Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Archive for the ‘New York & South Dakota Law’ Category

Brownsfield-An Underused Part of North Dakota’s Environmental Law

Posted on: May 8th, 2014
by David Ganje

 

BROWNFIELDS – AN UNDERUSED PART OF NORTH DAKOTA’S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Environmental compliance and due diligence in the oil patch is not as standardized as other commercial and industrial operations and transactions. I will leave for another discussion an assessment of environmental law and regulations in the oil and gas industry and in this article address a little used part of North Dakota’s environmental laws called brownfields.

Laws by their nature create tension between different economic interests in a democratic society.  When the free market system includes environmental laws which restrict and affect the market­ability and development of contaminated or polluted property, the system must also include a mechanism to protect the owner’s ability to sell and develop such property.  Contemporary environmental laws contain many restrictions on transfer of property, as well as hazardous spill reporting and cleanup requirements.  Such laws affect the marketability of property.  State and federal agencies in recent years have focused attention on the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property sites in North Dakota.  These sites are called brownfields.

Brownfields are properties the use, expansion or redevelopment of which is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance.  Environmental laws now include financial assistance for the cleanup of such properties.  Brownfield cleanup can address mine-scarred lands, sites contaminated by petroleum, chemicals or sites contaminated as a result of manufacturing.

Environmental issues in North Dakota are primarily the jurisdiction of the state’s Department of Health, Environmental Health Section (EHS).  The EHS has significant management authority over environmental matters in the state and has had cooperative agreements in place with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under which the EHS is the principal state government agency dealing with environmental matters.

North Dakotans are fortunate in that the EHS is generally accessible and open in its regulatory and management style.  Such accessibility is not always the norm among environmental agencies across the country.  EHS has established policies that promote the development of environmentally affected properties. The brownfields program is application based.  Cities, counties or local government groups may apply for assistance under the program.

Many North Dakota municipalities and local governments are missing the boat.  Not all environmental regulations are bad.  One useful but underused environmental program in the state is North Dakota’s State Response Program (Brownfields Program).  This program is a source of funding for site assessments and, if necessary, cleaning up qualified brownfield sites throughout the state.  Access is available to qualified property owners (counties and municipalities), community development organizations, and nonprofits.  The expenses of approved site assessment and environmental testing can be cost free to the property owner; The North Dakota Brownfield Program manages and pays for these expenses.

One can be fairly certain that in North Dakota many cities and counties, in both rural and urban areas, have abandoned, underutilized, or potentially contaminated properties.

EPA data indicates that only three North Dakota municipalities and five tribal organizations have received Brownfield Grants since 1998.The commonly held view is  that brownfield sites are only associated with abandoned manufacturing sites that are more prevalent in the rust belt states.  Brownfield sites exist in every state.

In years to come we will probably see an increase in North Dakota brownfield sites due to the development of oil and gas resources in the Bakken Formation.  The state’s Brownfield Program will enable qualified parties to clean up Brownfield sites so they can be put to better economic use for the benefit of investors and residents of North Dakota.

The EPA reports that qualified applicants are eligible for up to $200,000 in cleanup grants per property and that 3 out of 4 applications received in 2013 were successful.  The cleanup grant recipients are required to provide a 20% share (e.g. $200,000 Grant has a $40,000 match).  The cost share does not have to be money; it could be in the form of a contribution of labor, material, or services from a non-federal source.  Hardship waivers can also be requested.

That environmental problems with properties should remain hidden based upon a public misunderstanding is the old way of doing business.  EHS and affected communities and counties should partner up and pursue this course of action.  It is in the economic interest of the communities in which such properties are located and the state.

 

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices natural resources, environmental and commercial law in North Dakota and South Dakota.     The website:  lexenergy.net        The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

Water Systems Security

Posted on: April 28th, 2014
by David Ganje

WATER SYSTEMS SECURITY

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………………………… 1

WATER SECURITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

  1. Physical Security ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
    1. i.        Milwaukee & Cryptosporidium…………………………………………………………….. 4
    2. ii.      WaterWorks: Physcial Security…………………………………………………………….. 6
  2. Cyber-Security………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
    1. i.        WaterWorks: Cyber-Security………………………………………………………………… 11

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCED SECURITY………………………………………………. 12

VIRTUAL ATTACHMENT:

Ass’n of State Water Admins., Security Vulnerability Self-Assessment Guide for Small Drinking Water Systems, Nat’l Rural Water Ass’n (May 30, 2002), available at http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/dwa/pdfs/vulnerability.pdf.

 

 

Presentation to the Illinois Chapter of the American Water Works Association.

 

 

© 2014. All Rights Reserved. David L. Ganje.

 

I. Introduction

This article discusses current security issues surrounding water treatment and waste facilities. The sources of attack are myriad, but manifest via physical attacks and cyber-attacks. A physical attack on a water treatment and waste facility occurs when an individual or group causes physical damage to the facilities, structures infrastructure, systems, or the water itself on site. A cyber-attack occurs remotely and disrupts the computer systems that control the treatment and waste facility. Whether the attack be physical, cyber, or some combination, the goal is the same: to harm, even kill, the local population and cause panic. This article will give a brief historical overview of American water systems, discuss the current water security concerns of both physical and cyber-security, and make some practical recommendations for enhanced security.

 

AAPL Southwest Land Institute

Posted on: April 23rd, 2014
by David Ganje

 

Institute Covers:

  • Executive Rights vs Nonexecutive Rights: The Increasing Duty of the Nonexecutive Mineral Owner
  • Production of Horizontal Wellbores & Pertinent Case Law
  • Legal Update: Recent Developments in Non-Regulatory Oil & Gas Law
  • Ethics
  • Dormant/Abandoned Mineral Rights
  • The Klotzman Complaint: Allocating Well Permitting
  • Joint Operating Agreements: Recent Developments and Horizontal Modifications

 

Institute Information:

The day begins with on-site registration and a breakfast spread at 7:30 am, and presentations will begin at 8:30 am. The program includes a buffet lunch.

 

Materials Provided:

  • Seminar Guide

 

Course Agenda

Monday, April 28th

 

  • 8:00 am – Registration/Continental breakfast
  • 8:30  – Opening Remarks (Christopher Halaszynski, AAPL)
  • 8:40  – “Executive vs Nonexecutive Rights: The Increasing Duty of the Nonexecutive Mineral Owner” (Lane Brown, Freeman Mills PC)
  • 9:40  – “Production of Horizontal Wellbores & Pertinent Case Law” (Kimberly Puckett, Brashier, Crosby, PLLC)
  • 10:40 – BREAK
  • 11:00 – “Legal Update: Recent Developments/Non-Regulatory Oil & Gas Law” (Jonathan Baughman, McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore LLP)
  • Noon – BUFFET LUNCH
  • 12:45 pm – “Ethics” (Rob Shultz, Independent Landman)
  • 1:30 – BREAK
  • 1:45 – “Dormant/Abandoned Mineral Rights” (David Ganje, Attorney at Law)
  • 2:45 – “The Klotzman Complaint: Allocation Well Permitting” (David Gross, Attorney at Law)
  • 3:45 – BREAK
  • 4:00 – “Joint Operating Agreements: Recent Developments and Horizontal Modifications” (Paul Westbrook, Harris, Finley & Bogle, PC
  • 5:00 – ADJOURN

*Note: Schedule subject to change

Brownfields-An Unused Part of North Dakota’s Environmental Law

Posted on: April 19th, 2014
by David Ganje

 

BROWNFIELDS – AN UNUSED PART OF NORTH DAKOTA’S ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 

Laws by their nature create tension between different economic interests in a democratic society.  When the free market system includes environmental laws which affect the market­ability and development of contaminated or polluted property, the system must also include a mechanism to protect the owner’s ability to sell and develop such property.  Man-made ‘controls’ created by man-made regulations need man-made protections to reduce the affect of these ‘controls’.  Environmental laws and regulations are no exception.  Contemporary environmental laws contain many restrictions on transfer of property, as well as hazardous spill reporting and cleanup requirements.  Such laws affect the marketability of property.  State and federal agencies in recent years have focused attention on the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated property sites in North Dakota.  These sites are called brownfields.

Brownfields are properties the use, expansion or redevelopment of which is complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance.  Environmental laws now include financial assistance for the cleanup of such properties.  Brownfield cleanup can address mine-scarred lands, sites contaminated by petroleum, chemicals or sites contaminated as a result of manufacturing.

Environmental issues in North Dakota are primarily the jurisdiction of the state’s Department of Health, Environmental Health Section (EHS).  The EHS has significant management authority over environmental matters in the state and has had cooperative agreements in place with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under which the EHS is the principal state government agency dealing with environmental matters.

