The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued several notices regarding upcoming technical conferences: for Electronic Tariff Filings, see here; for Guidance on the Preparation of Market-Based Rate filings, see here (with webcast available); and for FERC Form 552 potential changes, see here.
[Update: If you are interested in the technical conference on FERC Form 552, it will now be webcast. See here for the details. (Moved up.)]
A new study released by the University of Texas and Southern Methodist University finds a correlation between a series of minor earthquakes in north Texas and the operations of a disposal well on Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport property, according to this article in the Houston Chronicle. The take away at the end of the article: "But he [i.e., an SMU geophysicist who worked on the study] said the study raises more questions, since no quakes have been reported around the 200 other disposal wells in seven north Texas counties."
Just remember: Correlation does not imply causation.
The WSJ is reporting that EQT intends to sell at least 12.5 million shares to fund production operations at its Marcellus Shale and Huron-Berea properties. It also plans to raise its capital expenditures for the year by 41%, to $1.2 billion.
(Note: Subscription required.)
The NYT is reporting on a plan by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to increase electric utility rates to cover a $6 million a week budgetary shortfall and subsidize renewable energy sources, including the use of solar panels by Los Angeles' residents to contribute to the power grid. While noting that solar energy should be a thriving local industry, the article further observes "that has never been the case, and experts cite cost as the main reason."
The Charleston Daily Mail is reporting that legislation to require reporting on source water and disposal plans related to hydraulic fracturing, as well as the additives used in the frac fluids, has cleared the Senate Natural Resources Committee. Next stop: the Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Committee.
The future of oil production in Mexico looks bleak, according to this article in the NYT. The U.S. link: "'As you lose Mexican oil, you lose a critical supply,' said Jeremy M. Martin, director of the energy program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego. 'It’s not just about energy security but national security, because our neighbor’s economic and political well-being is largely linked to its capacity to produce and export oil.'”
The NYT has an article on the challenges for expanding U.S. wind power generation, including a push for American jobs, rather than sending jobs to China; and low prices for competitive fuels such as natural gas.
We reported previously on the petition filed by Laser Marcellus Gathering Company, LLC, for a declaratory order that pipeline facilities it intends to construct from Pennsylvania into New York are functionally gathering and therefore exempt from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act. The Commission recently granted that petition, noting that the fact that the facilities crossed the Pennsylvania-New York border did not affect the exemption:
The history of Commission and court interpretation of Section 1(b), … makes clear that there is a distinction between gathering and transportation, such that the two functions are mutually exclusive. Consequently, otherwise non-jurisdictional production or gathering does not become jurisdictional on the basis that the facilities employed therefor cross a state line.
For a copy of the Commission's decision, see here (search Docket No. CP10-35).
The Department of the Interior has found that the greater sage-grouse warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but that its listing is precluded by the need to address higher priority species first. See here. As a consequence, it will be placed on a list of candidates for future action and not receive statutory protection under the ESA.
For commentary, see this NYT article.
On December 28, 2009, U.S. EPA issued a Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (74 Fed. Reg. 68599) (see here) and asked for comments on both its preliminary 2010 Plan and on its 2009 review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, including comments on industrial categories not currently regulated by effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. See Docket No. EPA-821-R-09-006 at www.regulations.gov.
Comments were submitted by both industry and environmental groups on the appropriateness of effluent guidelines for the oil and gas industry. Earthjustice, for example, submitted comments urging U.S. EPA to expand its study of CBM operations "to include all techniques that may result in contamination of surface water or groundwater, including hydraulic fracturing in all formations." See here. The American Petroleum Institute filed comments, on the other hand, noting that CBM operations should not be subject to national effluent limitations guidelines and objecting to an expansion of U.S. EPA's study of CBM extraction to oil and gas operations more generally.
Enter keywords:
