov>, "Bradley C.Lambert"<butch.lambert@dmme.virginia.gov>, "Bradley Field"
<bjfield@gw.dec.state.ny.us>, Brian Love <brian.love@gov.yk.ca>, "C. Edmon Larrimore"
<elarrimore@mde.state.md.us>, Cathy Foerster <cathy.foerster@alaska.gov>, "David Porter"
<david.porter@rrc.state.tx.us>, "Derric lies (derric.iles@usd.edu)" <derric.iles@usd.edu>, Ed Dancsok
<ed.dancsok@gov.sk.ca>, Fred Allen <fredallen@gov.nl.ca>, Gerry Baker
<gerry.baker@iogcc.state.ok.us>, Grant Black <grant.black@wyo.gov>, "Harold Fitch"
<fitchh@michiga.gov>, "J. Dale Nations" <daleaudrey@comcast.net>, Jami Bailey
<jami.bailey@state.nm.us>, "Jim Dilay "<jim.dilay@ercb.ca>,Jim Welsh <jim.welsh@la.gov>, "John
Baza" <johnbaza@utah.gov>, "Jon Williams" <Jwilliams@nccommerce.com>, Joseph Pettey
<joe.pettey@yahoo.com>, "Joseph Pettey" <joepettey@zoominternet.net>, "Keith Endreson"
<keith.endresen@gnb.ca>, "Lawrence Bengal" <larry.bengal@aogc.state.ar.us>, "Lisa lvshin"
<livshin@ogb.state.ms.us>, "Lynn Helms" <lhelms@nd.gov>, "Mark Nechodom"
<mark.nechodom@conservation.ca.gov>, Matt Lepore <matt.lepore@state.co.us>, Michael McGehee
<Michael.McGehee@ferc.gov>, "Michael Teague" <michael.teague@ee.ok.gov>, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>, "Nancy Johnson" <nancy.johnson@hq.doe.gov>, "Neslin, Dave"
<David.Neslin@dgslaw.com>, "Nick Tew" <ntew@ogb.state.al.us>, "Paul Jeakins"
<paul.jeakins@bcogc.ca>, "Paul Schmierbach "<paul.schmierbach@state.tn.us>,"Richard Simmers"
<rick.simmers@dnr.state.oh.us>, Ronald Efta <wcaefta@midrivers.com>, "Sandy MacMullin"
<macmulsa@gov.ns.ca>, "scperry@pa.gov" <scperry@pa.gov>, "Thomas Wright "
<t.wright@kcc.ks.gov>, Tom Schultz <tschultz@idl.idaho.gov>, "William Daugherty"
<billd@blackridgeusa.com>, "William Sydow" <bsydow@nogcc.ne.gov>
Subject: IOGCC Annual Meeting

Good Afternoon,
There has been a slight change in Wednesday's committee meeting schedule. We are going to combine
both the Finance and Steering Committee meetings and invite the Official Representatives. There will
be a presentation introducing the IOGCC States First Initiative Media Campaign by Gerry Baker, Carol
Booth and Erica Carr. The meeting will be held from 7:30 am - 9:30 am in Renaissance Ill with breakfast
served.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
1

 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
{405) 525-3556 x 101
la u re I. ba ird@iogcc.state. ok. us

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:33 AM
Mike Smith
Gerry Baker; Laurel Baird; Jodi McKee
Re: Thanks for the meeting!

Mike,
Sounds great on both of them. Would you please draft the letter and send it through Jodi?
Mike
On Jan 14, 2014, at 8:25 AM, "Mike Smith" <mikermiogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Mike Just a note to thank you again for all support for IOGCC. It is greatly appreciated!
As to committee assignments, I think the 2 best for you (you can serve on more than one) would be
Public Outreach (OREB has been important for this committee) and Environment and Safety (for obvious
reasons). Gov. Fallin can appoint you with a brief letter us and we can draft one for her consideration.
Just let me know and thanks!
Mike

1

Il
!

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:24 PM
Laurel Baird
Jodi McKee
Re: IOGCC Steering Committee Meeting

I'm available for the meetings but have a previous event the evening of the 10th. Can you send us an agenda?
On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:40 PM, "Laurel Baird" <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Good Afternoon,
We would like to extend an invitation to you to join the IOGCC Steering Committee meeting in
Oklahoma City at IOGCC Headquarters February 10 and 11. We will be meeting all day on February 10,
concluding with dinner and resuming the morning of February 11 for a short time.
Please let me know if you are able to attend.
Sincerely,
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
laurel. baird@iogcc.state.ok.us

1

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:32 PM
Laurel Baird; Jodi McKee
Re: IOGCC Bio

Laurel,
Jodi has a copy.
Thanks
On Jan 28, 2014, at 12:01, "Laurel Baird" <laurel.baird@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Good Afternoon Secretary Teague,
Would you please forward me your bio? I would like to have one on file for Governor Bryant should he
request to see one for your appointment to the Resolutions Committee.
Thanks so much.
Laurel Baird
Member Services Coordinator
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 525-3556 x 101
la urel.ba ird@iogcc.state.ok.us

I

I

!'

