You are on page 1of 151

Evaluation of Erosion and Sediment Control

and Stormwater Management for Gas
Exploration and Extraction Facilities in
Pennsylvania under Existing Pennsylvania
Regulations and Policies to Determine if
Existing Safeguards Protect Water Quality in
Special Protection Waters of the Delaware
Basin
for the
!
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
Consolidated Administrative Hearing on Grandfathered Exploration Wells

November 15, 2010


Prepared for:
Delaware Riverkeeper Network


Prepared by:
Michele C. Adams, P.E. LEED AP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The construction and operation of Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction facilities,
including wells intended for exploratory purposes, can have significant and
adverse environmental impacts on the water quality of the Special Protection
Waters of the Delaware River Basin. Specifically, impacts associated with
erosion and sediment discharge and stormwater discharge during construction,
operation, and after well closure can negatively and significantly impact water
quality. The existing environmental regulations and policies of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, either as enacted by the Commonwealth or
implemented by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PaDEP), do not provide adequate performance standards, review,
implementation, or enforcement to protect the Commonwealth’s water resources,
including the Special Protection Waters of the Delaware River Basin. The
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) requirements for a Non-Point Source
Pollution Control Plan are not sufficient to protect these water resources in lieu of
adequate Pennsylvania requirements, leading to the possibility and likelihood of
adverse environmental effects on water resources.
Additionally, the Pennsylvania erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater
management regulations and policies, as applied to Oil and Gas facilities, are
significantly less stringent and comprehensive and are subject to far less
regulatory review than virtually any other construction or industrial activity in
Pennsylvania. Construction and performance requirements and regulatory
review requirements related to sediment control and stormwater management
are far more rigorous for schools, highways, homes, and even geothermal
energy wells than for Oil and Gas facilities.
By grandfathering the exploratory wells that were permitted by PaDEP prior to
the June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations of the DRBC,
DRBC has effectively held these facilities to a lower environmental standard than
that which is applied to other activities within Pennsylvania, as well as a lower
standard than that which will presumably be applied to other oil and gas activities
within the Delaware River Basin once its regulations are adopted. Since negative
water quality impacts related to sediment discharge and stormwater
management from these facilities can and do impact existing water quality, these
facilities cannot be exempt from the requirements to protect and maintain Special
Protection Waters, or subject to lower regulatory requirements than other
construction and industrial activities.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
My name is Michele C. Adams, I am a professional engineer registered in the
state of Pennsylvania and several other states. As indicated in the attached CV,
I have twenty-six years of experience specializing in water resources, stormwater
management, and site design engineering. I am one of the primary authors of
the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, and currently
chair the calculations sub-committee for the Manual update. To form the
opinions in this report, I reviewed the available Well Drilling Permit applications
and supporting information for several of the exploratory wells in question,
including but not limited to Davidson 1V, Woodland Management Partners 1 1,
DL Teeple 1 1 and 1 2H, Geuther 1. I also reviewed a number of documents and
reports that are listed at the end of this report as references.
It is my opinion, given with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that gas
exploratory and extraction facilities can adversely impact water quality as a result
of inadequate erosion and sedimentation control during construction and
operation, and inadequate stormwater management for rate, volume, and
discharge of pollutants. As discussed in this report, the current regulatory
process for review, approval, and operation of these facilities, as administered by
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, fails to ensure design
and implementation of both erosion control and stormwater management
measures that are sufficient to protect water quality. The exploratory wells that
have been permitted prior to the June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental
Determinations of the DRBC should not be held to lower standards than facilities
that will be subject to the anticipated DRBC regulations.



Construction of Gas Exporatory and Extraction Facilities and Impacts to
Water Quality as a Result of Inadequate Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures
Impacts to water quality from the Gas Exploratory and Extraction facilities can
occur during the construction of the facility, the operation of the facility, and as a
result of inadequate restoration of the facility after operations have ceased.
During construction, the water quality impacts are related to the discharge of
sediment-laden waters from disturbed areas and the increased amount and rate
of runoff from disturbed areas. Disturbance is a result of:
• Construction of the pad site
• Construction of the entrance road
• Widening or paving of existing roads for access to the site
• Construction of pipeline facilities
The amount and type of area disturbed directly impacts the potential for erosive
conditions and sediment discharge. Little specific information regarding the
disturbed area is available in the permit application materials, for the specific
wells in question as part of this Hearing that are less than five (5) acres in
disturbance. However, 8-1/2” by 11” Well Location Plat diagrams provided within
the PaDEP Well Permit applications (for two wells) indicate approximate areas of
pad and entrance drive that can be measured from the diagrams. Based on
these diagrams, the well pad and entrance driveway area are shown as 1.80
acres for the Teeple 1 1 well and 2.4 acres for the Woodland Management 1 1
well. In contrast, a page-sized copy of the Woodland Erosion & Sediment
Control Plan (included as part of the “Preparedness, Prevention, and
Contingency Plan”) indicates approximately 4.7 acres of disturbance when this
area is measured from the plan, significantly more than 2.4 acres. Approximately
1 acre of disturbance appears to be related to the entrance driveway. Because
the Well Location Plat does not indicate the full area of disturbance, it provides
virtually no information on the project’s disturbance footprint. There is no
information on the PaDEP “Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well” or
available Well Location Plats regarding total acreage of disturbance. PaDEP
would not have an estimate of the Total Area of Disturbance from the Well
Location Plat. Facilities with less than 5 acres disturbance must prepare an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, but are not required to submit the Plan to
PaDEP for review.
Information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), which regulates gas drilling in Marcellus Shale formations in New
York State, (NY DEP) indicates that well sites generally involve two to five acres
of disturbance per site, not including access roads. The area of disturbance is
significant because it directly affects the potential amount of sediment-laden
water that can occur if erosion and sediment control measures are not adequate.
In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) awarded a grant
to the City of Denton, Texas, to monitor and assess the impact of gas well drilling
on stormwater runoff. The results of this effort were published in December 2007
in a report titled “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water
Quality and How to Minimize These Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring
Activities and Local Ordinances”. With regards to the discharge of sediment
during construction, this study determined that:
Gas well sites have the potential to produce sediment loads comparable
to traditional construction sites.

• Total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity event mean
concentrations (EMC = pollutant mass / runoff volume) at gas sites
were significantly greater than at reference sites (the median TSS
EMC at gas sites was 136 times greater than reference sites).

• Compared to the median EMCs of storms sampled by Denton near
one of their outfalls, the gas well site median EMC was 36 times
greater.

• Gas site TSS EMCs ranged from 394 to 9898 mg/l and annual
sediment loadings ranged from 21.4 to 40.0 tonnes/hectare/year
(tonne = 1000 Kg; hectare = 10,000 square meters), and were
comparable to previous studies of construction site sedimentation.

This study concludes that “Gas well sites have the potential to negatively impact
surface waters due to increased sedimentation rates.” (US EPA ID No. CP-
83207101-1, page 2).

In addition to the well pad site, roads that are constructed, widened, or altered for
vehicle access to and from the well pad site can be a source of sediment and
pollutants during both construction and operation. The U.S. EPA Publication
“Erosion, Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways” (EPA-841-F-
95-008d) states that:
Runoff controls are essential to preventing polluted runoff from
roads, highways, and bridges from reaching surface waters.
Erosion during and after construction of roads, highways, and
bridges can contribute large amounts of sediment and silt to runoff
waters, which can deteriorate water quality and lead to fish kills
and other ecological problems.
Heavy metals, oils, other toxic substances, and debris from
construction traffic and spillage can be absorbed by soil at
construction sites and carried with runoff water to lakes, rivers,
and bays. Runoff control measures can be installed at the time of
road, highway, and bridge construction to reduce runoff pollution
both during and after construction. Such measures can effectively
limit the entry of pollutants into surface waters and ground waters
and protect their quality, fish habitats, and public health.
This publication (EPA-841-F-95-008d) identifies a number of pollutant types and
sources related to Roads and Highways, as identified in Table 1.

Table 1. Typical pollutants found in runoff from roads and highways.

Erosion, Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways | Polluted Runoff
| US EPA

Pollutant Source
Sedimentation Particulates Pavement wear, vehicles, the
atmosphere and maintenance
activities
Nutrients Nitrogen & Atmosphere and
Phosphorus fertilizer application
Heavy Metals Lead Leaded gasoline from auto exhausts
and tire wear
Zinc Tire wear, motor oil and grease
Iron Auto body rust, steel highway
structures such as bridges and
guardrails, and moving
engine parts
Copper Metal plating, bearing and brushing
wear, moving engine parts, brake
lining wear, fungicides & insecticides
Cadmium Tire wear and insecticide application
Chromium Metal plating, moving engine parts
and brake lining wear
Nickel Diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricating
oil, metal plating, bushing wear,
brake lining wear and asphalt paving
Manganese Moving engine parts
Cyanide Anti-caking compounds used to
keep deicing salt granular
Sodium, calcium Deicing salts
& chloride
Sulphates Roadway beds, fuel and deicing
salts
Hydrocarbons Petroleum Spills, leaks, antifreeze and
hydraulic fluids and asphalt surface
leachate

Based on these two studies, the construction of Gas Exploration and Extraction
facilities and associated construction and/or improvement of roads can negatively
impact water quality, and these facilities have the same potential as other
construction activities to degrade water quality. However, Pennsylvania does not
apply the same standards of performance or regulatory oversight to Gas
Exploration and Extraction facilities as is applied to other construction activities,
and therefore the DRBC’s Supplemental Determination of June 14, 2010 is
incorrect in determining that the “existing safeguards” applied to “wells subject to
state regulation as to their construction and operation” is sufficient to prevent
water quality impacts from construction.
Specifically, the “safeguards” applied in the Pennsylvania regulatory process for
Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities fail to address a number of concerns,
and this can be seen in the application requirements for Erosion and Sediment
Control Permits.
Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities that result in disturbance of fewer than
five (5) acres are not required to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit.
For these facilities, a Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well (5500-PM-
OG0001) is sufficient. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be
developed, but is not subject to regulatory review and approval before
construction. This is in contrast to most other construction activities, which are
subject to erosion and sediment control requirements at 1 acre under the
Pennsylvania Chapter 102 requirements and NPDES requirements. For Oil and
Gas facilities that are fewer than 5 acres in disturbance, an Erosion & Sediment
Control plan is required, but it is not subject to regulatory review prior to
construction.
Significantly, the permit application requirements in the PaDEP “Application for
an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit (ESCP)” for projects that are not
already addressed under an NPDES permit, are different than the PaDEP
application for Oil and Gas Facilities (Notice of Intent for Coverage under the
Erosion & Sediment Control General Permit for Earth Disturbance Associated
with Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing or Treatment Operations or
Transmission Facilities ESCGP-1). This is significant because the permit
application is essentially for the same item, namely, an Erosion and Sediment
Control Permit. There are also significant differences between the application for
coverage under the General (PAG-02) NPDES Permit or Individual NPDES
Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. There
is only a General Permit option for Oil and Gas facilities, regardless of whether or
not the facility is located in Special Protection Waters. Other construction
activities require an Individual Permit within Special Protection Waters.
A comparison of permit application requirements for non-oil and gas facilities, as
compared to the permit application requirements for Oil and Gas facilities, is
provided in Table 2. This table also indicates the comparable requirements for
the permit application for Drilling or Altering a Well (for oil and gas projects
disturbing fewer than 5 acres).
As can be seen from this table, the requirements for a “standard” ESCP
REVIEW THIS application are significantly more stringent than the requirements
for an Oil and Gas facility ESCP application for coverage under a general permit.
For oil and gas facilities with fewer than five acres of disturbance, virtually no
information is required related to the amount of area disturbed and erosion
control measures.



Table 2. Comparison of Erosion and Sediment Control Permit Application
Requirements for “Non” Oil and Gas Facilities, Oil and Gas Facilities, and
Oil and Gas Facilities under 5 acres disturbance.

There are a number of site-specific conditions that can directly affect the potential
for erosion and pollutant discharge during construction activity, including the total
area of disturbance, the soil type and potential for erosion, the topographic
slopes, and the proximity to surface waters. None of this information is available
for regulatory review before construction for Oil and Gas facilities of fewer than 5
acres. Additionally, there is no opportunity for regulatory reviewers to determine
if measures such as reducing the area of disturbance and restoring disturbed
areas promptly will be implemented.
The potential impacts to water quality can be seen in the existing D.L. Teeple 1 1
well, located in Manchester Township, Wayne County and owned by Newfield
Appalachia PA LLC (permit # 37-127-20013, issued on April 23, 2010), shown as
Figure 1. This well is located in the Shehawken Rattlesnake Creek, designated
in Pennsylvania as High Quality (HQ). The permit application for this well
indicates under Item 8 of the “Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well”
that the well site is not within 100 feet (horizontally) of a stream, spring, or water
body of water delineated on the most current 7-1/2 minute topographic map. As
can be seen by the overlay of the Well Location Plat onto a USGS 7-1/2 minute
quadrangle map, the well pad is not within 100 feet of a body of water as
indicated on the USGS 7-1/2 minute quad, but it is situated at the top of a hill
surrounded on three sides by streams and wetlands that are delineated on the
quad map. The site is bordered on the western side by S.R. 191, and a wetland
can be seen just over 100 feet downhill from the construction entrance.
Given the topography and surrounding surface waters at the Teeple 1 1 site,
there is significant potential for discharge of sediment and other pollutants to
surface waters if erosion and sediment control measures are not actively
maintained and implemented.
This well location was cited on 5/26/2010 for a violation of Chapter 102. 4 for
“Failure to minimize accelerated erosion, implement E&S Plan, maintain E&S
controls. Failure to stabilize site until total restoration under OGA Sec 206(c)(d).”
This violation was issued just over one month after the permit was issued. A
second violation was also issued on 5/26/2010 under Pa Code 78 for an
improperly lined pit.
The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act (58 P. S.§ 601.205(b)) states that “no well
site may be prepared or well drilled within 100 feet measured horizontally from
any stream, spring, or body of water as identified on the most current 7-1/2
minute topographical quadrangle map of the United States geological survey or
within 100 feet of any wetlands greater than one acre in size”. This question is
asked in Item 8 of the PaDEP Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well.
However, surface waters are defined in Chapter 93 as “Perennial and intermittent
streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, springs, natural seeps and
estuaries…”. Many of these features will NOT be mapped on a USGS quad as
blue lines, or they will not be mapped adequately. Luna B. Leopold, former Chief
Hydrologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, writes in his book A View of the River
(Harvard University Press, 1994) that the USGS instructions regarding blue lines
on quad maps “do not reflect any statistical characteristic of streamflow
occurrence. The specifications that the blue line terminate no higher than about
1,000 feet from the watershed divide does not reflect differences in hydrologic
performance among various combinations of climate, topography, and geology”
and “blue lines on a map are drawn by non-professional, low-salaried personnel
…they are drawn to fit a rather personalized aesthetic.” (page 228). In other
words, blue lines on 7-1/2 minute USGS quads are not scientific representations
of surface waters or even perennial or intermittent streams. Therefore, reliance
of these “blue lines” does not represent adequate identification and setback from
surface waters as defined under Pa Code Chapter 93. The current Pennsylvania
permitting process for Oil and Gas facilities is not sufficiently protective of surface
waters.

The preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan under the
requirements for Oil and Gas facilities also does not guarantee that the measures
represented on the plan will be adequate to protect water quality. For example,
on the Erosion and Sediment Control permit application for Oil and Gas facilities
(ESCGP-1), Section E: Special Protection Waters lists “cost effective best
management practices (BMPs) that will be used to meet the requirements of Pa
Code Chapter 93. Under this list is included “Roads stabilized with crushed rock
and/or vegetation.” In other words, roads constructed of crushed rock are
considered to be a “best management practice” adequate for protection of
Special Protection Waters. In virtually all other construction projects that are
subject to Chapter 102 requirements, the construction of roads – including
crushed rock roads – is considered earth disturbance that requires its own
erosion and sediment control measures (as well as stormwater management
measures).
The Pennsylvania Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies provides information
on measures to maintain gravel roads in a manner to reduce the discharge of
pollutants and protect water quality. Penn State’s Center for Dirt and Gravel
Road Studies (Center) recently completed a research project for the Chesapeake
Bay Commission (Sheetz, Summary Statement) that begins to quantify sediment
production from gravel roads and sediment reductions from several commonly
used practices. This study found that:

Runoff Rates from Existing Roads:
The five “existing condition” tests done for this study found
sediment production rates ranging from 0.7-12.2 pounds of
sediment runoff in a single 30 minute, 0.55 inches simulated
rainfall. The 0.7 pound event was generated from a flat narrow
farm lane with grass growing between the wheel tracks. The 12.2
pound event was generated from a wider, mixed limestone/clay
road at a 4-5% slope. This highlights the great variability in
erosion rates based on specific site conditions. Using the average
sediment runoff rate of 5.6 pounds per event, a single 30 minute
0.55 inch rain event moving across Pennsylvania can be
conservatively expected to generate over 3,000 tons* of sediment
form the State’s 20,000+ miles of public unpaved roads.

In other words, gravel roads are a source of sediment pollution, rather than a
“best management practice” for Special Protection Waters as listed on the
ESCGP-1 application.

Review of the page-sized copy of the “Woodland Management Partners Well Pad
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan” indicates that, for the approximately 850 linear
feet of new entrance driveway to the well pad, there are no erosion and sediment
control measures, i.e., no silt fence, compost sock, etc. Roads for other
construction projects are subject to management requirements for erosion and
sediment control, but under ESCGP-1, gravel roads are considered a “best
management practice”.

Roads and gravel roads for gas exploration and extraction facilities are not the
only construction items that are regulated differently for oil and gas facilities than
they are for other construction sites, and that have significant potential to
adversely impact water quality. Recently, PaDEP began imposing requirements
on the construction of geothermal energy wells. Geothermal wells are generally
not more than several hundred feet deep. PaDEP has begun imposing
requirements for separate Erosion and Sediment Control Plans specific to the
construction of geothermal wells and the handling of material from these wells.
This includes requirements for dewatering material from the wells, protecting the
water resources from discharge of pollutants, and reducing site disturbance.
Gravel roads for geothermal well construction must also include measures such
as silt fence or compost sock (and are not considered a best management
practice). Detailed guidance for E&S measures related to the construction of
geothermal wells will be included in the updated Erosion and Sediment Control
Manual, and reflect that both well construction and gravel road construction and
use are significant sources of nonpoint source pollutants. This is in stark contrast
to the ESCGP-1 representation of gravel roads as a best management practice.

In summary, the current state regulations under which the wells in question were
permitted do not guarantee that the measures designed or implemented are
sufficient to protect water quality from construction-related impacts due to erosion
and sedimentation. These wells should not be excluded under the June 14, 2010
and July 23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations.

Gas Extraction Facilities and Impacts to Water Quality as a Result of
Inadequate Stormwater Management
The discharge of stormwater runoff and the pollutants conveyed in stormwater
runoff also negatively impact surface water quality. Stormwater impacts at Oil
and Gas facilities, including both exploratory and extraction well sites, are a
result of:
• Increased runoff (volume and rate) from roads
• Increased runoff (volume and rate) from pad site areas
• Increased pollutants from truck movement
• Pollutants from pad materials
• Air deposition of pollutants
• Inadequate handing of drilling materials
• Decreased stormwater recharge
• Decline of adjacent vegetation
• Degradation of roads
• Erosion of pad
• Failure to restore site to natural conditions
The stormwater impacts on water quality and stream health include:
• Increased flooding as a result of increased stormwater flow rates and
volumes of runoff
• Increased frequency of runoff discharges
• Thermal impacts from disturbed surfaces and removal of vegetation
• Changes in receiving water stream channel geometry, and corresponding
increases in sediment loads
• Discharge of pollutants
• Decreased stream baseflow as a result of reduced recharge
In addition to sediment discharges, the December 2007 U.S. EPA report
“Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and
How to Minimize These Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and
Local Ordinances,” noted that discharges of stormwater from oil and gas facilities
include a number of pollutants. The Summary Document for this report states:

Other pollutants in gas well runoff were found in high concentrations:

• EMCs of total dissolved solids, conductivity, calcium, chlorides,
hardness, alkalinity and pH were higher at gas well sites compared to
reference sites, and differences were statistically significant for all
parameters except conductivity.

• Generally, the presence of metals was higher at gas well sites
compared to reference sites and EMCs were statistically significantly
greater for Fe, Mn and Ni.

• Overall, the concentrations of metals tend to be higher at gas well
sites compared to both nearby reference sites and as measured in
runoff from local mixed-use watersheds (EMCs were statistically
significantly greater for Fe, Mn and Ni).

• Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were not detected in any of the
samples collected at gas well sites or reference sites.

The Summary Document for this study further concluded that:

• Gas well sites have the potential to negatively impact surface waters due
to increased sedimentation rates and an increase in the presence of
metals in stormwater runoff.

• Pad sites also have the potential to produce other contaminants
associated with equipment and general site operations.

• Gas wells do not appear to result in high concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons in runoff, but accidental spills and leaks are still a potential
source of impact.

Furthermore, the Summary Document noted that:

The proximity to surface water conveyances is an important consideration
for minimizing water impacts, i.e., flat, heavily vegetated areas distant
from surface waters are usually less of a concern than those areas close
to waters that have highly erodible soils, steeper slopes and little
vegetation.

Given the potential for stormwater impacts to water quality from Oil and Gas
exploratory and extraction facilities, the requirements for stormwater
management and water quality protection should be at least as rigorous as the
requirements for other land development and industrial activities.
However, the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit for Oil and Gas
facilities (ESCGP-1) essentially provides these facilities with a waiver from
providing stormwater management calculations and data. Specifically, Section
D.2.e of ESCGP-1, titled “Site Restoration Plan and Post Construction
Stormwater BMPs”, requires the applicant to answer yes or no to two questions:
1. The approximate original contours of the project site will be maintained or
replicated and the disturbed areas will be revegetated or otherwise
stabilized with pervious material.
2. PCSM BMPs which: use natural measures to eliminate pollution, do not
require extensive construction efforts, promote pollution reduction, and
are capable of controlling the net increase in the volume and rate of
stormwater runoff from a 2-year/24-hour storm event will be employed
and the net increase in the volume of post construction runoff is infiltrated
and/or dissipated away from surface waters of the Commonwealth.
If the answer to both of these questions is “yes,” the applicant does not need to
provide supporting calculations and data, essentially receiving a waiver of the
requirements for detailed stormwater management calculations and
implementation of adequate stormwater management measures. Such waivers
are not available for other industrial and commercial projects, which must design
PCSM measures based on factors such as disturbed area, slopes, soil types,
etc., and which must provide detailed calculations to determine that stormwater
BMPs are correctly sized and located.
Even if one of these questions is answered as “no” and post construction
stormwater calculations and data are required, that is not an assurance that the
calculations and stormwater plan will protect water quality, or be subject to the
same level of regulatory review as other construction projects.
For example, the permit application for the Davidson 1V Well Pad Site indicates
that the site will NOT be returned to the original contours and revegetated with
pervious material, and therefore, stormwater calculations are required. However,
the accompanying stormwater calculations indicate that there will be less
stormwater runoff after well pad construction than before. This is not a result of
BMPs, but rather a result of applying engineering coefficients (Cover Complex
values) that indicate that the site will be more pervious. It is shown in Figure 1
that Essentially, areas that are to be revegetated are calculated as “brush” that
produces less runoff than woods in good condition. However, the “Brush Seed
Mixture” that is specified is primarily a grass and groundcover seed mix, and
does not represent established “brush”, which is shown in Figure 1. A more
appropriate runoff coefficient that represents lawn and soils that have been
graded would indicate a much greater volume of runoff than is presented. This
is shown in Figure 2.
! !
Figure 1. Brush Seed Mixture that is primarily grasses


Figure 2: Runoff Curve Number for pre and post-development conditions
exhibiting increased runoff after construction

Similarly, the well pad itself is given a very low runoff value, presumably since it
is paved with a stone bed. However, the detail provided for the Davidson 1V
Well Pad indicates that the stone is not appropriate for a stormwater bed as
described in the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual,
and additionally that the bed will be built partially on fill material, which is also not
an acceptable technique in the Manual. The designs documented in the Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Plan for Davidson 1V do not support the
engineering calculations and assumptions that have been submitted. Therefore,
the estimates of stormwater runoff rate and volume will be greater than
documented within the Plan.
In addition, Section E of ESCGP-1, titled “Special Protection Waters” lists
fourteen “cost effective best management practices that will be used to meet the
requirements of 25 Pa Code Chapter 93.” These include:
1. Minimize earth disturbance
2. Earth moving activities limited during rainstorms and spring thaw
3. No direct discharge to surface water
4. Designed temporary and permanent BMPs for surface water diversion
5. Other
6. Alternative site analysis
7. Roads stabilized with crushed rock and/or vegetation
8. Immediate stabilization
9. Prompt site restoration
10. Stabilized upslope diversion
11. Permanently stabilized ditches and channels
12. Rock lined culvert inlets and outlets
13. Proper vegetative cover techniques
14. 100 ft riparian buffer
None of these measures are sufficient to provide stormwater management and
protect water quality for sites that have 5 acres or more of disturbance, and as
discussed earlier, measures such as stabilizing roads with gravel can create,
rather than mitigate, pollution and increased runoff. The net effect of Section E
and Section D.2.e of ESCGP-1 is to waive stormwater management
requirements for these facilities, or approve calculations that are technically
incorrect. “Restoration” activities are not required to restore site soils to pre-
construction levels of performance, and as a result of disturbance, altered
vegetation, and soil compaction, “restored” sites will continue to generate
increased volumes and rates of stormwater runoff.
Oil and Gas facilities are given a further exemption from environmental standards
applied to other facilities under Pa 25 Code Chapter 102.14, which requires a
150 foot riparian buffer in Special Protection Waters. Oil and gas activities are
given an exemption “so long as any existing riparian buffer is undisturbed to the
greatest extent possible.”
For Oil and Gas facilities with fewer than five acres of disturbance (and not
required to apply for permit coverage with ESCGP-1), there are essentially no
regulatory processes or safeguards in place to assure that stormwater
management measures are adequate, and essentially no safeguards or
consideration of factors such as slopes, soil types, amount of vegetation and
protection of existing vegetation.
Conclusion
The Supplemental Determination of June 14, 2010 stated that:
[T]hese wells are subject to state regulations as to their
construction and operation…In light of these existing
safeguards…this Supplemental Determination does not prohibit
any natural gas well project from proceeding if the applicant has
obtained a state natural gas well permit for the project on or
before the date of issuance set below.
A review of the regulatory safeguards applied to these wells, specifically the
existing Pennsylvania regulations and PaDEP policies, indicates that the
safeguards do not guarantee protection of the water quality of Special Protection
Waters with regards to Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater
Management. As such, these wells should have been included in the May 19,
2010 Determination of the Executive Director Concerning Natural Gas Extraction
Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area of Special Protection
Waters.
The December 2007 EPA report “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas
Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize These Impacts Through
Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances” specifically recommended
that “States or local governments should consider regulating sediment and
associated pollutants in stormwater runoff” and suggested as a Recommended
Approach to “develop regulations similar to current NDPES requirements for
construction sites” for Oil and Gas facilities.
To the extent that the Executive Director’s decision making process relied upon
the adequacy of Pennsylvania regulations to protect the water quality of the
Basin, it was based upon a mistaken premise of fact.
The opinions expressed in this report are stated to a reasonable degree of
scientific and professional certainty.


________________________________




Figure 3. D.L. Teeple 1 1 well, located in Manchester Township, Wayne
County

REFERENCES

1. Chandlerof, Stephanie; League of Women Voters of Indiana “Marcellus
Shale Natural Gas Extraction Study 2009-2010 Study Guide V:
Regulation and Permitting of Marcellus Shale Drilling”, League of Women
Voters of Pennsylvania, 2010

2. Delaware River Basin Commission “Special Protection Waters, Stone
Energy Corporation, Matoushek 1 Well Site Shale Gas Exploration and
Development Project Clinton Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania”,
Docket No. D-2009-18-1, February, 2010

3. Harvey Consulting, LLC Recommendations for Robson 1 Gas Well
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC Pennsylvania State Department of
Environmental Protection Permit 37-127-20008-00. March 15, 2009

4. Kosnik, Renee L.; Oil and Gas Accountability Project and Earthworks
“The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major
Environmental Statutes”, October, 2007

5. Kovach, David "Cabot #2 Well", E-mail to James Eichstadt, August 4,
2009

6. Leopold, Luna B.; “A View of the River”, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1994

7. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Notice of Intent for Coverage Under the Erosion
and Sediment Control General Permit (ESCGP-1) for Earth Disturbance
Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing or
Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities”, Application 5500-PM-
OG0005, Revised December, 2009

8. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Location Plat” For Matoushek 1, Submitted
by Stone Energy Corporation, Permit Number 37-127-20006-00, March 6,
2008

9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Permit” For DL Teeple 1 1, Submitted by
Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, Permit Number 37-127-20013, April 23,
2010

10. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Permit” for DL Teeple 1 2H, Submitted by
Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, Permit Number 37-127-20018-00, May 25,
2010

11. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Permit” For Geuther 1, Submitted by Stone
Energy Corporation, Permit Number 37-127-20007-00, April 28, 2010

12. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Permit” For HL Rutledge 1 1, Submitted by
Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, Permit Number 37-127-20012-00, April 29,
2010

13. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas
Management Program, “Well Permit” For Woodland MGMT Partners 1 1,
Submitted by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, Permit Number 37-127-
20017-00, May 27, 2010

14. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Erosion and
Sediment Control General Permit For Earth Disturbance Associated With
Oil & Gas Exploration, Processing or Treatment Operations or
Transmission Facilities Otherwise known as… ESCGP-1”, Received from
http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/Watershed
PortalFiles/2007AnnualTraining/stormwater_permit_presentation2.pdf

15. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Pennswood Oil &
Gas LLC (272597) Preston 38 LLC OG Well”, Pennsylvania’s
Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking System, August
26, 2010

16. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Pennswood Oil &
Gas LLC (272597) Stockport ASSN 1”, Pennsylvania’s Environment
Facility Application Compliance Tracking System, August 26, 2010

17. Scheetz, Dr. Barry E. and Steven M. Bloser; Center for Dirt and Gravel
Road Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
16802; “Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance Practices for Unpaved
Roads: Sediment Reduction Study” Prepared for Chesapeake Bay
Commission c/o Senate of Pennsylvania G-05 North Office Building
Harrisburg, PA 1712, FINAL REPORT June 30, 2008, Revised August
29, 2008 and Summary Statement

18. Tetra Tech NUS Inc. “Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan,
Wayne County Field, Wayne County, Pennsylvania”, Prepared for
Newfield Appalachia PA LLC, May 2010

19. United States Environmental Protection Agency “Erosion, Sediment and
Runoff Control for Roads and Highways”, Office of Water (4503F) EPA-
841-F-95-008d, December 1995

20. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Final Report for Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance Grant Number 66.463 Water Quality
Cooperative Agreement for Project Entitled “Demonstrating the Impacts of
Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize these
Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances”
and “Summary of the Results of the Investigation Regarding Gas Well
Site Surface Water Impacts”, ID No. CP-83207101-1, Kenneth E. Banks,
Ph.D. Manager, Division of Environmental Quality and David J. Wachal,
M.S. Water Utilities Coordinator

21. URS Corporation “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Proposed
Davidson 1V Well Site, Scott Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania”,
Submitted for Hess Corporation, April 2010

22. URS Corporation “Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan,
Hess Marcellus Shale Site- Davidson 1V, 149 Harris Road, Scott
Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania”, Prepared for Hess Corporation,
April 23, 2010

1

 
 
Chemical and Biological Hazards Posed by Drilling Exploratory Shale Gas Wells 
in Pennsylvania’s Delaware River Basin 
Report for the Delaware River Basin Commission Exploratory Well Hearing 
 
 
 
 
 
to  
Delaware Riverkeeper Network  
and  
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability 
 
 
 
November 16, 2010 
 
 
Ronald E. Bishop, Ph.D., CHO  
 
 
 
s/ Ronald E. Bishop  
______________________________ 
Ronald E. Bishop 
 
 
 
 
2

Summary:  
 
  Over the last decade, operators in the natural gas industry have developed highly 
sophisticated methods and materials for the exploration and production of methane from 
black shale.  In spite of the technological advances made to date, these activities carried out 
on any scale pose significant chemical and biological hazards to human health and 
ecosystem stability.  In brief:  
   !"  The probability that shale gas well projects will impact local groundwater ranges 
from 4.0 to 5.7% over the short term, i.e. while the wells are in development.  
   !"  The probability that shale gas wells will degrade local water quality over the long 
term (50 years) exceeds 16%; a project scope of as few as ten wells practically guarantees 
long‐term groundwater contamination.  
   !"  Some chemicals in ubiquitous use for shale gas well drilling constitute human health 
and environmental hazards even where they are extremely diluted.  For example, the 
biocide DBNPA is lethal to Chesapeake Bay oysters at parts‐per‐trillion concentrations, 
below its chemical detection limit.   
   !"  Some constituents of flowback fluids from shale gas wells are hazardous to human 
health at extreme dilutions; potential exposure effects include tissue poisoning and cancer.  
   !"  The risks of exposing workers and neighbors to toxic chemicals and harmful 
bacteria are exacerbated by certain common practices in Pennsylvania, such as air‐
lubricated drilling and the use of impoundments for flowback fluids; these are not regarded 
as best practices from a national perspective.   
  Overall, proceeding with any shale gas projects in the Delaware River Basin by 
current practices is highly likely to degrade surface water and groundwater quality, to 
harm humans, and to negatively impact aquatic ecosystems.   
 
Background:  
 
  Natural gas production from hydrocarbon‐rich shale formations is probably the 
most rapidly developing trend in onshore oil and gas exploration and production today.  “In 
some areas, this has included bringing drilling and production to regions of the country 
3

that have seen little or no activity in the past.  New oil and gas developments bring changes 
to the environmental and socio‐economic landscape, particularly in those areas where gas 
development is a new activity.  With these changes have come questions about the nature 
of shale gas development, the potential environmental impacts, and the ability of the 
current regulatory structure to deal with this development.” (1)  
 
  The major features of shale gas development, which distinguish it from conventional 
gas extraction activity, are the use of horizontal drilling and high‐volume hydraulic 
fracturing.  While these technologies certainly lead to well projects which are larger than 
traditional gas wells by fifty‐fold or more, and enable energy development companies to 
pursue projects in places which historically weren’t commercially viable (such as the 
Delaware River Basin), gas exploration and production have never been free of risk.  Toxics 
Targeting, Inc., using data compiled by the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation (NYS DEC), brought to light 270 gas drilling‐related contamination incidents 
which had occurred in New York State since 1979 (2).  This value, compared with a total of 
6,680 active gas wells (3), points to a serious incident rate of 4.0%.  These were in addition 
to incidents which were not reported to the DEC, such as the “wildcat” operation by which 
the U.S. Gypsum Company of Batavia, NY contaminated its own water well while drilling for 
natural gas on company property (4).   
 
  Data from Colorado indicated that 1549 spill incidents related to natural gas 
extraction activities occurred in the period from January 2003 to March 2008; the 
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation estimated that 20% of these (310) impacted 
groundwater (5).  The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division recorded 705 groundwater‐
contaminating incidents caused between 1990 and 2005 by the oil and gas industry (6).  
And the Pennsylvania Land Trust reported 1610 DEP violations in the Commonwealth 
between January 2008 nd late August 2010, 1052 of them likely to impact the environment 
(7).  Compared with totals of 25,716, 40,157 and 55,631 producing gas wells in Colorado, 
New Mexico and Pennsylvania, respectively (3), these data suggest that natural gas 
development in a region degrades groundwater quality at a rate of 1.2 to 1.9 incidents per 
100 gas wells.  However, not all producing gas wells pose equal risk; new construction 
4

accounts for most spills and other mishaps.  Interpreted in the context of new gas (and only 
gas) wells, (18,554 in Pennsylvania for the period January 2008 through August 2010 – 
mostly non‐Marcellus projects) (8), the data suggest that we may reasonably anticipate a 
violations rate of 8.7% (one citation for every 11 – 12 gas wells) and a groundwater 
contamination rate of 5.7% (one incident for every 17 – 18 wells).  
 
  Short‐term collateral damage from gas well development is only part of this 
industry’s hazard profile.  In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
estimated that of 1.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the U.S., 200,000 were leaking 
(9).  This represents a 16.7% failure rate; one of every six abandoned wells is releasing its 
contents to the surrounding area, including the surface.  A Canadian research team 
investigated the mechanisms for these failures, and determined that concrete shrinkage 
which leads to well casing fissures is essentially inevitable in a fifty‐year time frame.  They 
found that this cracking was especially severe at maximum depth, and exposure of steel 
casings to the hot (140 – 180 °F) brines there accelerated their breakdown, permitting 
subterranean gases and other fluids to re‐pressurize the deteriorating wells (10).  Wells in 
regions containing mobile geological faults (such as eastern Pennsylvania) are also subject 
to casing deformation and shear (11).  Therefore, we may reasonably expect higher 
percentages of gas well casings to fail over time, especially longer than fifty years.  The 
probability that a project scope of as few as ten gas wells will impact ground water within a 
century approaches 100%; ground water will be contaminated.  
 
  In view of the risks, summarized above, for gas wells to engender spills and leaks, a 
discussion of the chemicals involved with these projects is in order.  
 
   
5

Drilling Additives:   
 
  Many chemical products are used in the development of a gas well.  Some examples, 
along with their most common applications, are shown in Table 1.  Individual additives are 
typically used in multiple stages of the drilling process ; most hydraulic fracturing additives 
are also used in drilling fluids (or “muds”) (12).  Two rare exceptions are bentonite and 
barium sulfate, which are used almost exclusively in drilling muds and packer slurries, and 
hemicellulase enzyme, used solely in post‐fracturing fluids.  Even the chemicals used for 
post‐production purification may also be used as solvents in drilling muds. 
 
  The majority of chemical products used by the gas industry have not been fully 
tested for human or environmental toxicity (13, 14).  Of those which have, a minority (e.g., 
bentonite, guar gum, hemicellulase, citric acid, acetic acid, potassium carbonate, sodium 
chloride, limonene, polyethylene glycol and mineral oil) pose no significant hazards to 
humans or other organisms as utilized in gas extraction processes.   
   
6

Table 1:  Additive Functions in Shale Gas Extraction  
 
Additive Type  Examples  Purpose  Used In  
Friction Reducer  heavy naphtha, polymer  
microemulsion  
lubricate drill head,  
penetrate fissures   
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids 
Biocide  glutaraldehyde, DBNPA, 
dibromoacetonitrile  
prevent biofilm  
formation 
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids 
Scale Inhibitor  ethylene glycol, EDTA,  
citric acid  
prevent scale  
buildup 
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids  
Corrosion 
Inhibitor 
propargyl alcohol,  
N,N‐dimethylformamide  
prevent corrosion  
of metal parts  
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids  
Clay Stabilizer  tetramethylammonium 
chloride 
prevent clay  
swelling  
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids  
Gelling Agent  bentonite, guar gum, 
“gemini quat” amine 
prevent slumping 
of solids  
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids 
Conditioner  ammonium chloride,  
potassium carbonate,  
isopropyl alcohol   
adjust pH,  
adjust additive  
solubility  
drilling muds,  
fracturing fluids  
Surfactant   2‐butoxyethanol,  
ethoxylated octylphenol 
promote fracture 
penetration  
drilling fluids,  
fracturing fluids 
Cross‐Linker   sodium perborate,  
acetic anhydride  
promote gelling   fracturing fluids  
Breaker  hemicellulase,  
ammonium persulfate,  
quebracho  
“breaks” gel to  
promote flow‐back  
of fluid 
post‐fracturing  
fluids 
Cleaner   hydrochloric acid   dissolve debris  stimulation fluid,  
pre‐fracture fluid  
Processor   ethylene glycol,  
propylene glycol 
strip impurities  
from produced gas 
post‐production  
processing fluids 
 
 
  Several other additive chemicals, including ammonia, methanol, ethanol, 2‐
propanol, 1‐butanol, thioglycolic acid, acetophenone, sodium perborate tetrahydrate, 
diammonium peroxydisulfate and hydrochloric acid, are moderately or acutely toxic to 
humans or aquatic organisms when encountered in concentrated forms (15 – 24), but as 
used by the natural gas industry, they end up greatly diluted, and so impose relatively 
modest hazards (13).  More significant issues with these chemicals would be anticipated 
from storage sites, trucking accidents while they are being transported to remote well sites 
via rural roads,  and stagingat  well sites.  
 
7

  However, a few chemical products in widespread use, including in exploratory wells, 
pose significant hazards to humans or other organisms, because they remain dangerous 
even at concentrations near or below their chemical detection limits.  These include the 
biocides glutaraldehyde, 2,2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) and 2,2‐
dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN), the corrosion inhibitor propargyl alcohol, the surfactant 2‐
butoxyethanol (2‐BE), and lubricants containing heavy naphtha.  (Note:  CAS No. refers to a 
unique identifier assigned to every known substance by the Chemical Abstracts Service 
Registry.)  
 
Glutaraldehyde:  
  Glutaraldehyde (CAS No. 111‐30‐8) is a biocide used widely in drilling and 
fracturing fluids.  Along with its antimicrobial effects, it is a potent respiratory toxin 
effective at parts‐per‐billion (ppb) concentrations (24); a sensitizer in susceptible people, it 
has induced occupational asthma and/or contact dermatitis in workers exposed to it, and is 
a known mutagen (i.e., a substance that may induce or increase the frequency of genetic 
mutations) (25, 26).  It is readily inhaled or absorbed through the skin.  In the environment, 
algae, zooplankton and steelhead trout were found to be dramatically harmed by 
glutaraldehyde at very low (1 – 5 ppb) concentrations (27).  
 
DBNPA:  
  2,2‐Dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) (CAS No. 10222‐01‐2) is a biocide 
finding increasing use in drilling and fracturing fluids.  It is a sensitizer, respiratory and 
skin toxin, and is especially corrosive to the eyes (28).  In the environment, it is very toxic 
to a wide variety of freshwater, estuarine and marine organisms, where it induces 
developmental defects throughout the life cycle.  In particular, it is lethal to “water fleas” 
(Daphnia magna), rainbow trout and mysid shrimp at low (40 to 50 ppb) concentrations, 
and is especially dangerous to Eastern oysters (29).  Chesapeake Bay oysters are killed by 
extremely low (parts‐per‐trillion, ppt) concentrations of DBNPA, well below the limit at 
which this chemical can be detected. 
   
8

DBAN:  
  Dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN) (CAS No. 3252‐43‐5) is a biocide often used in 
combination with DBNPA, from which it is a metabolic product (with the release of 
cyanide).  Its human and environmental toxicity profiles are similar to that of DBNPA, 
except that DBAN is also carcinogenic (30).  DBNPA and DBAN appear to work 
synergistically.  In combination, the doses at which these biocides become toxic are 
significantly lower than when they are used separately.  In other words, it takes much less 
of these chemicals to exert toxic effects when they are used together.  
 
Propargyl Alcohol:  
  Propargyl alcohol (CAS No. 107‐19‐7) is a corrosion inhibitor that is very commonly 
used in gas well construction and completion.  This chemical causes burns to tissues in 
skin, eyes, nose, mouth, esophagus and stomach; in humans it is selectively toxic to the liver 
and kidneys (31).  Propargyl alcohol is a sensitizer in susceptible individuals, who may 
experience chronic effects months to years after exposure, including rare multi‐organ 
failure (32).  It is harmful to a variety of aquatic organisms, especially fathead minnows, 
which are killed by doses near 1 ppm (33).  
 
2‐BE:  
  2‐Butoxyethanol (2‐BE), also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) 
(CAS No. 111‐76‐2), is a surfactant used in many phases of gas exploration and extraction.  
It comprises a considerable percentage of Airfoam HD, which Newfield is using to drill 
some of the wells grandfathered by the SEDD (34).  Easily absorbed through the skin, this 
chemical has long been known to be selectively toxic to red blood cells; it causes them to 
rupture, leading to hemorrhaging (35).  More recently, the ability of EGBE at extremely low 
levels (ppt) to cause endocrine disruption, with effects on ovaries and adrenal glands, is 
emerging in the medical literature (36).  This chemical is only moderately toxic to aquatic 
organisms, with harm to algae and test fish observed with doses over 500 ppm (35).   
 
Heavy Naphtha:  
  Heavy naphtha (CAS No. 64741‐68‐0) refers to a mixture of petroleum products 
composed of, among other compounds, the aromatic molecules benzene, toluene, xylene, 
1,2,4‐trimethylbenzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene.  It is 
9

used by the gas industry as a lubricant, especially in drilling muds.  This material is 
hazardous to a host of microbes, plants and animals (37).  Several of the mixture’s 
components are known to cause or promote cancer.  If released to soil or groundwater, 
several components are toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, especially amphibians, 
in which it impedes air transport through the skin.  
 
Flowback Fluids:   
 
  Irrespective of chemical additives used for drilling, Marcellus shale contains several 
toxic substances which can be mobilized by drilling.  These include lead, arsenic, barium, 
chromium, uranium, radium, radon and benzene, along with high levels of sodium chloride 
(38).  These components make flowback fluids hazardous without any added chemicals, 
and are often among the analytes most easily measured by potential waste fluid treatment 
plant operators (Figure 1).   
 
 
Figure 1:  Wastewater Pollutants (39)  
10

Because of their significant toxicity at low (ppb) concentrations, and the fact that drill 
cuttings are often not removed, but rather are buried on‐site, several of these flowback 
fluid and cuttings components (40) are discussed below, including barium, lead, arsenic, 
chromium and benzene:  
 
Barium (Ba):  
  Barium is a toxic heavy metal commonly found in Marcellus shale well flowback 
fluids (39).  Exposure to soluble salts (not the sulfate), which may occur by ingestion, 
absorption or inhalation, may induce drops in tissue potassium levels, and by this 
mechanism it is selectively toxic to the heart and kidneys (41).   Further, barite (barium 
sulfate), used as a weighting agent in drilling muds, reacts with radium salts in shale, 
forming radioactive scale on metal parts (such as the drill “string”) which then are 
subsequently brought to the surface (13); in these reactions, barite is converted to more 
soluble (i.e. more toxic) barium salts.  
 
Lead (Pb):  
  The poisonous nature of lead has been known for centuries, but its ability to impair 
neurological development in children at very low (1 ppb) concentrations makes it a 
toxicant of special concern.  The most sensitive targets for lead toxicity are the developing 
nervous system, the blood and cardiovascular systems, and the kidney.  However, due to 
the multiple modes of action of lead in biological systems, and its tendency to bio‐
accumulate, it could potentially affect any system or organs in the body.  It has also been 
associated with high blood pressure (42).   
 
Arsenic (As):  
  Arsenic, another component of black shale (38), has also been known as a poison for 
hundreds if not thousands of years.  The most sensitive target tissue appears to be skin, but 
arsenic produces adverse effects in every tissue against which it has been tested, especially 
11

brain, heart, lung, the peripheral vascular system, and kidney (43).  Arsenic is harmful 
below one part per trillion (ppt) in water, and is a confirmed carcinogen.  
 
Chromium (Cr):  
  Chromium, also found in Marcellus shale (44), may be an essential nutrient required 
#$"%&'(%)%*+",)-**"./,%,"012"3%(".-+45"67'"'8%"6#/*/2#9-*",+,'%)"#'",733/(',"#,"$/'"97((%$'*+"
known.  Exposure to elevated doses by inhalation, ingestion, skin or eye contact may lead 
to respiratory, gastrointestinal, reproductive, developmental and neurological symptoms 
(45).  Sensitization‐induced asthma and allergy have also been reported.  However, at very 
low concentrations, particularly of potassium dichromate or strontium chromate (the 
hexavalent form, as found in shale rock) (46), the major hazard posed by chromium is as a 
carcinogen, especially in stomach and lung tissues (45).  
 
Benzene:  
  Benzene, a known shale constituent (38), was briefly considered above as a 
component of heavy naphtha.  In ppb concentrations, the primary hazard from this 
compound is due to its proven ability to cause acute non‐lymphocytic leukemia (47).   
 
4‐NQO:  
  In addition to the above shale constituents, one chemical compound was 
consistently encountered in flowback fluids from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia:  4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide (4‐NQO) (48).   This is one of the most potent 
carcinogens known, particularly for inducing cancer of the mouth (49).  It is not used as a 
drilling additive and is not known to occur naturally in black shale; no studies have been 
published to date with respect to what chemical interactions account for its consistent 
presence in flowback fluids.  However, it is dangerous at parts‐per‐trillion (ppt) 
concentrations, well below its levels reported in gas well flowback fluids (48).  
 
   
12

Biological Contamination:  
 
  Rock strata beneath the earth’s surface are populated by bacteria, and the advent of 
air‐lubricated drilling (without biocides) has introduced a risk of contaminatingsurface 
(fresh) water zones with bacteria and other microbes from deeper (brine) layers, where 
they often flourish.  Of particular concern are sulfate‐reducing bacteria, especially 
Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, an organism that thrives in fresh water where some sulfate 
(such as is present in pyrite or hematite) is available (50), (Figure 2) (51).  In fact, these 
bacteria are especially prevalent and aggressive in oil and gas producing regions, where 
they avidly form living black, sticky films in water wells and other structures (52).  There 
they produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S), characterized by a “rotten eggs” smell.  Rock strata 
rich in gas are often also rich in this bacterium, and exposure to hydrogen sulfide along 
with methane raises significant health concerns –neurological syndromes in humans and, 
in livestock, elevated birth defect rates and diminished herd health.  At high concentrations, 
hydrogen sulfate is lethal (53).  
 
  The now‐common use of air‐lubrication (without biocides) while drilling the top 
one‐ to three thousand feet of gas wells (54) risks contaminating fresh water aquifers with 
sulfate‐reducing bacteria from the deeper strata, but there is no clear evidence that this 
well‐fouling mechanism is recognized by Pennsylvania DEP regulators. 
13

  
 
Figure 2:  Biofilm of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans Growing on a Hematite Surface  
 
Cumulative Effects:  
 
  Hazards that accompany the above chemicals and microbes have to this point been 
considered individually.  It is clear that they don’t occur individually.  No investigations of 
interactions among these materials have been reported to date.  However, the author has 
been contacted by officials with the National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health, 
Centers for Disease Control (NIOSH/CDC), who requested any information that might shed 
light on a group of symptoms presented by clinical patients in southwestern Pennsylvania 
and the state of West Virginia which is tentatively identified as “downwinder’s syndrome” 
(55).  These symptoms, including irritated eyes, sore throat, frequent headaches and 
nosebleeds, skin rashes, peripheral neuropathy, lethargy, nausea, reduced appetite and 
mental confusion, were also reported in a Texas gas‐field study conducted by Wilma Subra 
(56).  These disparate observations are supported by a literature review of potential 
human health effects from gas drilling activities (57).   
14

 
  The practice in Pennsylvania of using open impoundments for capture of flowback 
fluids from gas wells may exacerbate the risk of this syndrome.  Although most additives 
are greatly diluted in the drilling process, organic compounds (with the exceptions of 
DBNPA and DBAN) tend to be lighter than water; therefore they float to the surface of 
holding pits, where they concentrate to essentially 100% of the surface.  From there they 
volatilize or aerosolize into the air, from which they may be inhaled by neighbors and on‐
site industry workers.  Partly for this reason, the states of Colorado (58) and New Mexico 
(59) have prohibited the use of impoundments for flowback fluids.   
 
  As a case in point, at 7:00 AM on September 5, 2010, Greg Swartz and Tannis 
Kowalchuk, who live 0.3 miles from the Woodland Management Partners 11 exploratory 
gas well in Damascus Township, Wayne County, PA (developed by Newfield Appalachia PA, 
LLC), smelled a “chemical sulfuric odor”.  They put up with this odor for three days before 
the flowback fluids pit (evidently the source of the chemical smell) was pumped out and 
the odor subsided.  Neither the fire department chief nor the DEP inspector indicated 
concern about the hydrogen sulfide being generated by bacteria living in the pit.  However, 
Mr. Swartz and Ms. Kowalchuk were concerned, particularly for the health of their 2‐year‐
old son (60).   
 
  The DEP inspection summary indicated that on September 2, three days prior to the 
sulfur odor complaint, workers were observed skimming an “oil sheen” from the pit fluids, 
and the odors detected then were typical of “drilling fluids and/or cuttings”.   On 
September 8, the hydrogen sulfide exposure grew worse for several hours, because the 
pit’s contents were stirred as they were pumped out.  Finally, the inspector noted that the 
sub‐contractor planned to solidify the residual pit contents, fold them into the plastic liner 
and bury them in place (60).  
 
  Well permit data indicate that 2‐butoxyethanol (2‐BE) was used in the drilling fluids 
(61).  Results from early (“tophole”) analysis of the pit’s contents (62) indicated the 
presence of high levels of barium, lead, arsenic and chromium (discussed above).  No test 
15

for 4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide (4‐NQO) was performed.   However, a very high concentration 
of lithium (more than 600 times the reporting limit) was present.  This is significant 
because lithium is psychoactive in humans at concentrations down to 1 part per billion 
(ppb) (63).  
 
  Therefore, the neighbors to this gas well were subjected to fumes from drilling 
fluids and cuttings, whether or not they identified those odors as nuisances.  Then they 
were exposed to nuisance (and possibly greater) levels of hydrogen sulfide, which DEP 
reports to be common with gas drilling operations (60).  Now, this family lives less than 
600 yards from a buried repository of toxic solid waste, for which no long‐term monitoring 
is planned (54).  They were potentially exposed to chemicals known to cause disorders of 
the skin, eyes, mucous membranes, the gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, heart and brain.  
Threshold doses for some of these adverse health effects were realistically achievable, 
given the extreme potency of the agents involved.  A slightly elevated risk of cancer for 
these people cannot be ruled out.  
 
  All this was the outcome of just one nearby “exploratory” gas well project where, 
from developers’ and regulators’ perspectives, nothing unusual happened.  
 
  If a spill, pit overflow, seepage from a defective plastic liner, or a tank leak had 
occurred, this family’s exposures to noxious chemicals would have increased, possibly 
without their knowledge.  Further, harm to sensitive environmental receptors, such as 
amphibians and aquatic organisms, would also have ensued.  As discussed above, such 
incidents are unavoidable where any gas wells – including exploratory projects – are 
developed on a broad scale.  When allowed to contaminate groundwater, the toxins and/or 
bacteria discussed above can persist at hazardous levels for years.  Therefore, inevitable 
environmental damage extends to wherever gas well projects are developed, including the 
Delaware River Basin.   
 
The opinions expressed in this report are stated to a reasonable degree oI scientiIic and
proIessional certainty.
16

References Cited:  
 
   1.   Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer; Groundwater 
Protection Council and ALL Consulting for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil 
Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (April 2009)  
 
   2.   Natural Gas Quest: State Files Show 270 Drilling Accidents in Past 30 Years; Tom 
Wilber, Binghamtom Press‐Sun (Nov. 8, 2009)   
 
   3.   Distribution of Oil and Gas Wells By State:  Number of Producing Gas Wells; U.S. 
Energy Information Administration: Independent Statistics and Analysis (2010) 
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1_a.htm  
 
   4.   Private conversation with Sanitarian David Luhipcroft, Genesee County Health 
Department, Environmental Health Division (June 12, 2009)  
 
   5.   Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing; Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 
Report (2007). Cited in:  Our Public Lands:  New Oil and Gas Regulations for Colorado 
http://www.ourpubliclands.org/about/colorado   
 
   6.   New Mexico Groundwater Impact Update spreadsheet (2010).  Cited in: Earthworks’ 
Groundwater Contamination;  www.earthworksaction.org/NM_GW_Contamination.cfm  
 
   7.   Marcellus Shale Drillers in Pennsylvania Amass 1614 Violations Since 2008: 1056 
Identified as Most Likely to Harm the Environment; Pennsylvania Land Trust Association 
(October 2010)  
 
   8.   2010 Permit and Rig Activity Report; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (2010)  
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/rig10.htm  
 
   9.   Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Become Pollution Portals; Roberto Suro, The New York 
Times (May 3, 1992)  
 
 10.   Why Oilwells Leak:  Cement Behavior and Long‐Term Consequences; Maurice B. 
Dusseault, Malcom N. Gray and Pawel Nawrocki (2000), Society of Petroleum Engineers 
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, November 7 – 10, 2000  
 
 11.   Casing Shear: Causes, Cases, Cures; Maurice B. Dusseault, Michael S. Bruno and John 
Barrera (June 2001) Society of Petroleum Engineers: Drilling & Completion  
 
 12.   Definitions for Products or Functions in Natural Gas Development; Schlumberger 
Oilfield Glossary (2010) http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com  
 
17

 13.   Beyond MSDS: A Review of Hazardous Materials Used by New York’s Natural Gas 
Industry; Ronald E. Bishop, Sustainable Otsego (2009) http://www.sustainableotsego.org  
 
References, Continued:  
 
 14.   Cross‐Index of Products and Chemicals Used by New York’s Natural Gas Industry; 
Ronald E. Bishop, Sustainable Otsego (2010) http://www.sustainableotsego.org  
 
 15.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ammonia Solution, Strong; Mallinckrodt Baker (April 
22, 2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a5472.htm  
 
 16.    Material Safety Data Sheet for Methanol; Mallinckrodt Baker (September 8, 2008)  
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.htm  
 
 17.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ethanol, Absolute; Fisher Scientific (March 18, 2003) 
http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/89308.htm  
 
 18.   Material Safety Data Sheet for 2‐Propanol; Mallinckrodt Baker (September 16, 2009) 
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/p6401.htm  
 
 19.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Butyl Alcohol, Normal; Mallinckrodt Baker (September 
15, 2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/b5860.htm  
 
 20.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Mercaptoacetic Acid; Mallinckrodt Baker (August 20, 
2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m1157.htm  
 
 21.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Acetophenone; Mallinckrodt Baker (Februray 22, 
2006) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a0566.htm  
 
 22.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Sodium Perborate; Mallinckrodt Baker (August 20, 
2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s4634.htm  
 
 23.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ammonium Persulfate; Mallinckrodt Baker (January 
11, 2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/a6096.htm  
 
 24.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Hydrochloric Acid, 33 – 40%; Mallinckrodt Baker 
(November 21, 2008) http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/h3880.htm  
 
 25.   Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Glutaraldehyde (CAS NO. 111-30-8) in
F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies;National Toxicology Program (NTP),
(TR-490. September 1999) NIH Publication No. 99-3980.
http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-studies/tr490.html 
 
 26.   Effects of Glutaraldehyde Exposure on Human Health; Tomoko Takigawa and Yoko 
Endo (2006) Journal of Occupational Health 48: 75 – 87  
 
18

 
 
References, Continued:  
 
 27.   Chronic Toxicity of Glutaraldehyde: Differential Sensitivity of Three Freshwater 
Organisms; Larissa L. Sano, Ann M. Krueger and, Peter F. Landrum (2004) Aquatic 
Toxicology 71: 283–296  
 
 28.   R.E.D. Facts: 2,2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA); Unites States 
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic  Substances 
(September 1994)  EPA‐738 F‐94‐023 
 
 29.   EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): 2,2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide 
(DBNPA); Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic  
Substances (September 1994)  EPA‐738 R‐94‐026  
 
 30.   NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 
Dibromoacetonitrile (CAS No. 3252‐43‐5) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water 
Studies); National Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, 
DHHS (February 2008) NTP PR‐544 NIH Publication No. 08‐5886  
 
 31.   Material Safety Data Sheet acc. to OSHA and ANSI: Propargyl Alcohol; Alfa Aesar 
(November 10, 2008)  
 
 32.   Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet: Propargyl Alcohol; New Jersey Department of 
Health and Senior Services (November 2004)  
 
 33.     Propargyl Alcohol; U.S. EPA HPV Challenge Program Revised Submission (July 30, 
2003) Publication 201‐14641A  
 
 34.   Material Safety Data Sheet: Airfoam HD; Aqua‐Clear, Inc. (July 11, 2005)  
 
 35.   Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGBE); U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (April 2008)  
 
 36.   2‐Butoxyethanol: A Review of the Current Toxicity Information; Kathleen Burns, 
Sciencecorps (2010)   
 
 37.   Material Safety Data Sheet: Heavy Naphtha; American AGIP Company, Inc. 
(September 1, 2006)  
 
 38.   Shale Gas: Focus on the Marcellus; Lisa Sumi, Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability 
Project (May 2008)  
 
 39.   Slide courtesy of Devin N. Castendyk, Earth Sciences Department (Hydrology), SUNY 
Oneonta 
19

   
20

References, Continued:  
 
 40.   Baseline Water Quality Testing – Marcellus Shale Development: What Parameters 
Should be Tested?; Brian Oram, GoMarcellusShale.com (August 16, 2010) 
http://gomarcellusshale.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2274639%3ABlogPost%3A38461&c
ommentId=2274639%3AComment%3A54421&xg_source=activity  
 
 41.   Toxicological Profile for Barium and Barium Compounds; Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Public Health Service, US DHHS (August 2007)  
 
 42.   Toxicological Profile for Lead; ATSDR, PHS, DHHS (August 2007)  
 
 43.   Toxicological Profile for Arsenic; ATSDR, PHS, DHHS (August 2007)  
 
 44.   Mobility of Metals from Weathered Black Shale: the Role of Salt Efflorescences; M.L.W. 
Tuttle, M.B. Goldhaber and G. N. Breit (2001) U.S. Geological Survey  
 
 45.   Draft Toxicological Profile for Chromium; ATSDR, PHS, DHHS (September 2008)  
 
 46.   Toxicological Profile for Strontium; ATSDR, PHS, DHHS (July 2001)  
 
 47.   Toxicological Profile for Benzene; ASTDR, PHS, DHHS (August 2007)  
 
 48.   Table 6‐1, Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, 
Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program; New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation, Division of Mineral Resources (September 2009)  
 
 49.   4‐Nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide Induced Experimental Oral Carcinogenesis; D. Kanojia and 
M.M. Vaidya (August 2006), Oral Oncology 42(7): 655 – 667  
 
 50.   Compatibility of Two MEOR Systems with Sulfate‐Reducing Bacteria; Jonell Douglas 
and Rebecca S. Bryant (September 1987), National Institute for Petroleum and Energy 
Research, U.S. Department of Energy  
 
 51.   Biofilm of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans; Pacific Northwest Laboratory’s photostream 
(June 25, 2009)  
 
 52.   Inter‐Relationship Between Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Associated with 
Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion and Other Bacterial Communities in Wells; Cullimore 
and Johnston (2004), Droycon Bioconcepts, Inc.  
 
