well stimulation

Subscribe to well stimulation via RSS

On November 11, 2016, the Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper jointly filed suit against several federal agencies including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (jointly “Agencies”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  At the heart of their lawsuit, EDC and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (jointly “EDC”) claim that the Agencies violated NEPA when they issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) decision approving the Agencies’ Programmatic Environmental Assessment of the Use of Well Stimulation Treatments on the Southern California Outer Continental Shelf (the “PEA”).
Continue Reading Environmental Groups Sue Federal Agencies Again in Unending Legal Battle Over Offshore Oil Development

Today, July 30, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”). CBD claims, among other things, that DOGGR failed to comply with Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) by releasing its Final EIR regarding oil and gas well stimulation treatment prior to the release of a state-mandated Independent Study.

This lawsuit strikes us as more of a shout out to the Legislature and the Governor to highlight CBD’s ongoing disappointment with SB 4, more than anything else. CBD mistakenly construes SB 4 to require DOGGR to analyze and incorporate the Independent Study’s findings into its Final EIR, when no such requirement is found in the law. Indeed, by its terms, SB 4 only requires DOGGR to comply with the following requirements relating to the EIR:

  • The EIR shall be certified by the division as the lead agency, no later than July 1, 2015.
  • The EIR shall address the issue of activities that may be conducted as defined in Section 3157 and that may occur at oil wells in the state existing prior to, and after, the effective date of this section.
  • The EIR shall not conflict with an EIR conducted by a local lead agency that is certified on or before July 1, 2015.

(Pub. Resources Code, § 3161.) The Legislature, not the Sacramento County Superior Court, is the proper body to which this additional request should be made, as there is currently no law mandating it.
Continue Reading Activists ask Court to Scrap EIR and Stop Fracking

On July 14, a complaint was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court against Governor Brown and the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) Supervisor Steve Bohlen.  The lawsuit claims Governor Brown and Supervisor Bohlen have adopted regulations that result in racially disparate impacts from well stimulation on minority students.

State regulators recently implemented…

Yesterday, July 7, the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) adopted new requirements (“Model Criteria”) for groundwater monitoring in areas where oil and gas stimulation activities occur, such as hydraulic fracturing. The Water Board was required to develop these requirements pursuant to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”).

The requirements cover a wide…

The State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) has recently released recommendations from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (“LLNL”) on Model Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring. Pursuant to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”), the Water Board is required to develop regulations for sampling, testing, and monitoring groundwater during hydraulic fracturing operations. The bill requires groundwater monitoring at scales from single well monitoring to regional monitoring.

The recommendations are designed to assist the Water Board in taking a scientifically credible approach in developing groundwater monitoring regulations. The authors acknowledge the immense challenge of developing a set of regulations to govern well stimulation in California due to the unique and dynamic nature of each oil field.

The report recommends a tiered approach to groundwater monitoring where higher quality water is monitored more intensively than lower quality water. The monitoring would be conducted through one upgradient and two downgradient wells within a one-half to one-mile radius of the stimulated oil well.
Continue Reading State Water Board Receives Groundwater Monitoring Recommendations from Experts

The clamor over hydraulic fracturing continued Wednesday as environmental activists filed another lawsuit to limit oil and gas development in California.  The lawsuit, filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch, challenges a plan to open portions of federal land in California to oil and gas operations.

The groups claim that the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) did not consider the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing when it approved a Resource Management Plan, which could potentially open a large area of federal land in the state’s most oil-rich regions to leasing.  The plan found that “overall, in California, for industry practice of today, the direct environmental impacts of well stimulation practice appear to be relatively limited.”

In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued oil leases in Monterey and Fresno counties without considering the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing.  This ruling has led to a de facto moratorium on new leasing in California on federal lands.
Continue Reading Yet Another Lawsuit Seeking to Limit California Oil Development

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) held a Public Workshop regarding the proposed Draft Model Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring (“Model Criteria”). In this meeting, the Water Board heard comments from stakeholders who voiced their support or concern regarding the Model Criteria.

Dr. Steven Bohlen, the State Oil & Gas Supervisor, on behalf of the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) provided the Water Board with a variety of statistics regarding well stimulation operations that have occurred since DOGGR’s Interim Regulations went into effect on January 1, 2014. Dr. Bohlen reported that over 1,500 Interim Well Stimulation Treatment Notices have been received by DOGGR since January 1, 2014. Additionally, 809 well stimulation operations have been conducted and 22 monitoring plans have been approved. Furthermore, about 200 acre feet of water has been used for well stimulation operations.Continue Reading Industry and Environmental Groups Make Pitch to Water Board Regarding Draft Model Criteria for Groundwater Monitoring

California Assemblymember Das Williams (D-Carpinteria) has introduced an oil and gas bill to ensure that the state comes into compliance with the Class II underground injection (“UIC”) requirements under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”), California is currently out of compliance with certain requirements for some Class II injection wells (oil and gas wastewater disposal wells) because fluid from these wells is being injected into non-exempt aquifers, which is prohibited.  Assembly Bill 356 (“AB 356”) was introduced on February 17, 2015 following publication of a letter from the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) to the USEPA addressing California’s Class II UIC program.

The bill authorizes the DOGGR Supervisor to require operators to implement a groundwater monitoring program for underground oil production tanks, facilities, and disposal and injection wells.  In addition, AB 356 would require operators to submit this monitoring plan, with a schedule for monitoring and reporting groundwater quality data, to the local regional water quality control board.  Data would then be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for inclusion in the geotracker database.  The purpose of the bill is to protect underground drinking water sources from potential  contamination arising from oil and gas operations.Continue Reading Proposed Assembly Bill 356 Would Require Additional Groundwater Monitoring by Oil & Gas Operators

On December 30, 2014, the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) approved the Final Permanent Well Stimulation Treatment Regulations (“Permanent Regulations”).  The regulations go into effect on July 1, 2015, and the Interim Regulations, which were operative all of last year, will remain the governing law in the meantime.  By finalizing the Permanent Regulations, California leads the way with the most stringent, comprehensive hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) regulations in the country.

The Permanent Regulations are the result of multiple regulatory revisions and reflect extensive input from the public, industry, and various state agencies. Please see our oil and gas resources page for more information about the development of the Permanent Regulations.Continue Reading SB 4 Well Stimulation Treatment Permanent Regulations Finalized

On Friday, July 18, 2014, the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) announced that it will review California’s Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) Program to ensure compliance with the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“the Act”).  DOGGR has primary authority under the Act to regulate underground injection wells, granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”).  DOGGR will conduct the review in conjunction with the USEPA, and expects the review to be completed in 12-18 months.

Originally enacted in 1974 and amended in 1996, the Act aims “to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply.”  (EPA, Safe Drinking Water Act).  The Act is applicable to well stimulation regulations because it has authority over ground water wells, excluding private wells that serve fewer than 25 people.  Protections are designed to prevent oil and gas production wastewater from being injected into drinking water aquifers.Continue Reading DOGGR to Review Well Stimulation Regulations to Ensure Compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.