I

1

 Michael Teague
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>
Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:49 AM
Michael Teague; Gerry Baker; Carol Booth; Bill Daugherty; Larry Bengal
Fwd: Oklahoma Geological Survey

FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kenneth Nemeth <Nemeth@sseb.org>
Date: March 3, 2015 9:13:02 AM CST
To: Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us>, 'Mike Moore' <mmoore@fearnoil.com>
Cc: Kathryn Baskin <Baskin@sseb.org>, Gary Garrett <Garrett@sseb.org>, Kimberly Sams
<Sams@sseb.org>
Subject: Oklahoma Geological Survey

Okla. agency linked quakes to oil in 2010, but kept mum amid industry pressure
Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter

Published: Tuesday, March 3, 2015
•

RESIZE TEXT RESIZE TEXT
•
•

EMAIL&NBSP EMAIL
PRINT&NBSP f.B.!N!
Advertise111ent

Oklahoma's state scientists have suspected for years that oil and gas operations in the state were causing a
swann of earthquakes, but in public they rejected such a connection.
When the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS) did cautiously agree with other scientists about such a link,
emails obtained by EnergyWire show the state seismologist was called into meetings with his boss, University
of Oklahoma President David Boren, and oil executives "concerned" about the acknowledgement.
One of the oilmen was Continental Resources Chairman Harold Hamm, a leading donor to the university.
The seismologist, Austin Holland, told a senior U.S. Geological Survey official that as far back as 2010, OGS
officials believed an earthquake swarm near Oklahoma City might have been triggered by the "Hunton
dewatering," an oil and gas project east of the city.
"Since early 20 I 0 we have recognized the potential for the Jones earthquake swann to be due to the Hunton
dewatering," Holland wrote to USGS science adviser Bill Leith in 2013. "But until we can demonstrate that
scientifically or not we were not going to discuss that publicly."
Instead, he pointed to changing lake levels.
And when USGS officials linked a "remarkable" surge in earthquakes in Oklahoma and other states to drilling
waste disposal in 2012, OGS criticized their "rush to judgment."
Holland told EnergyWire the intense personal interest shown by Boren, Hanun and other leaders hasn't
affected his scientific findings or those ofOGS.
1

I
I

 "None of these conversations affect the science that we are working on producing," Holland told EnergyWire.
"We have the academic freedoms necessary for university employees doing research."
But Holland and OGS have been the voice of skepticism in the scientific community about connections
between oil production activities and the hundreds of earthquakes that have shaken the state.

Oldahoma Geological Survey seismologist Austin Holland. Photo courtesy of Austin l lolland.

Industry and political leaders in the state, where one out of eve1y six jobs is linked to oil and gas, have seized
on that skepticism.
"Researchers in Oklahoma, notably Austin Holland with the Oklahoma Geological Survey, have repeatedly
said the increase in seismic activity cannot be fully explained by man-made causes," Oklahoma Independent
Petroleum Association (OIPA) President Mike Teny said in a 2013 statement.
Other states have ordered wells pennanently shut down and imposed strict rules after earthquakes. But
Oklahoma regulators have been reluctant to pennanently shut down wells and have limited new regulations to
infonnation-gathering requirements.
"We know a lot of it's just natural earthquakes that have occurred since the beginning of the earth," Oklahoma
Gov. Mary Fallin (R) said earlier this year in an interview with the Tulsa World, "but there has been some
question about disposal wells."
Federal and academic seismologists say the wave of shaking in Oklahoma and other central states is not from
"natural earthquakes." They link it to disposal of wastewater by oil and gas companies.
"This rise in seismic activity, especially in the central United States, is not the result of natural processes,"
USGS said in a recent release. "Deep injection of wastewater is the primary cause of the dramatic rise in
detected earthquakes and the corresponding increase in seismic hazard in the central U.S."
Oklahoma's top elected officials have avoided talking about the state's earthquake swarms, leaving the
response largely to Holland, 40, who joined OGS in 2010. No other state official has done as many television
and news interviews about earthquakes.
The agency's 2012 annual report quipped that "Holland seems to be on everyone's speed dial when the ground
starts shaking."

'Natural causes'
Scientists have known for decades that injecting waste fluid in deep disposal wells -- from oil and gas or other
industrial activities -- can cause earthquakes in rare cases. More "earth-friendly" industries, such as geothennal
and carbon capture and storage, can also set the Earth rumbling. But high-volume fracturing and some other
technologies driving the U.S. oil and gas boom create many times more wastewater than conventional
production.
From 1975 to 2008, the state of Oklahoma averaged one to three quakes a year of magnitude 3 or greater,
according to USGS. In 2009, the number of quakes began rising sharply. There were 20 in 2009. In 2012, the
2

 number went over I 00. Last year, it had 585, an average of 1.6 a day (EnergvWire, Jan. 5). That was three
times as many as California.
In 2011, Oklahoma was hit by its largest-ever recorded earthquake, a magnitude-5.7 event near Prague, Okla.,
that injured two people and damaged more than 200 homes and businesses.
Seismologist Katie Keranen, then a professor at the University of Oklahoma, published a peer-reviewed paper
in 2013 linking the Prague quake to nearby disposal wells. "There's a compelling link," Keranen had explained,
"between the zone of injection and the seismicity."
OGS rejected Keranen's findings.
"It has been suggested that this sequence represents earthquakes triggered by fluid injection," said an OGS
statement posted shortly before Keranen's mticle was published. "The interpretation that best fits current data
is that the Prague earthquake sequence was the result of natural causes."
Not long afterward, Keranen left Oklahoma for a professorship at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
State officials continued to allow the companies in the area to inject near the fault that had ruptured. Statewide,
injection of oil and gas waste fluid rose 42 percent from 2010 to 2013.

Denial phase
In the fall of2013, though, OGS edged toward acknowledging a link between the state's emthquakes and its oil
and gas industry. That's when Hamm and other Oklahoma leaders took a personal interest.
In September 2013, earthquakes started to rattle Marietta, a small town in southern Oklahoma near the site of a
new disposal well. Holland investigated, and his preliminary report focused on the correlation between
disposal operations and the earthquakes. He has not published a final report, but it's the closest OGS has come
to linking eatthquakes to a specific well.

In October 2013, OGS joined in a USGS statement about the growing seismic risk in Oklahoma. Under the
OGS seal, it said "activities such as wastewater disposal" may be a "contributing factor to the increase in
earthquakes."
Industry leaders were not pleased.

Oklaho1na Corporation Co1nmissioner Patrice Douglas. Photo courtesy of the state ofOklahonta.

Holland was summoned a week later to the headquarters of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC)
with Jack Stark, who was then senior vice president of exploration with Continental Resources. Stark is now
president and chief operating officer. OCC, overseen by three statewide elected commissioners, regulates oil
and gas in the state. The meeting was in the office of then-Commissioner Patrice Douglas.
3

 Douglas and the Continental executive were "concerned" about the joint statement with USGS and a story
about it by Energy Wire, Holland recmmted later in an email (Energy Wire, Oct. 25, 2013). Holland wrote that
he had tried to explain to them that the joint statement was "made better" by his input.
"Continental does not feel induced seismicity is an issue and they are nervous about any dialog about the
subject," Holland wrote to his bosses after the 2013 meeting. "They are in the denial phase that this is a
possibility."
At the time, Douglas was about to run for Congress. She got more campaign money from Continental
executives in 2014 than anyone except Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and the Republican National
Committee, according to OpenSecrets.org. The $14,775 she received from Continental includes $6,575 from
Hamm, who did not contribute to her Republican primary opponent, Steve Russell. Russell beat Douglas in the
primary and is now a congressman.
In the meeting, Douglas said she "wants to, of course, protect the safety of Oklahomans, but also balance that
with industry in the state," according to Holland's email.
Holland "blind copied" himself on the email.

'Coffee' with Hamm
The meeting with Hamm and Boren was about three weeks later.

lJnivcrsity of Oklahoma President David Boren. Photo comiesy oJ'thc University of Oklahoma.

"1 have been asked to have 'coffee' with President Boren and Harold Hamm Wednesday," he wrote in an Nov.
18, 2013, email to a co-worker.
The significance was not lost on his colleague, OGS Public Information Coordinator Connie Smith.
"Gosh," Smith responded. "I guess that's better than having Kool-Aid with them. I guess."
A meeting with such powerful figures in the state would be intimidating for a state employee such as Holland,
said state Rep. Jason Murphey of Guthrie.
"Wow. That's a lot of pressure," said Murphey, a Republican whose district has been rattled by numerous
quakes. "That just sends chills up your spine if you're from Oklahoma."
Hanun is the chairman and CEO of Continental. But as the founder of the company, he's much more than that.
He has a sharecropper's son-to-billionaire life story that has cemented him as the embodiment of the state's
wildcatter ethos. Forbes listed him last year as the 43rd-richest person in the country. He served as the energy
adviser for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.
4

 He gained fame outside of business circles last year as the ex-husband in one of the largest-ever divorce
settlements in U.S. legal history.

Continental Resources Inc. CEO J-larold Hamm.Photo courtesy of Harold Han1111.

Hamm is also one of the industry executives in Oklahoma who don't believe in a connection between disposal
and emthquakes. Asked about the shaking after a 2014 congressional hearing, Hamm told Energy Wire, "It's
certainly not related to oil and gas activity."
Perhaps more relevant to Boren and Holland is Hamm's relationship to the university. In March 2011, Boren
declmed Hannn's $20 million gift launching the Harold Hamm Oklahoma Diabetes Center "the largest single
gift in the history of the Health Sciences Center."
In addition, Boren serves on Continental's bomd of directors. In 2013, he received $272,700 in cash and stock
for his service.
Asked about the meetings, Continental spokeswoman Kristin Thomas said she was not familim· with them.
"But I do know that resemch had been conducted by a geologist at Continental showing broader global
emthquake activity spanning both time and distance," Thomas said. "There was a desire to educate and provide
greater global perspective on earthquake activity."
News coverage in Oklahoma indicates that the Continental geologist, Glen Brown, did not begin his research
until around December 2013, after H=m's meeting with Boren and Holland.
Boren declined comment through a spokesman. Attempts to reach Douglas were unsuccessful.

'Far too much hype'
After the meeting with Stmk, a long-standing swm·m of earthquakes northeast of Oklahoma City expanded to
the north and grew stronger. The Jones swann had been rattling the m·ea for several years at that point.
Keranen had recently presented scientific findings that the Jones swarm was linked to oil and gas, and she said
the expansion was likely also connected.
Holland, though, downplayed any connection to the Hunton Dewatering project. In a television interview at the
time, he pointed toward natural causes (E11ergvWire, Nov. 4, 2013). In a scientific posting, he pointed at
changing water levels at a nearby lake (E11ergpWire, Nov. 14, 2013).
"The correlation between lake levels at Arcadia Lake and this earthquake swarm is interesting and requires
further investigation," Holland wrote.
That concerned Leith, who runs the earthquake hazards program at USGS. He wrote to Holland saying the lake
level theory was "unlikely" and possibly unhelpful.
"This could be very distracting from the larger issue of earthquake safety in Oklahoma," Leith wrote, "and the
role that wastewater injection may be playing."
5