 53.   Hydrogen Sulfide, Oil and Gas, and People’s Health; Lana Skrtic, Energy and Resources 
Group, University of California, Berkeley (May 2006)  
 
 
 
21

References, Continued:  
 
 54.   Oil and Gas Operators Manual, Chapter 4: Oil and Gas Management Practices; 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management 
(October, 2001)  
 
 55.   Sudha P. Pandalai, Cincinatti Office, NIOSH / CDC; Personal communication (April 
21, 2010).  
 
 56.   Health Survey Results of Current and Former DISH/Clark, Texas Residents; Wilma 
Subra (December 2009), Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project  
 
 57.   Potential Exposure‐Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: a 
Literature Review 2003 – 2007; Roxana Witter, Kaylan Stinson, Holly Sackett, Stefanie 
Putter, Gregory Kinney, Daniel Teitelbaum and Lee Newman (August 1, 2008), Colorado 
School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Denver.  
 
 58.   Final Rule, Practice and Procedure 2 CCR 404‐1, Eff. 09/30/2007;  Colorado 
Department of Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Conservation Comission.  
 
 59.   Order No. R‐12939;  New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission (May 9, 2008) 
 
 60.   Air Quality Concerns at Woodland Management Gas Drilling Site, Damascus, PA; Greg 
Swartz and Tannis Kowalchuk, (September 15, 2010), private communication  
 
 61.   Component of LE SUPERMUL, Appendix E; DEP Permit No. 37‐127‐20017‐00 to 
Newfield Appalachia PA, LLC (May 27,2010)  
 
 62.   Analytical Report, DRBC Well Smp, Wayne County PA; Steve Moyer, Tetra Tech NUS, 
Inc., TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. (August 18, 2010)  
 
 63.   Lithium Levels in Drinking Water and Risk of Suicide; Hirochika Ohgami, Takeshi 
Terao, Ippei Shiotsuki, Nobuyoshi Ishii and Noboru Iwata (2009), British Journal of 
Psychiatry 194: 464 – 465  
Record of Pennsylvania Gas Industry Inspections, Violations and Enforcements 
 
Exhibits for the Delaware River Basin Commission Exploratory Well Hearing 
 
Ronald E. Bishop, Ph.D., CHO 
 
To: 
 
Delaware Riverkeeper Network 
 
And 
 
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability 
 
  Responding to Act 15, signed into law by Governor Rendell in March, 2010 (1), 
Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection developed the DEP Oil and Gas 
Electronic Reporting website (2).  Having obtained the records from that site, I am 
submitting a series of spreadsheets which summarize the Inspections, Violations and 
Enforcements related to natural gas extraction from (a) all target formations and (b) 
Marcellus shale. These oIIicial documents support a stance that gas industry operators in the
Commonwealth have accumulated a poor saIety record Irom 2008 to the present.

I summarize the oIIicial data in the Iollowing table:

Year  Formation  Inspections  Violations  Enforcements 
2008  All  937  1447  662 
  Marcellus  130  179  122 
2009  All  1801  3159  693 
  Marcellus  314  639  190 
2010  All  1193  2193  590 
  Marcellus  496  970  254 
Total  All  3931  6799  1945 
  Marcellus  940  1788  566 
 
These records indicate that total violations and serious violations (enIorcements) correlate
well with the numbers oI inspections, but Marcellus projects tend to generate violations and
enIorcements at rates that increase with the passing oI time. Overall, out oI 19,473 total new gas
well projects reported in this period (3), these data indicate a serious (potentially groundwater-
impacting) violations rate oI 10°. Put another way, approximately one oI every ten new gas
well projects in Pennsylvania has run into serious trouble.


Footnotes:  

   1. DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website – Welcome; 
http://www.marcellusreporting.state.pa.us/OGREReports/Modules/Welcome/Welcome.aspx  
   2.   Oil & Gas Inspections ‐ Violations – Enforcements, Division of Oil and Gas 
Management; 
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/OGInspectionsViolations/OGInspviol.htm
   3.    2010 Permit and Rig Activity Report, Division of Oil and Gas Management; 
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/RIG10.htm  
 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
Dr. Ronald E. Bishop  

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
Consolidated Administrative Hearing on
Grandfathered Exploration Wells


Prepared for:
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
and
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability



Prepared by:
















Peter M, Demicco, RPG
State oI Pennsylvania, PG-003690-E



November 15, 2010

Demicco & Associates, LLC




Ground Water
Resource Expertise

Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 2 oI 14 November, 2010


1. Executive Summary

Demicco & Associates, LLC has been retained by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network
and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability to provide expert review and opinion on the
Delaware River Basin Commission`s (DRBC) decision to exclude 11 Pennsylvania state
permitted wells Irom DRBC review oI exploratory wells under its June 12, 2010 and July
23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations. The decision to exclude the 11 wells has
resulted in the Consolidated Administrative Hearings on actions oI the DRBC relative to
exploration wells being drilled into the Marcellus Shale. SpeciIically the Hearing will
address DRBC decisions to:

 Regulate so-called 'exploratory wells¨ and subject them to DRBC`s temporary
moratorium (challenge brought by Northern Wayne County Property Owners`
Alliance, joined by NewIield and Hess Corporation as interested parties)
 Exclude certain state-permitted wells Irom DRBC review oI exploratory wells,
(challenge brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) and the
Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability (DCS))

The Iindings in this report are based on the material provided by DRN and DCS included
within the reIerences presented at the end oI the report. Should additional materials and
reports be disclosed as part oI the Hearing process the Iindings and conclusions in this
report are subject to revision.

Conclusion 1 - Grandfathering

In our opinion, the 11 wells listed as grandIathered exploration wells do not meet the
DRBC criteria oI exploration well due to the lack oI an appropriate certiIication oI Intent
by Well Operator to Plug the Well. The Marcellus Shale in sections oI Wayne County,
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 3 oI 14 November, 2010
PA may exceed the average thickness oI the shale unit throughout much oI the rest oI the
state and vertical wells can expose a signiIicant volume oI Marcellus shale Ior gas
production. True exploration wells would be sealed and decommissioned immediately
upon completion.

Conclusion 2 - Exploratory Drilling Impacts

Drilling oI exploratory holes can, with lack oI regulatory oversight, cause as much iI not
more harm to the water resources oI the Delaware River Basin than a properly permitted
and installed nontraditional horizontal well. SpeciIic problems with exploratory drilling
are the apparent dominance oI air rotary drilling techniques to increase speed oI drilling
and decrease the cost oI drilling. Air rotary drilling uses generally uses either naturally
occurring ground water or a source oI potable water and compressed air to remove the
rock cuttings Irom the borehole as well as cooling the compression air hammer drill bit.
When extensive Iractures are encountered during air rotary drilling, large volumes oI
ground water approaching 1000 gpm can be blown Irom the borehole. Extensive
Iracturing will also cause problems with borehole stability and resulting problems with
achieving a proper grout seal. Grout seals are the single most important element to
protecting ground water resources Irom contamination as presented within this report.

Conclusion 3 - Water Resource Impacts

Damage to ground water resources can occur through both negative impacts on quantity
and quality. The month long process oI drilling may exceed the 100,000 gallons per day
(gpd), 3.1 million gallon per month (mgm) threshold Ior an allocation permit iI numerous
Iractures are encountered during air rotary drilling. Again, adequate and complete
grouting oI the gas well Irom the principal Iresh water aquiIers is critical to protect the
water resources. Leakage along the grout wall can promote vertical upward movement oI
low quality water iI over pressure Irom deeper zones in the well creates an upward
gradient. Large movement oI gas and deep brine Iluids into shallow zones will have
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 4 oI 14 November, 2010
negative water quality impacts on both water resource wells and streams. However,
vertical downward leakage oI Ireshwater into newly exposed and opened Iracture zones
Irom air rotary drilling can remove Iresh water Irom the shallow aquiIer zones. Loss oI
Iresh water to deeper portions oI the aquiIer would diminish summer base Ilow to
headwater streams. The increased runoII Irom site construction and road construction
will also have a negative impact on the quantity summer base Ilow by decreasing the
amount oI rainIall that would normally reach the ground water.

Conclusion 4 - Exploratory Well and Grouting Efficiency

The drilling oI the stated 'exploratory¨ hole is done predominantly by air rotary methods
based on the examined documents obtained to date. This results in an underbalanced
borehole at depth where Iormation pressure exceeds borehole pressure. When Iormation
pressure exceeds borehole pressure water, petroleum and gas, iI present in the Iormation
enter into the borehole and are brought up to the surIace. The result is even greater strain
on the borehole increasing the importance oI properly grouting the well. Regulatory
changes are currently being proposed in Pennsylvania indicating the inadequacies oI the
current regulatory procedures. Air rotary drilled wells, iI drilled quicklywithout
maintaining directionality, will potentially driIt oII vertical. The rapidly varying rock
types encountered in Pennsylvania will create an uneven borehole with a wide borehole
where soIt shale is easily removed and a narrower borehole when passing through hard
sandstones. Both the verticality (i.e. deviations Irom a purely vertical bore) and uneven
borehole width will have negative impacts on the eIIiciency oI the grout installation. It
should be noted that State oI Pennsylvania requires only a 1 inch grout diameter, whereas
the State oI New Jersey, where gas wells are not being drilled, requires a two inch
diameter grout seal on any borehole annulus (eg. water, oil, geothermal, water, etc.).

The Iour issues described above result in an overall summary conclusion. It is my
opinion, given with a reasonable degree oI scientiIic certainty, that the grandIathering oI
these so-called exploratory wells is not protective oI the Special Protection Waters oI the
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 5 oI 14 November, 2010
Delaware River Basin due to lack oI regulatory review by DRBC, reliance on outdated
and inadequate drilling regulations that are currently undergoing modiIication, and
uncertainty in proper development oI grout seals with the use oI air rotary exploration
drilling into an over-pressurized geologic zone.

Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 6 oI 14 November, 2010
2. Introduction

The primary topic oI this expert report Iocuses on water resource issues, speciIically
possible water usage and water resource contamination which can occur during
exploratory drilling operations. Mr. Peter Demicco is the author oI this report and has
over 28 years in ground water resource development including water well design,
water resource and allocation permitting, ground water recharge wells, and deep
geothermal wells. Part oI his experience includes several years oI appointment to the
New Jersey Well Drillers Licensing Board Ior the New Jersey Department oI
Environmental Protection. Mr. Demicco is also a registered geologist in the State OI
Pennsylvania. His curriculum vita is attached to this report (Exhibit 1).

2.1 Discussion of Drilling Techniques

The Iirst topic oI the presentation will include a discussion oI drilling techniques
including background experience in both mud and air rotary drilling. Volumes oI
water needed vary based on drilling techniques and conditions encountered during
drilling. In addition, air rotary drilling can result in large volumes oI water
production when Iracture zones are encountered along with borehole stability issues.
The quality oI this water will vary with depth oI materials encountered with naturally
occurring contaminants and radionuclides increasing with depth.

2.2 Discussion of Well Grouting

The second topic is the potential long term impacts that can occur iI casing or grout
Iailure occurs Irom unexpected drilling conditions or improper grouting. Grout and
casing Iailure are jointly caused by rock shearing and pressure changes in the
Iormation. These impacts range Irom casing deIormation to breakdown oI the grout
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 7 oI 14 November, 2010
seal, both oIten occur together. The breakdown oI the grout seal potentially leads to
migration oI water Irom one aquiIer zone to another, vertical upward movement oI
naturally occurring non-potable water into potable zones and vertical downward
movement oI aquiIer water into a non-potable zone. The latter condition would
potentially result in diminished aquiIer resources and potentially have a negative
eIIect on stream base Ilow. In addition, migration oI water even within potable
aquiIer zones can have negative consequences. The most common example oI this is
migration oI water with dissolved oxygen into an anoxic zone containing speciIic
minerals, most notably pyrite. With the introduction oI oxygen into such zones,
dissolution oI pyrite will result in water with low pH and high iron and either elevated
sulIate or sulIide concentrations. Arsenic contamination can occur as arsenic is
known to be a secondary element in iron pyrite.

Multiple reports and publications were reviewed Ior this opinion. The documents
most germane to this report are presented as exhibits attached to this report. Several
background documents also reviewed Ior this report include the Iollowings:

 PaDEP`s existing Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations
 PaDEP`s proposed amendments to Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Regulations in the
Pa Bulletin (July 10, 2010)
 DRBC`s May 19, 2009 Executive Director Determination (EDD)
 DRBC`s June 14, 2010 Supplemental Executive Director Determination
(SEDD)
 DRBC`s July 23,2010 Amendment to Supplemental Executive Director
Determination
 DRBC`s Delaware River Basin Code: 18 CFR Part 410

Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 8 oI 14 November, 2010
3.0 Background Geology

A cursory overview oI the geology oI Wayne County is needed in the context oI drilling.
The background overview oI the geology has been obtained Irom 'Ground water in
Northeastern Pennsylvania¨ by S. W. Lohman. (1937; 2
nd
printing, 1957). Exhibit 2
presents an updated review oI the stratigraphy oI northeastern Pennsylvania Irom Frank
Fletcher. Generally, the Upper Devonian rocks oI the Catskill Continental Group are the
dominant bedrock unit below any glacial deposits. The Catskill Group consists oI
various non-marine sandstone, shale and conglomerate units. These rock units were
largely deposited in Iluvial (i.e. riverine) environments. The rocks exhibit the Iining
upward characteristics oI the classic Iluvial sequence. The Iining upward sequence starts
with coarse sandstones and some conglomerates channel deposits at the base with Iiner
grained river overbank siltstone and shale at the top oI the sequence. These cycles repeat
throughout most oI the sequence oI unit.

Wells drilled into the Catskill Group produces abundant water Ior nearly all domestic
needs (Lohman, 1957). This geologic group is the most important water bearing unit
in Wayne County and provides not only domestic and other human needs, but
provides a large part oI the base Ilow to local surIace waters along with Ilows Irom
surIicial glacial deposits. The sandstones Iorm the largest water bearing group oI
sediments. The Catskill Group can range in thickness Irom 1,800 Ieet thick in
Susquehanna County in the north to over 6,000 Ieet in Carbon County (see Lohman,
1957).

Beneath the Catskill Group non-marine units are marginal marine units oI the Portage
Group dominated in this area by the Trimmers Rock Formation. These marine units
contain typically coarsening upward deposits oI oII shore deltaic deposition. SoIt
shale Irom deep water environments Iorms the basal units and, as the delta builds out
into the shallow seas, coarser and cleaner sandstones are deposited near the top oI the
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 9 oI 14 November, 2010
sequence. This Group is not considered an aquiIer in Wayne County due to depth,
probable salt and hydrogen sulIate concentrations. This Group, as with the Catskill
Group will exhibit rapidly varying drilling conditions. The unit is roughly 1,500 Ieet
thick in the eastern part oI northeast Pennsylvania thickening to 3,000 Ieet westward
into Luzerne County (see Lohman, 1957).

The Hamilton Group, which includes the upper Hamilton Formation (see Lohman,
1957 Ior an in depth discussion oI stratigraphy) and lower Marcellus Shale, underlies
the Portage Group. The Hamilton Formation represents shallower marine waters than
the depositional environment oI the Marcellus Shale. In the Hamilton Formation,
beds oI IossiliIerous olive-gray to dark grey sandy shale and sandstone with locally
thin beds oI calcareous shale to coral limestone and coquinite can be Iound (see
Lohman, 1957). This unit is on the order oI 1,100 to 1,600 Ieet thick (see Lohman,
1957). The Marcellus Shale is a gray to black shale with some Iine sand in locations
and contains pyrite indicative oI the anoxic environment that resulted in the Iormation
oI natural gas. The thickness oI the Marcellus Shale is on the order oI 700 to 900 Ieet
in the eastern counties oI northeast Pennsylvania, including Wayne County)
decreasing to 400 Ieet in the western counties oI northeastern Pennsylvania (see
Lohman, 1957).

The Onondaga Formation, a cherty limestone, underlies the Marcellus Shale in the
northeastern portion oI Pennsylvania. This Iormation has been listed as the target
Iormation by some drilling operations presumably to ensure that the Iull thickness oI
the Marcellus Shale has been penetrated.

Each oI the 11 grandIathered wells will have to be drilled through this highly variable
geologic column. The amount oI the Catskill Group penetrated will vary the most
depending on location oI the well.


Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 10 oI 14 November, 2010
4.0 Well Permits

Several well permits and related documents were reviewed including the Docket NO.
D-2009-18-1 on the Stone Energy Corporation Matoushek 1 Well (Exhibit 3). Only
this Docket provided any details on the actual drilling oI an gas well into the
Marcellus Shale. The other exploratory well permits reviewed had some details on
speciIic aspects oI the drilling including the MSDS sheets Ior material to be brought
on-site, the 'Preparedness, Prevention, and Contingency Plan, Wayne County Field,
Wayne County, Pennsylvania¨ report, and site construction details. (see Exhibit 4,
Woodland Mgmt Partners 11: Exhibit, 5 HL Rutledge 11; and Exhibit 6, VE Crum
11). However, the permits were completely silent on the actual drilling methods, well
construction methods and the critically important grouting methods. It is important to
note that the materials and grouting techniques will not vary greatly Irom an
exploratory hole to a production well.

The Stone Energy Corporation, Matoushek 1 well was reported in the Docket (Exhibit
3) to be drilled by air rotary methods to the top oI the Marcellus Shale, and then the
Marcellus Shale was cored using a 3 percent potassium chloride solution. Air rotary
drilling is diIIerent than mud rotary drilling in that air and chemicals are used as the
Iluid to cool the drilling bit, liIt the cuttings Irom the hole, and lubricate the drill
column. Usually Ioaming agents are used with air rotary drilling. The borehole should
be underbalanced in this process, in other words the pressure oI water and gas in the
Iormation should be greater than the pressure created by the air compressor. As a
result, oil, gas and brine ground waters will be pulled up to the ground surIace during
this type oI drilling. Air drilling should be signiIicantly Iaster than mud rotary
through the use oI air hammer drilling bits and with less deterioration and damage to
the drill bit. However, there is a greater risk oI well blowout iI overpressurized (i.e.
greater than atmospheric pressure at the depth oI the overpressure area) zones are
encountered as the borehole is advanced.

Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 11 oI 14 November, 2010
As stated above, the other permits (the grandIathered exploratory well permits) were
silent on drilling method(s), so there is no inIormation available to evaluate the risks
associated with the drilling technique that will be used on these wells. A discussion
oI drilling methods should be mandatory in these permits. -. Typically, mud rotary
drilling would be used to drill through the gas producing Marcellus shale.

Several other signiIicant diIIerences with air rotary drilling versus mud rotary exist.
The compressed air injected during drilling also liIts the water encountered in
borehole and surrounding Iractures to the surIace. Air drilled wells can remove
signiIicant volumes oI water during the drilling process. Exhibit 7 presents a set oI e-
mails discussing the volume oI discharge to the Valley Joint Sewerage Authority.
SigniIicant volumes oI water are reported to have been removed during drilling oI the
Matoushek well.

Where large Iractures are encountered, borehole collapse can occur Iurther enhancing
the water Ilow and slowing drilling. A mud cake is not Iormed on the borehole oI an
air drilled well to diminish water movement into or out oI Iracture zones. As a result
air drilling allows Ior greater movement oI water between Iracture zones during
drilling. On occasion, I have observed drillers oI geothermal wells stop and grout
up sections oI Iailing rock beIore drilling deeper. Conventional wisdom was that very
Iew high water yielding Iractures existed below 500 Ieet. Again, I have seen yields
close to 800 gpm being blown Irom Iractures zones below 1000 Ieet deep. Bottom
line, during the month long drilling process using air rotary, the potential exists to
withdraw more than 100,000 gallons per day on average, or 3.1 million gallons Ior the
month.

It is not unusual Ior air drilled wells to have signiIicant deviation Irom the vertical in
areas oI nearly Ilat lying to slightly dipping bedrock (Dr. Greg Herman, New Jersey
Geological Survey, 2005). Dip is the angle Irom the horizontal oI the bedding plane
oI the rock. Typically, the drill bit may Iollow the near vertical (but not completely
Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 12 oI 14 November, 2010
vertical) Iractures in the rock mass. This is also a concern when rocks oI very
diIIerent characteristics are adjacent to one another as is the case in Wayne County,
PA. Typically, a very ragged borehole will result with zones oI collapsed Iractured
sandstone.

Problems with the verticality and variability oI the borehole will potentially result in
grouting diIIiculties. Questions on the integrity oI the grout seal arise when the casing
to be grouted may lie up against one side oI the borehole. Centralizers may not align
the well properly in a rough borehole. In addition, Pennsylvania requires only 1 inch
diameter oI grout whereas New Jersey requires 2 inches oI grout. Since details on
well drilling and construction are absent in the permit papers, how is the issue oI the
casing grout going to be reviewed and documented during drilling? The PaDEP
regulations do not appear to require disclosure oI drilling method on the permit
application. However, DRBC has not required this inIormation on any oI the 11
exploratory well sites to know potential drilling risks at the 11 sites and have a better
inventory oI chemicals stored at these sites to conduct mud rotary drilling beIore
allowing these 11 'grandIathered¨ wells to proceed. In my opinion, these data are
necessary to evaluate potential impacts to the water resources oI the basin.

Grouting at the depth oI the production casing occurs with only 1/ inch oI grout on
either side oI the casing. This assumes that the casing is centered, the hole is truly
vertical and the drill bit drilling the 8-inch borehole had not been worn down
signiIicantly. The potentially rapidly varying casing pressures that occur iI test
Iracking or test gas production occurs may shear the grout and even the casing
(Dusseault, et al, 2001). II grout Iailure occurs at this interval, high pressure gas and
Iluids could reach up to the surIace and conductor casings via the ungrouted portion oI
the borehole. At the shallower depths, the higher pressures could damage the surIace
and conductor casings allowing Iurther upward migration oI gas and Iluids into the
aquiIer zones above.

Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 13 oI 14 November, 2010
The signiIicant issue with these wells is the pressures placed on the grout seals and
casings. Experience even in the water industry has led to Iield observations oI grout
mixtures that have excess water to improve pumping characteristics. The result is a
grout subject to shrinkage, a situation that could prove disastrous in high and
overpressured environments such as the Marcellus shale in the Delaware River Basin.
Skimping on the grout seal may be an inevitable problem that has been the cause oI
well blowouts. Again, the result is vertical upward migration oI gas and Iluids into
the area oI the surIace and conductor casings and eventually into the aquiIers above.

The PaDEP regulations do not appear to require disclosure oI drilling method on the
permit application. However, DRBC has not required this inIormation on any oI the
11 exploratory well sites to know potential drilling risks at the 11 sites and have a
better inventory oI chemicals stored at these sites to conduct mud rotary drilling
beIore allowing these 11 'grandIathered¨ wells to proceed. In my opinion, these data
are necessary to evaluate potential impacts to the water resources oI the basin.

In summary, in my opinion, water use and resource losses can be an issue with
exploratory wells. Drilling and grouting plans Ior any well must be Iully developed prior
to any drilling activities and, because these 11 exploratory wells are going unregulated by
the DRBC, there is no review oI these plans and procedures and no basis Ior any
conclusion by the executive director oI DRBC that the drilling oI these exploratory wells
will not have a substantial eIIect on the water resources in the Special Protection Waters
oI the Delaware River Basin.

The opinions expressed in this report are stated to a reasonable degree oI scientiIic and
proIessional certainty.


Demicco and Associates, LLC
DRBC Consolidated Administrative Hearings 14 oI 14 November, 2010
5. References


Dusseault, M. B., Gray, M. N., and Nawrocki, P. A., 2000, Why oil wells leak: Cement
behavior and long-term consequences: SPE International Oil and Gas ConIerence and
Exhibition; Bejing, China, November, 2000.

Dusseault, M. B., Bruno, M. S., and Barrera, John., 2001, Casing shear; casues, cases,
cures: SPE Drilling and Completion, March, 2001, pages 98 107.

Herman, G. C., 2005, Joints and veins in the Newark basin, New Jersey, in regional
tectonic perspective: in Gates, A. E., editor, Newark Basin View Irom the 21st Century,
22nd Annual Meeting oI the Geological Association oI New Jersey, College oI New
Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, p. 75-116.

Lohman, S. W., 1957, Ground water in northeastern Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
Topographic and Geologic Survey Bulletin W 4, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 2
nd
printing,
312 pages.




!
!
!
!


Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
Consolidated Administrative Hearing on
Grandfathered Exploration Wells
!
!
!
Report to:
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
and
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Inc.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Prepared by:
arvey onsulting, LLC.Oil & Gas,
Environmental, Regulatory Compliance, and Training

!


Susan L. Harvey
Susan L. Harvey, Owner


November 15, 2010
Harvey Consulting, LLC 2

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 2 oI 44





Contents

A.! Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3
B.! Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6
C.! DRBC`s Contested Decisions and Chronology ............................................................................... 6!
D.! Questions Responded to in this Report ............................................................................................ 9
D.1 ! Do the GrandIathered Wells Meet the DeIinition oI Exploration Well? .......................... 10!
D.2! Do Exploration Wells Pose a Lower Risk Than Production Wells? ................................. 14!
D.3 ! Did DRBC`s decision to grandIather 11 wells create the potential Ior increased
risk to water quality and water resources oI the Delaware River Basin? .......................... 16!
D.4! Are There SuIIicient Plans and Protections Included in PADEP`s Approval to
Mitigate and Respond to the Risks Associated with an Exploration Well? ...................... 19!
D.5 ! Was DRBC`s assumption that the risk associated with the grandIathered wells is
small because PADEP has suIIicient human health, environmental and saIety
protections in place Ior exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania well-
Iounded? ............................................................................................................................ 26
D.5.1 ! PADEP`s Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations are known to be
deIicient ............................................................................................................ 26!
D.5.2.! GrandIathered wells are not required to be constructed to industry best
practices Ior shale gas wells in Pennsylvania ................................................... 29!
D.5.3! PADEP did not apply 'Special Permit Conditions,¨ requiring a Water
Management Plan, to most oI the grandIathered wells ..................................... 30!
D.5.4.! Fracture treatment operations are planned Ior the B&E well. .......................... 31!
D.5.5.! Drilling waste can result in environmental harm iI not properly managed ....... 31!
D.5.6.! Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water
supplies ............................................................................................................. 36!
D.5.7.! PADEP`s well siting criteria allow wells to be placed very close to water
resources ........................................................................................................... 41!
D.5.8! Air pollution impacts are not well understood or mitigated. ............................ 41!
Harvey Consulting, LLC 3

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 3 oI 44


A. Executive Summary

This report responds to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network`s (DRN) and Damascus Citizens Ior
Sustainability`s (DCS) request to provide expert review and opinion on the Delaware River Basin
Commission`s (DRBC) decision to exclude 11 Pennsylvania state permitted wells in Wayne County Irom
DRBC review oI exploration wells under its June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental
Determinations. The Iindings contained in this report are based on the material provided by DRN and
DCS, as shown in the attached exhibits. The opinions stated here are stated to a reasonable degree oI
scientiIic and proIessional certainty.

This report provides my opinion in response to Iive (5) questions. Each question is responded to more
Iully in Sections D1 through D5 oI this report. An executive summary oI each response is provided
below:

(1) Do the wells listed by DRBC as grandfathered wells meet DRBC’s definition of an exploration
well eligible for grandfathered status?

It is my opinion that the 11 wells listed by DRBC as grandIathered wells, covered under its June 14, 2010
and July 23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations, do not meet DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration well
eligible Ior grandIathered status. DRBC deIined a grandIathered exploration well as a well intended
solely Ior exploratory purposes and one that is plugged and capped at the conclusion oI exploratory
activities, without Iuture use Ior production. No inIormation was provided Ior my review to show that the
grandIathered wells were drilled exclusively Ior exploratory purposes and will be permanently plugged
and abandoned aIter the wells are drilled. None oI the grandIathered well permits speciIy the completion
method or the Iinal disposition oI the wells, nor were the 30 day well completion reports available. None
oI the grandIathered wells appear to have submitted a Notice oI Intent by Well Operator to Plug a Well,
and/or a CertiIicate oI Well Plugging. Instead, several oI the grandIathered well documents conIirm
alternative plans Ior these wells, including gas production. Approval oI an exploration well destined Ior
production is in essence production well approval.

Well density and drilling pace are strong indicators oI well type. True exploration wells are drilled on
large spacing intervals to test hydrocarbon trap theories. The pace is slower than production well drilling,
so data Irom preceding exploration wells can be used to avoid the economic risk oI drilling several dry-
holes in rapid succession. The density and pace oI some oI the grandIathered wells, especially NewIield`s
wells, are inconsistent with exploration well classiIication.

Most companies have exploration departments that are separate and distinct Irom production drilling
departments. Exploration departments typically have higher levels oI data security, dedicated exploratory
budgets, and staII that specialize in Iinding new hydrocarbon sources. Very small companies may
combine exploration and production drilling staII, however, Iunding documents Ior each well will clearly
delineate the nature oI the well and whether it was Iunded and located as a true exploration well and
whether the well was planned to be a test well only, destined Ior plugging and abandonment.

(2) Do exploration wells pose lower risk than production wells?

It is my opinion that exploration wells are riskier than production wells, because drilling hazards are
unknown. The risk oI a well blowout or well control situation occurring is higher due to the increased
diIIiculty in designing and constructing a well based on unknown data. DRBC`s decision to Iorego
Harvey Consulting, LLC 4

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 4 oI 44

regulation oI the grandIathered wells, because they are 'exploration wells¨ and thereby 'lower risk,¨ is
inconsistent with the known higher risk proIile Ior an exploration well. The risk oI an exploration well
blowout is approximately 7 wells in every 1000 drilled.

True exploration wells, by deIinition, explore into previously unknown and unmapped hydrocarbon
Iormations; thereIore, an exploration well drilling Operator must be prepared to encounter both oil and
gas. The grandIathered wells should have been equipped to deal with either a gas and/or oil well blowout.
While an exploration well Operator may target gas, as is the stated intent in these grandIathered wells, it
cannot rule out the potential to encounter oil enroute to the gas target, or instead oI hitting a gas target. In
a true exploration well, the type oI hydrocarbons, depth oI burial and whether they are present in
commercial quantities are all unknown.

There was no material provided Ior my review to show that the risk oI drilling an exploration well in the
Delaware River Basin is less than that oI a production well, nor that the possibility oI oil being
encountered during exploration drilling can be completely ruled out.


(3) Did DRBC’s decision to grandfather 11 wells create the potential for increased risk to water
quality and water resources of the Delaware River Basin?

It is my opinion that DRBC`s decision to Iorego regulation oI the grandIathered wells resulted in
increased risk to water quality and water resources oI the Delaware River Basin. This increased risk was
created by:
! not stipulating additional site-speciIic mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts
above the minimum statewide standards required by PADEP to protect the waters oI the
Delaware River Basin;
! allowing wells to be drilled and sited in environmentally sensitive areas within the Delaware
River Basin without adequate DRBC siting review;
! not requiring appropriate setbacks Irom sensitive locations; and
! creating a situation whereby an exploration well must be drilled and plugged (even iI successIul),
such that drilling impacts are duplicated when a production well is re-drilled at the same or
another location at a later date.
The DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration well is inconsistent with industry practice. It is industry practice
to convert successIul exploration wells into production wells, iI commercial quantities oI hydrocarbons
are Iound. DRBC`s decision to Iorego review oI the grandIathered wells iI they are drilled solely to
collect data, and then immediately plugged and abandoned, could result in two wells being drilled in the
same area (Iirst the exploration well and then later a production well). Drilling a well twice results in
economic waste and increased impacts to air, land and water in the Delaware River Basin. Instead, the
DRBC should have reviewed each exploration well to ensure it was properly sited and environmental
impacts were mitigated. In this way, iI Operators make a commercial Iind, DRBC would have already
ensured the well was positioned at a low impact surIace location and was drilled using the lowest impact
methods. It is important to properly site and assess the impacts oI any proposed exploration well in as
much detail as is necessary Ior a production well, because a successIul exploration well is in essence the
Iirst production well in the Iield.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 5

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 5 oI 44

DRBC should careIully examine the grandIathered wells that have been drilled to determine iI they were
properly sited and completed using technically sound well construction practices. Wells that were not
properly sited or constructed should be plugged and abandoned.

DRBC grandIathered 11 wells based on economic and risk considerations, with no publicly available
economic or risk assessments to support this decision. This decision appears to conIlict with DRBC`s
mission to protect water resources in the Delaware River Basin. There is no evidence that the permit
applications Ior each oI the grandIathered wells conIirm that they are in Iact shale gas 'exploration¨ wells
or that the risk oI these wells to the Delaware River Basin is low.

(4) Are there sufficient plans and protections included in PADEP’s approval to mitigate and
respond to the risks associated with exploration wells?

It is my opinion that the Pennsylvania Department oI Environmental Protection (PADEP) permit
materials and Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plans (PPC) provided Ior my review do not
include suIIicient plans and protections to mitigate and respond to the risks associated with exploration
wells.

There are a number oI risks posed by exploration wells, including air, water and land pollution, resulting
Irom Iuel and chemical spills, stray gas, well blowouts, water use, waste disposal, and other aspects oI
drilling operations. The most signiIicant and potentially catastrophic risk oI those listed is an uncontrolled
blowout. An uncontrolled blowout must be considered when planning an exploration well. There is
insuIIicient evidence to show that the grandIathered exploration wells are equipped to deal with either a
gas and/or oil well blowout. Well permit applications Iiled with PADEP Ior the grandIathered wells do
not include any explanation or evidence oI blowout prevention or control capability.

While blowouts are very inIrequent, they do occur, and are a reasonably Ioreseeable consequence oI
exploratory drilling operations. Blowouts can last Ior days, weeks, or months until well control is Iinally
achieved. The most common method, and best technology, to control an on-land blowout is well capping,
requiring large volumes oI water to deluge the rig, allowing well control experts to work near a blowout.
Water requirements can range Irom 500,000 to 6,000,000 gallons oI water per day. Well control experts
also use Ioam and dry chemicals to respond to blowouts. Deluge operations create large pools oI water on
the surIace that drain away Irom the well blowout. This can transport oil, chemicals, Iuels, and any other
materials released during a blowout toward lower elevation drainage areas.

NewIield`s PPC Ior the proposed NewIield grandIathered wells does not meet PADEP`s requirements;
the adequacy oI the other grandIathered wells` PPCs is not known, because they were not provided Ior
review. Exploration well operations require Iuel to operate drilling and completion equipment, and the
process oI drilling a well requires numerous chemicals. NewIield`s PPC lists the potential Ior both Iuel
and chemical storage tanks to leak and contaminate the nearby environment, water supplies or water
resources. However, NewIield`s PPC lists insuIIicient onsite resources to respond to the potential Iuel and
chemical spills it lists.

The PPC Plans provided Ior my review did not adequately identiIy the environmentally sensitive areas
within the Delaware River Basin that should be protected during exploration drilling, and did not include
adequate tactics and strategies to protect those areas.

Pennsylvania only requires a bond oI $2,500 per well, or a blanket bond oI $25,000 Ior all wells drilled in
Pennsylvania by a single Operator. Neither amount would provide suIIicient Iunds to control, clean up,
Harvey Consulting, LLC 6

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 6 oI 44

and/or remediate the damage caused by a well blowout, chemical spill or large Iuel spill Irom an
exploration well operation.

(5) Was DRBC’s assumption the risk of the grandfathered wells was small because PADEP has
sufficient human health, environmental and safety protections in place for exploration
drilling projects in Pennsylvania well-founded?

It is my opinion that DRBC`s assumption that the risks associated with the grandIathered wells is small
because PADEP has suIIicient human health, environmental and saIety protections in place Ior
exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania is not well Iounded Ior the Iollowing reasons:
! PADEP`s existing Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations are known to be deIicient;
! GrandIathered wells are not required to be constructed to industry best practices Ior shale gas
wells in Pennsylvania;
! PADEP did not apply 'Special Permit Conditions,¨ requiring a Water Management Plan, to most
oI the grandIathered wells;
! Fracture treatment operations are planned Ior the B&E well;
! Drilling waste can result in environmental harm iI not properly managed, and some waste has
already been buried on-site and not transported out oI the Basin;
! Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water supplies, iI wells are not
properly constructed and operated;
! PADEP`s well siting criteria allows wells to be placed very close to water resources; and

! Air pollution impacts, and corresponding impacts to water resources, are not well understood or
mitigated.


B. Introduction

This report responds to the Delaware Riverkeeper Network`s (DRN) and Damascus Citizens Ior
Sustainability`s (DCS) request to provide expert review and opinion on the Delaware River Basin
Commission`s (DRBC`s) decision to exclude 11 Pennsylvania state permitted wells in Wayne County
Irom DRBC review oI exploration wells under its June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental
Determinations. The opinions stated here are stated to a reasonable degree oI scientiIic and proIessional
certainty.


C. DRBC’s Contested Decisions and Chronology

On May 19, 2009, the DRBC issued a 'Determination oI the Executive Director Concerning Natural Gas
Extraction Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area oI Special Protection Waters¨
(Exhibit 1), directing natural gas extraction projects located in shale Iormations within the drainage area
oI Special Protection Waters to obtain DRBC approval Ior:

Harvey Consulting, LLC 7

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 7 oI 44

'.the drilling pad upon which a well intended for eventual production is located, all
appurtenant facilities and activities related thereto and all locations of water withdrawals used
or to be used to supply water to the project.¨

The May 19, 2009 determination exempted 'wells intended solely Ior exploratory purposes.¨

On May 5, 2010, the DRBC issued a decision to Iinalize natural gas regulations beIore considering
project approvals (Exhibit 2).

On June 14, 2010, the DRBC issued a 'Supplemental Determination oI the Executive Director
Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area oI Special
Protection Waters¨ (Exhibit 3), directing all natural gas extraction projects located in shale Iormations
within the drainage area oI Special Protection Waters to obtain DRBC approval. This determination
withdrew the May 19, 2009 decision to exclude exploration wells. The DRBC wanted to remove:

'.any regulatory incentive for project sponsors to classify their wells as exploratory wells and
install them without Commission review before the Commission’s natural gas regulations are in
place.¨

However, the DRBC decided that:

'.where entities have invested in exploration well projects in reliance on [the] May 2009
Determination and information from staff, there are countervailing considerations that favor
allowing these projects to move ahead.¨

The DRBC determined that:

“[i]n contrast to the thousands of wells projected to be installed in the Basin over the next
several years, the risk to Basin waters posed by only the wells approved by PADEP since May
are comparatively small. Not only are these wells subject to state regulation as to their
construction and operation, but they continue to require Commission approval before they can be
fractured or otherwise modified for natural gas production.¨

In other words, the DRBC determined that any exploration well that obtained a state natural gas well
permit on or beIore June 14, 2010 was grandIathered, meaning DRBC review and approval was not
required.

According to the DRBC`s June 14, 2010 decision, there were no permits issued by the New York State
Department oI Environmental Conservation as oI June 14, 2010, but there were a 'limited¨ number oI
permits issued by the Pennsylvania Department oI Environmental Protection (PADEP). The number and
name oI the PADEP permits issued were not listed in the DRBC decision. Later a spreadsheet was
provided by DRBC listing the wells that DRBC thought qualiIied Ior 'grandIather¨ status. According to
the DRBC spreadsheet, 13 wells were approved by PADEP prior to June 14, 2010 (Exhibit 4 and 4A).

The notes that accompany DRBC`s spreadsheet (Exhibit 4) state that three (3) wells oI these 13 wells are
not pertinent to the issue oI grandIathered wells, because two wells were already drilled (Matoushek #1
OG Well, Stone Energy Corp and Robson 627528 #1 OG Well, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC) and the DL
Teeple #1-2H OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC was designed as a horizontal well and does not
meet the exploration well criteria. This leIt 10 wells subject to the June 14, 2010 grandIather provision.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 8

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 8 oI 44

1. HL Rutledge #1-1 OG well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, April 29, 2010, ('Rutledge¨);
2. VE Crum #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, April 30, 2010, ('Crum¨);
3. EM SchweighoIer #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, May 7, 2010,
('Schweighofer¨);
4. Woodland Mgmt Partners #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, May 27, 2010,
('Woodland¨);
5. DL Teeple #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, April 23, 2010, ('Teeple¨);
6. Stockport Assn 1; Pennswood Oil & Gas LLC, July 22, 2009, ('Stockport¨);
7. Preston 38 LLC OG Well; Pennswood Oil & Gas LLC, July 22, 2009,('Preston¨);
8. Geuther #1 OG Well, Stone Energy Corp, April 28, 2008, ('Geuther¨);
9. Cabot #2 OG Well, Arbor Operating, LLC, April 13, 2010, ('Cabot¨); and,
10. B&E Well #1 OG Well; Schrader Kevin E, March 5, 2009, ('B&E¨).
On July 23, 2010, the DRBC issued an 'Amendment to Supplemental Determination oI the Executive
Director Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area oI
Special Protection Waters¨ (Exhibit 5), allowing two additional Hess Corporation wells to be drilled that
had not yet received PADEP permits, but had obtained Pennsylvania Erosion and Sediment Control
General Permits (ESCGP-1). Hess argued that because these wells were in the Iinal PADEP permit
approval process, the wells represented a level oI investment equivalent to the natural gas exploratory
wells that were grandIathered by the DRBC June 14, 2010 decision. DRBC based its decision on
economics and the need to obtain scientiIic data Irom the two exploration wells to plan Iuture wells in the
Delaware River Basin. DRBC noted in its decision that none oI the other grandIathered wells had
obtained Pennsylvania Erosion and Sediment Control General Permits, because the well pads Iell below
the Iive-acre threshold. ThereIore, a total oI 12 wells were grandIathered by DRBC, including:
11. Davidson 1V Well; Hess Corporation, July 13, 2010, ('Davidson¨); and
12. Hammond 1V Well; Hess Corporation, July 20, 2010, ('Hammond¨).
On October 14, 2010, Arbor Operating, LLC withdrew its Cabot well permit (Exhibit 6), leaving 11
grandIathered wells that remain at issue in the Hearing.

According to DRBC`s records, as oI mid-October 2010, three (3) oI the 11 grandIathered wells have been
drilled:
1. Crum well (Exhibit 7 and 7A)
1
;
2. Woodland well (Exhibit 8 and 8A)
2
;
3. Teeple well (Exhibit 9 and 9A)
3
;

1
VE Crum# 1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, permit documents, produced by Damascus Township pursuant to a
subpoena issued in a Iederal court proceeding by the Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, et al v. NewIield Appalachia, LLC &
Damascus Township, USDC, M.Pa., Civil Action No. 10-CV-1604 on August 9, 2010.
2
Woodland Mgmt Partners #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, permit documents, produced by Damascus Township
pursuant to a subpoena issued in a Iederal court proceeding by the Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, et al v. NewIield
Appalachia, LLC & Damascus Township, USDC, M.Pa., Civil Action No. 10-CV-1604 on August 9, 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 9

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 9 oI 44

As oI mid-October, DRBC reports that eight (8) oI the 11 grandIathered wells have not been drilled, but
work has commenced on some wells, as noted below:
4. Rutledge well (Exhibit 10 and 10A)
4
pad construction completed;
5. SchweighoIer well (Exhibit 11 and 11A)
5
;
6. Stockport well (Exhibit 12)
6
;
7. Preston well (Exhibit 13)
7
;
8. Geuther well (Exhibit 14)
8
;
9. B&E well (Exhibit 15)
9
;
10. Davidson well (Exhibit 16)
10
site preparation underway; and
11. Hammond well (Exhibit 17)
11
site preparation underway.
The Matoushek and Robson wells were drilled prior to the grandIathering decision. DRBC`s inIormation
on these wells shows that the Matoushek well was 'TAed¨ (presumably the code Ior temporary
abandonment) and the Robson well was 'PAed¨ (plugged and abandoned). Materials were provided Ior
review on both the:
! Matoushek #1 OG Well, Stone Energy Corp, March 14, 2008, (Exhibit 18 and 18A)
12

('Matoushek¨); and,
! Robson #1 OG Well, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, February 26, 2009, (Exhibit 19), ('Robson¨).
DRN explained that the DL Teeple #1-2H OG well application was determined to be a production well,
and is pending DRBC production well review; thereIore, it is not a grandIathered exploration well.
! DL Teeple #1-2H OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, May 25, 2010, (Exhibit 20)
13
,
('Teeple 2H¨).


D. Questions Responded to in this Report

This report provides my expert opinion on Iive (5) questions:


3
Woodland Mgmt Partners #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 23,
2010.
4
HL Rutledge #1-1 OG well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, permit documents, produced by Damascus Township pursuant to a
subpoena issued in a Iederal court proceeding by the Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, et al v. NewIield Appalachia, LLC &
Damascus Township, USDC, M.Pa., Civil Action No. 10-CV-1604 on August 9, 2010.
5
EM SchweighoIer #1-1 OG Well, NewIield Appalachia PA LLC, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 23, 2010.
6
PADEP eFacts InIormation on Stockport Assn#1 well, retrieved October 23, 2010.
7
PADEP eFacts InIormation on Preston 38 LLC OG Well, retrieved October 23, 2010.
8
Geuther # 1 OG Well, Stone Energy Corp, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 20, 2010, only including two pages
oI the PADEP well permit application.
9
B&E Wells #1 OG Well; Schrader Kevin E, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 20, 2010.
10
Map oI Davidson 1V Well Site.
11
Exhibit 17 is a map oI the well location only. As oI October 23, 2010 DRN conIirmed that only E&S permits had been
obtained Ior this well.
12
Matoushek #1 OG Well, Stone Energy Corp, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 20, 2010.
13
Robson 627528 1 OG Well, Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, permit documents, provided by DRN on October 23, 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 10

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 10 oI 44

D.1 Do the wells listed by DRBC as grandIathered wells meet DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration
well eligible Ior grandIathered status?

D.2 Do exploration wells pose lower risk than production wells?

D.3 Did DRBC`s decision to grandIather 11 wells create the potential Ior increased risk to water
quality and water resources oI the Delaware River Basin?

D.4 Are there suIIicient plans and protections included in PADEP`s approval to mitigate and respond
to the risk associated with exploration wells?

D.5 Was DRBC`s assumption that the risk associated with the grandIathered wells is small because
PADEP has suIIicient human health, environmental and saIety protections in place Ior
exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania well Iounded?


D.1 Do the Grandfathered Wells Meet the Definition of Exploration Well?