North Dakotans are fortunate in that the EHS is generally accessible and open in its regulatory and management style.  Such accessibility is not always the norm among environmental agencies across the country.  EHS has established policies that promote the development of environmentally affected properties. The brownfields program is application based.  Cities, counties or local government groups may apply for assistance under the program.

Many North Dakota municipalities and local governments are missing the boat.  Not all environmental regulations are bad.  One useful but underused environmental program in the state is North Dakota’s State Response Program (Brownfields Program).  This program is a source of funding for site assessments and, if necessary, cleaning up qualified brownfield sites throughout the state.  Access is available to qualified property owners (counties and municipalities), community development organizations, and nonprofits.  The expenses of approved site assessment and environmental testing can be cost free to the property owner; The North Dakota Brownfield Program manages and pays for these expenses.

One can be fairly certain that in North Dakota many cities and counties, in both rural and urban areas, have abandoned, underutilized, or potentially contaminated properties.

EPA data indicates that only three North Dakota municipalities and five tribal organizations have received Brownfield Grants since 1998.

The prevailing view is that many people think that brownfield sites are only associated with abandoned manufacturing sites that were so prevalent in the rust belt states located east of the Mississippi River.  Brownfield sites exist in very state and they include but are not limited to abandoned gas stations, dry cleaners, factories, warehouses, bus facilities, parking lots, aircraft hangars and heavy equipment repair and storage centers.

In years to come we will probably see an increase in North Dakota brownfield sites due to the development of oil and gas resources in the Bakken Formation.  The state’s Brownfield Program will enable qualified property owners to clean up Brownfield sites so they can be put to better economic use for the benefit of investors and residents of North Dakota.

The EPA reports that qualified applicants are eligible for up to $200,000 in cleanup grants per property and that 3 out of 4 applications received in 2013 were successful.  The cleanup grant recipients are required to provide a 20% share (e.g. $200,000 Grant has a $40,000 match).  The cost share does not have to be money; it could be in the form of a contribution of labor, material, or services from a non-federal source.  Hardship waivers can also be requested.

That environmental problems with properties should remain hidden based upon a public misunderstanding is the old way of doing business.  EHS and affected communities and counties should partner up and pursue this course of action.  It would be in the economic interest of the communities in which such properties are located and the state.

The Utility and Controversy of Disposal Wells

Posted on: March 24th, 2014
by David Ganje

                        The Utility and Controversy of Disposal Wells

Greater attention, rightfully, is now paid in the oil patch to our first natural resource: water. From all fronts affected, parties are more aware of the proper stewardship of water.  This stewardship does not come without controversy. That famous Geo-hydro geologist Mark Twain was correct:  Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. The North Dakota State Water Commission projects the amount of water needed for developing a Bakken Formation well for natural gas production at approximately three acre feet. The required water must come from a freshwater source. With the oil patch growth through 2019, Bakken wells could require as much as 51,000 acre feet (a.f.) of water. The general uses of water in the oil patch include well drilling and completion, well production, the so called use of maintenance water which requires fresh water sources, and after-production. I will focus this article on the management and disposal of used water in the ‘after production phase’ which water is often referred to as produced water or saltwater. The other important aspects of water uses, as well as tribal regulations and water law, will be left for another discussion.

During hydraulic fracturing – commonly known as fracking – water mixed with industrial chemicals and proppants (a mix of sand or ceramic particles) are forced into the well system to release oil and gas. The waste water from the process is the so called produced water or salt water. Produced water is the largest volume by-product from an oil and gas well.  Along with the chemicals used during the drilling produced water is highly saline, usually 10 times that of ocean water. Its improper use or disposal would damage soil productivity or pollute near-surface water aquifers used for irrigation and drinking water. North Dakota statutes specifically prohibit this remaining produced water from polluting any freshwater supply in the state. Disposal wells are the most common final method for removal of unusable produced water or saltwater.  North Dakota currently has 470 active saltwater disposal wells.  The well process involves injecting the produced saltwater and associated wastes into naturally occurring subsurface formations called confining geologic zones.  As technology advances the industry has other non-well options for produced water management. Such technology includes obtaining fracking water from saline groundwater sources, or from municipal waste water. A fresh water source such as an aquifer must be allowed to replenish itself (recharge), so the careful stewardship and use of water in the oil patch continually relevant. Let us look at the current practice of disposal well procedures and issues.