I
I
I

I
I

Ii

I

Il

I

I

 Holland replied that he was "quite skeptical myself" of such a link. But he said reporters asked him about it, so
"my hand was forced on this matter." He added that the agency had suspected ties between the Jones quakes
and Hunton production for three years, but had been reluctant to discuss it publicly.
"Now, we have no choice, because others are discussing this publicly," Holland wrote. "This is not helpful to
our efforts because every hour I spend talking to reporters is another two hours really can't be doing the
research that needs to be done. There has been far too much hype about the recent earthquakes."
Asked by Energy Wire why he hadn't publicly aired suspicions that Jones swarm was caused by oil production
activities, Holland replied, "l guess you should go back and read my paper." He sent a citation to a IDill£!: he
published in 2013, which does not make a link between the Jones swaim earthquakes and the Hunton
dewatering.
Dewatering is a technique, pioneered in Oklahoma by a company called New Dominion LLC, in which
massive aiuounts of water laced with oil are extracted from spent conventional fields. The oil gets separated
out, and the water gets injected back underground into deep disposal wells.
"It is unclear as to the cause of the Jones earthquake swaim," Holland's paper states, "but it is clear that
whatever the cause the resulting seismicity is quite different from that observed elsewhere in Oklahoma."
In February 2014, OGS again rejected the link between the Jones swarm and the oil and gas industry.
"At this time a direct link to oil and gas activity and this unusual earthquake sequence cannot be established,"
OGS said in a statement after Guthrie, Okla., was rocked by a series of quakes (Energy Wire, Feb. 20, 2014).

The right thing
In a media outing earlier this year, Holland acknowledged to reporters from the Tulsa World, The New York
Times and The Washington Post that the industry has tried to influence his work.

"l can't really talk about it," Holland told the reporters. "We're going to do the right thing."
But Bob Jackman says Holland did talk about it last year and indicated that it was Hamm who was leaning on
him.
Jackman is a Tulsa petroleum geologist who has made himself a thorn in the side of Oklahoma's establishment
on issues such as earthquakes. In an opinion journal article last year, Jackman described approaching Holland
about earthquakes after a conference in September.
Jackman said he pressed him about earthquakes until Holland blurted out, "You don't understand -- Harold
Hamm and others will not allow me to say certain things."
Holland told Energy Wire that Jackman had misquoted a private conversation, but declined to clarify it.
Jackman said he wrote down Holland's words immediately, and stands by his recollection.
OGS's position on the cause of the earthquakes has drawn derision, even from within the agency.
In April 2013, another OGS scientist, petroleum geologist Richard Andrews, said in a note to a family member
on his agency email account that OGS shouldn't be telling the public that the earthquakes are naturally
occurring.
"Myself and a few other geologists that know of the Hunton dewatering oil operations in the affected areas and
subsequent re-injection into the Arbuckle [are] the culprit," wrote Andrews, who is now the interim director of
OGS. "I am dismayed at our seismic people about this issue and believe they couldn't track a bunny through

fresh snow! 11
While Oklahoma leaders debate the cause, seismologists have warned that the surge in relatively small
earthquakes has increased the risk of a larger quake that could cause widespread damage and serious injuries.
6

 Kenneth J. Nemeth
Executive Director
Southern States Energy Board
6325 Amherst Court
Norcross, GA 30092
770.242. 7712
770.242.9956 fax

www.sseb.org
www.secarbon.org
www.secarb-ed.org
Visit us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/southernenerav

********************************************
Visit SSEB 011li11e Registrfltio11 for upconiing conference infom1ation for all Southern States Energy Board events.

!

I

I

I

I
•

7

 Michael Teague
From:

Kenneth Kerrihard <Kenneth.Kerrihard@clr.com>
Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:45 AM
Mindy Stitt; Ronnie Irani; Danny Morgan; Steve Slawson; Phil Cook; Bob Sullivan; Hearne
Williford; Ramiro Rangel; Mitch McAbee; David Guest; Michael Teague; Tim Munson
Brandi Biggs; Alisa Baez
RE: SOER Committee Meeting

Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

I will be out of town.
Kenneth J. Kerrihard, PE
Southern Region Production Manager

Continental Resources, Inc
20 N Broadway
OKC, OK 73102
p :405-234-9266
PLEASE NOTE REVISED E-MAIL ADDRESS
ken neth .kerriha rd@cl r .com
www.clr.com
Mailing
P.O. Box 268870
OKC, OK 73126

From: Mindy Stitt [mailto:MStitt@oerb.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:44 AM
To: Ronnie Irani; Danny Morgan; Kenneth Kerrihard; Steve Slawson; Phil Cook; Bob Sullivan; Hearne Williford; Ramiro
Rangel; Mitch McAbee; David Guest; Secretary Michael Teague; Tim Munson

Cc: Brandi Biggs; Alisa Baez

Subject:

SOER Committee Meeting

REMINDER: A SOER committee meeting is scheduled for 11:30am, Monday, March 16, at the SOER offices,
500 NE 4th St., OKC, OK. Lunch will be served.
If you have not RSVPd for this meeting, please do so by replying to this email.
Thank you,

Mindy Stitt
OERB Executive Director
500 NE 4th St., Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
405-601-2277
mstitt@oerb.com

I
I
1

 •

Continental
NOTICE: This message contains confidential information and is intended for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-inail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result

of e-mail transmission.

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

. Subject:

Jodi McKee
Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:52 AM
Michael Teague
FW: Continental Resources Studio

Ask for Andrew Hume when you get to Continental today. See below.

From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:51 AM
To: Jodi McKee
Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio

Sounds great! Andrew Hume would like to meet Secretary Teague at reception and bring him up to the 14th
floor. If you will just check in at the front desk when you get there, they will call Andrew.
Thanks.
Mark
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Yes, our hopes it will only take about 30 minutes to do the shoot. ©

From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:37 AM
To: Jodi McKee

Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio

No problem. I have an afternoon appointment, and will have to leave by about 3:40. We should still have
plenty of time.

Thanks!

Mark

I
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee(a),ee.ok.gov> wrote:

I.

Secretary Teague will be getting to Continental a little bit late today, would 2:30 be alright?

I

1

jl

I
I

Ii

 From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:06 PM
To: Jodi McKee

Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio

Not a problem. I'll be there Tuesday.

Mark

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Mark, Secretary Teague already had something come up, can we do the Tuesday at 2:00?

From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:16 AM
To: Jodi McKee

Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio

You got it!

Mark

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Mark, we would like one of the skyline backgrounds.
-----Original Message----From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.comJ
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 1:13 PM
To: Jodi McKee
Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio
The studio is on the 14th floor. I would be happy to meet him at reception and take him up.
Mark
2

 Sent from my iPhone
>On Mar 25, 2015, at I :01 PM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee(a)ee.ok.gov> wrote:
>
> Perfect, I'll get back with you on the background as soon as I get a response from our team. What floor does
he need to go to?
>
> -----Original Message----> From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:32 PM
>To: Jodi McKee
>Cc: Mark McBride; criag.sundstrom@ee.ok.gov
> Subject: Re: Continental Resources Studio
>
> Both times work for me. Let's plan on Monday, and if something comes up between now and then, we can
move it to Tuesday.

>
>What kind of background would you like? We have two OKC skyline backgrounds (day and night) and an oil
field background. Or, we could use the broadcast equipment as a background. Will any of these options work?
>
>Thanks!

>
>Mark
>

> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Jodi McKee <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
>>
>>Great! Thank you Mark. Secretary Teague has this next Monday or Tuesday available both at
2:00pm. Would one of those times work? Thanks again for working with us.
>>
>>
>>Jodi McKee
>> Administrative Director
>>Oklahoma Secretary of Energy & Environment Jodi.McKee(a)ee.ok.gov
>> 405-285-9213 Office
>>

>>
>>

>>
>>

>>
>> -----Original Message---->> From: Mark McBride [mailto:mark.aaron.mcbride@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:53 AM
>>To: criag.sundstrom!alee.ok.gov; Jodi McKee
>>Subject: Continental Resources Studio
>>
>>Hi>>
>>Kristin Thomas asked me to contact you about using the TV studio in Continental's building for a video
3

I

i

I

 intro. Please let me know how I can help! I can work around your schedule, so just let me !mow when you'd
like to tape. My phone number is 410-2003. Please don't hesitate to call any time.
>>
>>Mark McBride
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone

4

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Michael Teague
Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:12 PM
Jodi McKee
Re: Meeting with Secretary Teague

Yes. I think Craig and Tyler.
On May 6, 2014, at 13:54, "Jodi McKee" <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Do you want Craig a part of this meeting? Also, he has the date wrong on this, it is May 12th. Not
December. Don't worry I don't' have meetings scheduled out that far. ©

From: Roger Kelley [mailto:Roger.Kelley@clr.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Jodi McKee
Cc: Melissa Taylor
Subject: RE: Meeting with Secretary Teague
Jodie,
I spoke with Tyler this morning and we confirmed the meeting for December 12th at 2:30 pm. Please let
me know how many people the Secretary will have with him so that we can schedule a meeting room.
Regards,
Roger K.

J Roger Kelley

Director ofRegulatory Affairs
Continental Resources, Inc.
0 (405) 234-9040
c (405) 664-0926
From: Jodi McKee [mailto:Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:43 AM
To: Roger Kelley
Subject: RE: Meeting with Secretary Teague
Good Morning Roger, I apologize but I'm going to have to reschedule your meeting with Secretary
Teague. He is going to a conference on the 5th and will be gone all week. Is there any way we can do the
May 12th date @ 11:00 that I proposed in the initial email?
Thank you for understanding.

Jodi :M.cXee
5ld"ministrative 1Jirector
Ofi(afi.oma. Secretary of 'Energy & 'Environment
Tod"L:McXee@ee.ofi.9ov
1

 405-285-9213 Office
<image001.jpg>

From: Roger Kelley [mailto:Roger.Kelley@clr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Jodi McKee
Cc: Pete Regan
Subject: Re: Meeting with Secretary Teague
Works for me. Do you want us to send out a meeting notice or do you want to do that? We can meet
on your office or ours either one ... does not matter, we are across the street. I have included Pete ReganDEPA, on this email chain FYI
Sent from my iPad
J Roger Kelley
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Continental Resources, Inc.
Office (405) 234-9040
Cell (405) 664-0926

On Apr 7, 2014, at 8:30 AM, "Jodi McKee" <Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
May 5th @2:30 still works. Do you want to do the meeting in our office? Chase Tower
Downtown Suite 2350.

From: Roger Kelley [mailto:Roger.Kelley@clr.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 2:58 PM
To: Jodi McKee
Cc: Pete Regan

Subject: RE: Meeting with Secretary Teague
Jody,
Either day will work, but I would prefer the sooner date (no pun) of May 5th at 2:30. If
that still works, let me know and I will notify Pete Regan of DEPA.
Roger K.