Upon returning to the surface there are two common methods of handling produced water:

  1. Re-injection into the oil-producing formation for enhancing oil and gas production
  2. Injection into an underground formation that naturally contains saltine water. This second method is also known as Salt Water Disposal (SWD) which are also called disposal wells.

SWD is considered the most economic final disposal method. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classify these wells as class II wells used to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations.

Under the guidelines of the Underground Injection Control Program established by the federal Drinking Water Safe Act, North Dakota has imposed regulations:

(a)              for pits and ponds containing saltwater liquids and brines produced by the hydraulic fracturing operations

(b)              Governing the process of underground injection wells.  A technical permit application is required for these SWD wells.

A disposal well must go through an application and approval process.  This is also called the siting of a well.  The information the state studies from an application is comprehensive and involves detailed geologic data.  A disposal well must also complete a mechanical integrity test before it becomes properly permitted and can operate. Information and data which must be submitted, and reviewed, before the state would approve an SWD well permit application include:

  1. Geologic name of lowest known fresh water zone
  2. A plat depicting the area and detailed description of the location, well name, and operator of all wells in the area of review. The area wide plat must include: nearby injection wells, producing wells, plugged wells, abandoned wells, drilling wells, dry holes, and water wells. The plat must also show seismic faults, if known or suspected
  3. Testing and recording the original bottom-hole injection of the well
  4. A description of the proposed injection program
  5. A quantitative analysis from the two nearest fresh water wells
  6. A written notice to all landowners within the area of review who must be notified of the proposed injection well.
  7. This notice informs the landowners that comments or objections may be submitted
  8. Schematic drawings of the well bore and surface facility construction.

The controversy surrounding salt water disposal wells concern spills, potential leaks and earthquakes. Spills occur. These events are saltwater surface spills not related to the disposal well or to the well integrity of a properly permitted well. Spills happen because of human error and bad equipment.   As with all Bakken oil and gas production procedures, it can be said: most in the industry do it right, but some just do it.  Saltwater spills occur on the surface, and are often a mechanical malfunction or error in human judgment. The risk of a spill from a saltwater disposal well is not from a properly permitted well itself.  When a spill occurs it is usually during the act of storing or delivering wastewater to the disposal well. Consider for example that there are 470 active operating disposal wells in North Dakota, but more than 2100 saltwater pipelines, and it is easier to understand that the ‘getting to the well’ is where problems arise. New rules have recently been promulgated by the Industrial Commission for ‘underground gathering pipelines’.  These regulations will address the construction and deconstruction [shutdown] of saltwater service pipelines.

Do disposal wells contaminate water wells and aquifers? The question is more properly stated:  Do disposal wells fail or leak? Thousands of disposal wells have been permitted in the U.S.  In 2012 a company called Halek Operating ND LLC was fined civilly and charged criminally by the Industrial Commission for illegal action and operating a disposal well after having been ordered to shut-in the well. In that case, among other things, the administrative law judge also found that the company had operated the disposal well without first completing a mechanical integrity test on the well. The state found no damage to aquifers from the illegal activity.  I know of no failures or leaks from properly permitted disposal wells located in North Dakota and South Dakota in my lifetime. And information from both states’ regulatory agencies report that such events have not occurred.

Do disposal wells cause earthquakes? Thousands of disposal wells have been permitted in the U.S. The state of Arkansas is in a region of the continent that has recognized natural earthquake activity. Because the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission thought that disposal wells may have been causing or aggravating earthquakes in the state it ordered a study. After the study was completed in 2011 the state regulatory authority established a moratorium on new and on operating disposal wells in an area that resulted in the closure of 4 of the state’s 700 disposal wells. Natural earthquakes are more likely to occur of course in earthquake-prone geology. A region prone to natural earthquakes is more likely to be the place where a quake caused or affected by a disposal well might occur. The Bakken and Williston basin are not known as  geologically earthquake-prone areas of the continent, and the state permitting process does not authorize active disposal wells near a fault line. I know of no earthquakes caused by properly permitted disposal wells in North Dakota and South Dakota in my lifetime. And information from both states’ regulatory agencies report that such events have not occurred.

 

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices natural resources, environmental and commercial law.     The website:  lexenergy.net           The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.