J Roger Kelley
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Continental Resources, Inc.
0 (405) 234-9040
c (405) 664-0926
From: Jodi McKee [mailto:Jodi.McKee@ee.ok.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 10:08 AM
To: Roger Kelley
Subject: Meeting with Secretary Teague
Good Morning Roger,
2

 Tyler Powell gave me your information, so that I can set up a meeting between you,
Secretary Teague and DEPA. Here are a few dates that work for Secretary Teague. May
s'h-2:30, May 7'h- 10:00am, or May 12'h-11:00am. Which one of these works best for
you? Will you be contacting DEPA to set it up with them? Thank you for your help.

Jocfi .JvlcJ(ee
.Jlaministrative 1Jirector
Ok(afioma Secretary of 'Energy & 'Environment
ToaL'McXee@lee.olR..gov
405-285-9213 Office
<image001.jpg>

<image002.png>

NOTICE: This message contains confidential information and is intended for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
reply e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
!ate or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmiss'1on.

I

3

iI
j

I

  

Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:
Subject:

Michael Teague
Monday, August 04, 2014 9:12 AM
Anthony Luvera
Re: TSOGC Panel Next Week

Just bring it with you and we can sort it out that morning.
Thanks
Mike
>On Jul 31, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Anthony Luvera" <Anthony.Luvera@clr.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Mike,
>My bio is attached.
>
>Should I just bring a copy of my presentation with me when I go there or should I send it to somebody beforehand?
>Thanks,
>
>Anthony Luvera
> Facility Engineer

>
>Continental Resources, Inc.
> 20 N. Broadway
> OKC, OK 73102
> P/F: 405.234.9589
> C: 405.595.6380
> www.clr.com

>
>Mailing
>P.O. Box 268870
> OKC, OK 73126

>
>
>-----Original Message----> From: Michael Teague [mailto:Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:05 AM
>To: Anthony Luvera; rick.mccurdy@chk.com; jfitz@jandloil.com
>Cc: Jodi McKee
>Subject: TSOGC Panel Next Week

>
>Gentlemen,
>Just wanted to reach out to each of you before our panel next week. The topic is Water Usage and Emerging
Technologies. As the drought continues and considering the location of the convention our timing will be perfect.
know that each of you have done and continue to do innovative things with water and relating that to how the industry
can and is helping the communities will be very well received.

>

1

i
11

I
I

I
I

I
I!

 >We have and hour and a half on Wed afternoon. My thought is to open with introductions and then give each of you
10-15 minutes to highlight what your companies are doing with water. Would you each send Jodi McKee, on the cc line
above, your bio so we get the introductions right?
>
>If you need anything else before we meet next week please let me know.
>
>Thanks
>Mike
>
>
>NOTICE: This message contains confidential information and is intended for the individual named. If you are not the
named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
reply e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission
cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
>
>

><Anthony Luvera_Bio.docx>

2

 Michael Teague
From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Chris Bruehl
Monday, December 15, 2014 10:18 AM
Denise Northrup; Steve Mullins; Michael Teague; Tyler Powell
FW: Letter from Harold Hamm on OWRB
201412151012.pdf

See the attached letter we received from Harold Hamm. Mike Mathis did apply last week.
-----Original Message----From: savinscanner@gov.ok.gov [mailto:savinscanner@gov.ok.gov]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:12 AM
To: Chris Bruehl
Subject: Message from "RNP0026737F8F2A"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP0026737F8F2A" (MP 4002).
Scan Date: 12.15.201410:12:26 (-0600)
Queries to: savinscanner@gov.ok.gov

i

I
1

II
!I

 '

·Continental
R

E

S 0

U R C E S

December 3, 2014
Honorable Mary Fallin
Governor
Oklahoma State Capitol
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
RE: Oklahoma Water Resources Board Appointments - Oil.& Gas Representation
Dear Governor Fallin:
As you will recall, Senate Bill 965 {amending 82 O.S. §1085.1} was enacted into law during the
2013 Oklahoma Legislative Session, modifying appointments to the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board along with providing terms for transition to a new regional scheme and representation.
This new law specifically provided for the addition of a Board member well versed in water use
for "oil and gas production". It is my understanding that you are considering candidates for 3
expiring term positions on the OWRB. As such, I'm writing to recommend Mike Mathis for one
of these appointments. Mathis has extensive experience In water planning and policy, as he
served as Chief of the Planning and Management Division during his 28 years tenure as an
OWRB employee. In that role, he served in a leadership role In both water rights administration
and state water planning and policy development. Additionally, Mathis has 8 years additional
experience on the private sector side of water policy and regulation, working for the oil and gas
industry. This unique combination of experience in both the private sector and the public
sector side of water policy and decision making makes him an ideal candidate for appointment
to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Mathis resides in Cleveland County, which is the
Region 4 seat on the OWRB.
Our industry has a vested interest in Oklahoma's water policy and future. In order for the oil
and gas industry, as well as the state of Oklahoma, to continue to thrive and prosper, It is
imperative that we have a true industry voice representing us on the OWRB. Mike Mathis has
the exp, rience and knowle e to serve in that role as oil and gas industry representative.

I
I
I

~ON~31\0El

3Hl '10 301:1'10

Harold Hamm

'1WZ t t

:.l3a

03/\13~3~

11

I

II
I

I

 Michael Teague
From:

Michael Teague
Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:00 AM
Mike Smith
Re:IOGCC

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Anytime this morning.

On Dec 11, 2014, at 07:20, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
MikeSorry about the "tag". Do you have a few minutes today?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Sorry, have been driving for past couple of hours. Call whenever you get a chance.
Mike

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:30, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I'm in DC. Are you available now? It will only take 5 mins.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:07 PM, "Michael Teague"
<Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
I'm driving to the JAX airport. How about 4 your time?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:06, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
What is a good time for you to talk.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 1:25 PM, "Michael
Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>
wrote:
1

i

I
I

 Yes with steering
comm. Sorry for not
getting back to you on
Greenpeace. Do you
want to talk today?

On Dec 10, 2014, at
12:35, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.u
pwrote:
GREAT!

pass
the
news to
the
Steerin
g

Comm
during
today's
conf
call? Al
so, I
need to
talk
about
Greenp
eace.
Sent
from
my
iPhone
On Dec
10,
2014,
at
11:39
AM,
"Micha
el
Teague

"
<Micha
el.Teag
ue@ee.
2

 (j"

Michael Teague
Michael Teague
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:25 PM
Mike Smith
Re: IOGCC

From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Yes with steering comm. Sorry for not getting back to you on Greenpeace. Do you want to talk today?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 12:35, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
GREAT!! Am I free to pass the news to the Steering Comm during today's conf call? Also, I need to talk
about Greenpeace.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:39 AM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
You have a chairwoman.

Begin forwarded message:
From: William McPherson <William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov>
Date: December 10, 2014 at 10:12:54 EST
To: Michael Teague <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>, Craig Sundstrom
<Craig.Sundstrom@ee.ok.gov>, Tyler Powell <Tyler.Powell@ee.ok.gov>
Subject: JOGCC

All,
I just got word that Governor Fallin has agreed to chair IOGCC!
Let me know if you have any questions.
William McPherson
Policy Advisor and Legislative Liaison
Office of Governor Mary Fallin
2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405.522.8804
William.McPherson@gov.ok.gov

DISCLAIMER-Any and all communications sent to and received from this
email address may be subject to the Oklahoma Open Meetings and Open
Records Act. Accordingly, please be advised that should your communications
be responsive to an Open Records Request and not subject to any privilege, they
may be turned over to a third party. This disclaimer does not waive any right or
1

 privilege that may be claimed by the State of Oklahoma, the Office of the

Governor, or the sender of this message.

2

 Michael Teague
Michael Teague
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:52 PM
Mike Smith
Re:IOGCC

From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Sorry, have been driving for past couple of hours. Call whenever you get a chance.
Mike

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:30, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I'm in DC. Are you available now? It will only take 5 mins.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:07 PM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
I'm driving to the JAX airport. How about 4 your time?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:06, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
What is a good time for you to talk.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 1:25 PM, "Michael Teague"
<Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Yes with steering comm. Sorry for not getting back to
you on Greenpeace. Do you want to talk today?

On Dec 10, 2014, at 12:35, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
GREAT!! Am I free to pass the news to
the Steering Comm during today's conf
call? Also, I need to talk about
Greenpeace.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 11:39 AM, "Michael
1

I

 Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>
wrote:
You have a
chairwoman.

Begin forwarded
message:
From:
William
McPher
son
<Willia
m.McP
herson
@gov.o
k.gov>

Date:
Decem
ber 10,
2014 at
10:12:5
4 EST
To:
Michael
Teague
<Micha
el.Teag
ue@ee.
ok.gov>
, Craig
Sundstr
om
<Craig.S
undstro
m@ee.
ok.gov>
, Tyler
Powell
<Tyler.
Powell
@ee.ok
.gov>

Subject
:IOGCC

All,
I just
got
2

 Michael Teague
Michael Teague
Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:02 AM
Mike Smith
Re: IOGCC

From:

Sent:
To:

Subject:

Sure.

On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:01, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
Is llam CST OK?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 11, 2014, at 10:00 AM, "Michael Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Anytime this morning.

On Dec 11, 2014, at 07:20, Mike Smith <mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
MikeSorry about the "tag". Do you have a few minutes today?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 4:51 PM, "Michael Teague"
<Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov> wrote:
Sorry, have been driving for past couple of hours. Call
whenever you get a chance.
Mike

On Dec 10, 2014, at 14:30, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.us> wrote:
I'm in DC. Are you available now? It will
only take 5 mins.

[,
I
I

'

Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2014, at 2:07 PM, "Michael

I
1

I

 Teague" <Michael.Teague@ee.ok.gov>
wrote:
I'm driving to the JAX
airport. How about 4
your time?

On Dec 10, 2014, at
14:06, Mike Smith
<mike@iogcc.state.ok.u
~>wrote:

What is
a good
time for
you to
talk.
Sent
from
my
iPhone
On Dec
10,
2014,
at 1:25
PM,
"Micha
el
Teague
"
<Micha
el.Teag
ue@ee.
ok.gov>
wrote:
y

e
s

w
t

h

s
t

e
e
2

 word

that
Govern
or Fallin

has
agreed
to chair
IOGCC!
Let me
know if
you
have
any
questio

ns.
William
McPher
son
Policy
Advisor
and
Legislati
ve
Liaison
Office
of

Governo
rMary
Fallin

2300
North
Lincoln
Bonleva
rd, Snite

212
Oklaho
ma City,
Oklaho
ma

73105
405.522.
8804
William.
McPhers
on@gov
.ok.gov

l
DISCL
AIMER
-Any
and all
commun

ications
sent to

I

I

I
11

I

3

I

 and
received
from
this
email
address
maybe
subject
to tbe
Oklaho
ma
Open
Meeting
sand
Open
Records
Act.
Accordi
ngly,
please
be
advised
that
should
your
commun
ications
be
responsi
veto an
Open
Records
Request
and not
subject
to any
privilege
,they
maybe
turned
over to a
third
party.
This
disclaim
er does
not
waive
any right
or
privilege
that may
be
claimed
by the
State of
Oklaho
ma, the
Office
of the
Governo
4

 r, or the
sender
of this
message

 

r
n
g

c
0

m
m

s
0

r
r
y

f
0

r
n
0

t
g

e
t
t

n
g

b

a
c
k
t

I
i

0

y
0

u
0

n
G

r
e
e
3

I

i
I

 npeace. Do You want to taik todaY?

 

m.l.th ._0mk_ 2..

GREAT1.I. Am I free to pass the news to the Steer

n
g

c
0

m
m

d
u
r
n
g
t
0

d

a
y

'
s
c
0

n
f

c

a
I
?

A
I

s
0

I
f

i

I
i'

II
I

n

e
e
d

t

I

i
I
I

0

I
7

 t

a
I
k

a
b
0

u
t

G

r

e
e
n
p

e
a
c
e

s
e
n

t
f
r
0

m

m
y

p

h
0

n

e
0
n
D

e
c
1
8

 Jr

20.1.4

I.

a

 

Michael

Teagueu

.1 .Q a_ e. 

8_ a. 

u, a: e_ em .. 07K.

..U.D0_uvn>

erte

0



have

a

Chairwoman

Beg.l



10

f
0

r
w

a
r
d

e
d

m
e
s
s

a
g

e

F
r
0

m

w

a

m
M

c
p

h

e
r
s
0

n

<

w
j

!
j

£
m
11

 M
f

£'

h
§_

r
~

Q

!!
.@_
g
Q

y_
Q

.Is
g
Q

y_

>
D

a
t

e

D

e
c
e

m
b
e
r
1
0

2
0
1
4

a
t

1

0
12

 





Michael

Teague

M_.1.C_h_a_e_ti_ ..T_Ema_g Um a: Owl/?



13

gOmVu>

Jr

cra.lc.o



r. aft. 8 u_ n32 57y

I

e
r
p
0

w

e

<

I
Y.

!
g

!

!
.@_
g

g

g
Q
'::!_

>

s
u

b

e
c
t

0
G

c
c
15

I

I
II
~

 Do

0



word

that

Governor



In.?



a

greed

16

t
0

c
h

a
r

0
G

c
c
L

e
t

m
e
k
n
0

w

f

y
0

u

h
a
v

e

I
II
i
11

l

a
n

y
q
u

e
s
t
0

17

II
I

Ii
I
I

 n

s

w
i
I
I

a
m
M
c

p
h

e
r

s
0

n
p
0

I
c

y
A

d
v
s
0

r

a
n
d
L

e
g
s
I
a
t
v

e
L

a
s
0

n

18

 0

f
f
c
e
0

f
G
0

v
e
r
n
0

r
M

a
r

y
F

a
I
I
n
2
3
0
0

N
0

r
t

h
L
n
c
0

I
n

B
0

u

I
e

v
a
r
d

s
19

II
I1/

I

 u

i
t

e
2
1
2

0
k
I

a
h
0

m

a

c
i
t

y
0
k
1

a
h
0

m
a

7
3
1
0
5
4
0
5

5
2
2
8
8
0
4

w

!
j
j
~

ill

M

20

 .\!
I
~

Q

n
@
g
Q
y
Q

k
g
Q

y

D
I

s
c
L
A
I
M
E
R

A
n

y
a
n

d

a
I
I
c
0

m
m

u
n

i
c

a
t
0

n
s
s
e
n

21

 t

0

a
n
d
r
e
c
e

v
e
d

f
r
0

m

t
h

s
e
m

a
i
1
a
d
d
r
e

s
s
m

a

y
b
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
0

t
22

 h
e

0
k
I
a
h
0

m
a

0
p
e
n

M
e
e
t
n

g
s

a
n
d

0
p
e
n

R
e
c
0

r

d

s
A
c
t

A
c
c
0

r

d
n

g
I
y

23

 p

l
e
a
s
e
b
e

a
d
v
s
e
d

t
b
a
t

s

h
0

u

I
d

y
0

u
r

c
0

m

m
u
11

c
a

t
0

11

s
b
e
r
e
s
p
0

11

s
24

 v
e
t
0

a
n

0
p

e
n

R
e
c
0

r

d

s
R
e

q
u

e
s
t

a
n
d
n
0

t

s
u

b
j
e
c
t

t
0

a
n

y
p
r

v

e
g
25

I
i
Ii

I

i

I
i

I
I

I

 they

may be

turned

over



th-lrd

paTtVJ.

Thils

d.1.SC1..a.lm6f

26

d
0

e
s
n
0

t

w

a
v
e

a
n
y
r

g
h
t
0

r
p
r

v
i
I
e
g
e
t

h

a
t

m

a
y

b

e
c
I

a
m
e
d

b
y

27

 t

h
e

s
t

a
t

e
0

f
0

k
1
a
h
0

m

a

t

h
e

0
f
f
c
e
0

f
t

h
e
G
0

v
e
r

n
0

r

0

r
t

h

e
s
e
n
28

 Limb-IS

message

 

 

29