The DRBC does not deIine the term 'exploration well¨ in its regulations,
14
but uses the term 'exploratory
well¨ in its decisions to make a distinction between 'exploration¨ and wells used Ior 'production.¨ DRBC
clariIied its deIinition oI an exploration well in a May 19, 2009 news release that stated:

“Wells intended solely for exploratory purposes are not covered by this determination. An
exploratory well is one that the project sponsor intends to plug and cap at the conclusion of
exploratory activities without use for production or fracking [emphasis added].”
15


Later in August 2009, the DRBC wrote Arbor Operating, LLC regarding its Cabot #2 well Iurther
aIIirming that its exploration well deIinition included the requirement to be drilling the well 'solely¨ Ior
exploration purposes and the requirement Ior a 'cap and plug plan.¨

“As Arbor has stated that they propose to develop the well if a viable quantity of natural gas is
discovered, the well is not therefore being drilled solely for exploratory purposes and is again
covered under the Executive Director’s Determination. The well may not be covered under the
determination if a cap and plug plan is submitted to the Commission and it is affirmed that the
well will be properly abandoned upon completion and collection of necessary exploratory data
[emphasis added].”
16


The Pennsylvania Code does not make a distinction between exploration and production wells. The
Pennsylvania Code requires an Operator to obtain a permit Ior a well, but does not make a distinction
between an exploration well and a production well Ior purposes oI that application.
17
The Pennsylvania
Code does deIine a Marcellus Shale Well as:

“A well that when drilled or altered produces gas or is anticipated to produce gas from the
Marcellus Shale geologic formation.¨
18


14
For example, DRBC, Ground Water Protected Area Regulations Ior Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1999.
15
DRBC May 19, 2009 Press Release, 'DRBC Eliminates Review Thresholds Ior Gas Extraction Projects in Shale Formations in
Delaware`s Basin`s Special Protection Waters, (Exhibit 26).
16
DRBC letter to Arbor Operating LLC, August 4, 2009, (Exhibit 25).
17
25 Pa.Code 78.11 Permit Requirements
18
25 Pa.Code 78.1 DeIinitions
Harvey Consulting, LLC 11

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 11 oI 44


The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act deIines an 'operating well¨ as any well not plugged and abandoned.
Because there do not appear to be any plug and abandonment plans (P&A) Ior the grandIathered wells,
these wells are 'operating wells¨ under the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) governs oil and gas reserve reporting in the US. The
SEC deIines an exploratory well as:

'An exploratory well is a well drilled to find a new field or to find a new reservoir in a field
previously found to be productive of oil or gas in another reservoir. Generally, an exploratory
well is any well that is not a development well, an extension well, a service well, or a
stratigraphic test well as those items are defined in this section [emphasis added].”
19


The SEC deIines stratigraphic test wells as those wells that collect geologic data such as coring and
expendable exploration holes, but this deIinition does not customarily include wells being drilled Ior
hydrocarbon production:

“Stratigraphic test well is a drilling effort, geologically directed, to obtain information pertaining
to a specific geologic condition. Such wells customarily are drilled without the intent of being
completed for hydrocarbon production. The classification also includes tests identified as core
tests and all types of expendable holes related to hydrocarbon exploration. Stratigraphic tests
are classified as ‘‘exploratory type’’ if not drilled in a known area or ‘‘development type’’ if
drilled in a known area.
20


The SEC also requires Operators to disclose the number oI net productive and dry exploration wells
drilled.
21
ThereIore the Operator must identiIy the type oI well that is being drilled as exploration or
production Ior Iederal reporting purposes.

ThereIore, both the DRBC deIinition and SEC deIinition oI exploration well make it very clear that an
exploration well is not a production well. The DRBC takes its exploratory well deIinition one step Iurther
by clearly articulating that an exploration well drilled in the Delaware River Basin, under grandIathered
status, must be plugged and capped.

II DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration well is applied to each oI the 11 wells listed by DRBC as
grandIathered, none oI these wells would qualiIy as true 'exploration wells¨ because none appear to be
drilled 'solely Ior exploration¨ and none appear to have a plug and cap plan.

For the three (3) wells already drilled (Crum, Woodland, and Teeple #1), there were no Well Records or
Completion Reports
22
provided Ior my review to show the Iinal well disposition, no Application Ior
Inactive Well Status,
23
no Notice oI Intent by Well Operator to Plug a Well,
24
and no CertiIicate oI Well
Plugging.
25
II those records exist they should be obtained and provided Ior review.


19
17 CFR Parts 210.4-10(a)(13); (Exhibit 24)
20
17 CFR Parts 210.4-10(a)(30); (Exhibit 24)
21
17 CFR Part 229.1205; (Exhibit 25)
22
PADEP Form 5500-FM-0G0001
23
PADEP Form 5500-FM-0G0056.
24
PADEP Form 5500-FM-OG0005 or 5500-FM-OG0005A
25
PADEP Form 5500-FM-0G0006.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 12

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 12 oI 44

For the remaining eight (8) wells that have not yet been drilled (Rutledge, SchweighoIer, Stockport,
Preston, Geuther, B&E, Davidson, and Hammond), there is no Notice oI Intent by Well Operator to Plug
a Well.
26
II these records exist they should be disclosed.

Absent documentation showing intent to plug the well, the well applications and supporting materials
provided Ior my review were examined Ior Operator intent.

NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC is the Operator Ior a majority oI the grandIathered wells. NewIield`s
permit application materials propose to explore Ior natural gas in the Marcellus Shale in Wayne County.
Yet, the application also includes well production activities under the umbrella oI exploration operations.
NewIield`s Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan states:

“Newfield Appalachia PA, LLC (Newfield) is a natural gas exploration company with operations
planned for Wayne County, Pennsylvania. Operations will involve natural gas exploration of the
Marcellus Shale formation, which will include site preparation, drilling and well development
and production activities [emphasis added].”
27


Exploration and Production (E&P) operations are two separate and distinct activities. Production
operations do not Iall under exploration. The manner in which NewIield has blurred the line between
exploration and production operations supports a reasonable assumption that their intent is to convert
successIul exploration wells into production wells. Unless NewIield submitted Notices oI Intent to plug
the grandIathered wells, NewIield`s wells do not meet DRBC`s deIinition oI exploration wells.

April 1, 2010 letters Irom NewIield to PADEP explained the purpose oI two wells, Teeple #1
28
and
SchweighoIer.
29
The same language was used in both letters:

“This permit [D.L. Teeple Well #1-1] is to develop a well which is intended solely for
exploration purposes. A core is to be taken from several formations throughout the drilling
process of this well and additional scientific study is to be performed on multiple formations
including, but not limited to, geophysical logs, micro-seismic studies and fluid sampling. As
permitted and configured, this well is not to be complete for production, not to be hydraulically
fractured and is not to produce gas. In the future, this wellbore will either be plugged and
abandoned per PADEP regulations, converted to inactive status and utilized as a monitoring
well, or reconfigured and converted to a production well. Prior to either plugging and
abandonment, conversion to inactive status or reconfiguration and conversion to production, we
acknowledge that additional permitting will be necessary with approvals from the PADEP and
other regulatory bodies with jurisdiction [emphasis added].”

Both oI NewIield`s letters start oII by stating that the Teeple #1 and SchweighoIer wells are intended only
Ior exploration purposes, yet leave the Iuture utilization oI the wells open, with a possibility to convert
each well to a production well. ThereIore, approval oI these wells is de Iacto approval oI production wells
in the same location, because NewIield has not met DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration well.


26
PADEP Form 5500-FM-OG0005 or 5500-FM-OG0005A
27
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan, May 2010, submitted with all its
grandIathered wells.
28
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, letter to PADEP, April 1, 2010 regarding D.L. Teeple Well #1-1, in Exhibit 9.
29
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, letter to PADEP, April 1, 2010 regarding EM SchweighoIer Well #1-1, in Exhibit 11.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 13

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 13 oI 44

Based on the data provided Ior my review, it is unclear how DRBC decided to include the 11 wells in its
spreadsheet as grandIathered exploration wells (Exhibit 4), especially when these wells do not meet
DRBC`s own deIinition Ior an exploration well.

It is also unclear why DRBC included the Stockport and Preston wells in the list oI grandIathered wells,
because the renewal applications Ior the Stockport and Preston wells were not submitted until aIter June
14, 2010, and the renewal permits were not approved until July 20, 2010.
30
In other words, the currently
approved permits were approved by PADEP aIter the June 14, 2010 DRBC cut-oII date Ior grandIathered
wells.

The main diIIerence between an exploration well and a production well is that exploratory drilling, by
deIinition, seeks to locate unknown subsurIace hydrocarbons to determine iI they exist and can be
produced in commercial quantities. Most companies have exploration departments that are separate and
distinct Irom production drilling departments. Exploration departments typically have higher levels oI
data security, designated exploratory budgets, and dedicated staII that specialize in Iinding new
hydrocarbon sources. Very small companies may combine exploration and production drilling staII,
however, Iunding documents Ior each well will clearly delineate the nature oI the well and whether it was
Iunded and located as a true exploration well. Additionally, as explained above, the Operator also has to
designate the exploration well type and track Iindings in its SEC reporting. The organizational structure oI
each company, Iunding documents Ior each well, and any SEC reporting data that has been developed
were not available Ior review.

Exploration wells are typically drilled on low density spacing to cover large areas, especially when drilled
by a single Operator. True exploration wells test geologic hydrocarbon trap theories, attempting to locate
hydrocarbons that have been trapped in commercial quantities. Typically a team oI geologists,
geophysicists and reservoir engineers select an exploration well location based on seismic data, geologic
inIormation in the region, oIIset well data and other inIormation that may be available. Financially it is
too risky Ior a single Operator to drill multiple exploration wells in rapid succession in a small area,
testing the same hydrocarbon trap theory. Typically, a single Operator would spread its exploration
budget and risk, testing several hydrocarbon trap theories in diIIerent exploration areas and careIully
examining the data Irom each exploration well to determine iI an additional well in that same geologic
trend is a worthwhile investment. Data collected Irom one exploration well is used to pin-point Iuture
exploratory well targets. A successIul exploration well in one area may lead to a recommendation Ior
subsequent appraisal wells around the original exploration well to Iurther delineate the size oI a
hydrocarbon reservoir, so that engineers can properly size surIace production Iacilities and pipeline needs.
Later, production wells are drilled on a more dense spacing around the successIul exploration wells.

NewIield received permits Ior Iive (5) wells in a 6 by 10 mile area. This is unusually dense spacing Ior a
single Operator to be drilling exploratory wells in rapid succession, with little or no opportunity to inIorm
Iuture exploration well locations (Exhibit 29 provides a map showing the well density). The pace oI
NewIield`s drilling program strongly indicates that several oI these wells are akin to production wells,
rather than true exploration wells.

30
The original permits expired in July 2010. The July 20, 2010 permit renewal post-dates the June 14, 2010 grandIather cut-oII
date (Exhibits 12 and 13). The original Stockport and Preston well applications were approved by PADEP prior to June 14, 2010
but the Operator Pennswood Oil & Gas LLC did not act on either well.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 14

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 14 oI 44




Findings:
· DRBC deIined a grandIathered exploration well as a well intended solely Ior exploratory
purposes and one that is plugged and capped at the conclusion oI exploratory activities
without Iuture use Ior production.
· No inIormation was provided Ior my review to show that the grandIathered wells will be
permanently plugged and abandoned aIter the wells are drilled.
· The grandIathered well permits do not speciIy the completion method, and the 30 day
completion reports showing the Iinal disposition oI each well were not available Ior review.
· A Notice oI Intent by Well Operator to Plug a Well and/or a CertiIicate oI Well Plugging do
not appear to have been submitted Ior any oI the grandIathered wells.
· Absent any new data showing that the Operators oI the 'grandIathered¨ wells listed in
Exhibit 4 provided clear written evidence that they meet DRBC`s exploration well standard,
these wells do not meet DRBC`s grandIathered exploration well deIinition.
· NewIield`s application data and supporting inIormation conIirms it has alternative plans Ior
these wells, including gas production.
· NewIield`s 2010 PPC Plan shows clear intent to produce successIul exploration wells.
Approval oI an exploration well destined Ior production is in essence production well
approval.
· The Stockport and Preston well permits were renewed July 20, 2010, aIter the cut-oII date Ior
grandIathered wells.
· Well density and drilling pace are strong indicators oI well type. The density and pace oI
some oI the exploration wells, especially NewIield`s wells, are inconsistent with exploration
well classiIication.
· Funding documents Ior each well will clearly delineate the nature oI the well and whether it
was Iunded and located as a true exploration well. Funding documents have not been
available Ior review.


D.2 Do Exploration Wells Pose a Lower Risk Than Production Wells?

Exploration wells are riskier than production wells because Iactors such as pressures, temperatures and
drilling hazards are not known or are uncertain. On average 7 out oI every 1000 onshore exploration wells
will result in a blowout.
31,32
Blowouts can eject drilling mud, gas, oil and/or Iormation water Irom the
well and onto waters and lands adjacent to the well, within the radius oI the blowout plume. Depending
on the reservoir pressure, blowout circumstances, and wind speed these pollutants can be distributed
hundreds to thousands oI Ieet away Irom the well.
33
Pollutants that reach a water systems can be carried

31
Rana, S., Environmental Risks- Oil and Gas Operations Reducing Compliance Cost Using Smarter Technologies, Society oI
Petroleum Engineering Paper 121595-MS, Asia PaciIic Health, SaIety, Security and Environment ConIerence, 4-6 August 2009,
Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009.
32
Rana, S., Facts and Data on Environmental Risks- Oil and Gas Drilling Operations, Society oI Petroleum Engineering Paper
114993, October 2008.
33
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Limited, Oil Deposition Modeling For SurIace Oil Well Blowouts, 1998.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 15

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 15 oI 44

downstream and contaminate even larger areas. Pollutants that reach lands can migrate into groundwater
resources.

The lack oI inIormation available to an exploration well driller increases the risk proIile oI a well.
Exploration well design and planning is more diIIicult and typically requires more materials to be brought
to the site, to deal with unknown pressures, depths, temperatures, casing needs, cementing needs, drilling
mud needs, and other unknowns. Proper engineering design oI drilling Iluid and blowout preventer
systems is critical to reducing the risk oI a blowout. The inability to accurately predict pressures in an
exploration well requires that mud and blowout prevention systems be designed with an adequate saIety
Iactor, to ensure unexpected pressures can be controlled while drilling.

“The uncontrolled eruption of a well is one of the most critical accidents that can occur both
during exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon fields. Significant HSE [health, safety and
environmental] issues are associated to this event that introduces safety risks for the field
operators, potential health injury for the population living in the area and impacts, mainly
associated to the hydrocarbon contamination, on the environment.”
34


Because true exploration wells, by deIinition, are exploring into previously unknown and unmapped
hydrocarbon Iormations, an exploration Operator must be prepared to encounter both oil and gas. While
an exploration Operator may seek gas, as is the stated intent in these grandIathered wells, it cannot rule
out the potential to encounter oil enroute to the gas target, or instead oI hitting a gas target. Exploration in
other areas oI Pennsylvania has resulted in Iinds oI both oil and gas, thereIore this is a reasonable
assumption, unless the Operator has inIormation to prove that no oil exists Irom oIIset well data. In that
case, iI there is suIIicient inIormation to rule out the presence oI oil, there is likely suIIicient inIormation
to make the case that the well is not a true exploration well.

In both Pennsylvania
35
and New York
36
oil has been Iound in the Upper Devonian Formations above the
Marcellus Shale ThereIore, the grandIathered exploration wells should have been equipped with detailed
plans to prevent and respond to a gas and/or oil well blowout.

“Oil deposition in the area surrounding a blowout is one of the most visible consequences of the
loss of control over well flow. Less visible, but equally serious, are the short- to medium-term
effects of oil coverage on the environment… Apart from the direct damage to capital goods,
crops, and water basins and the cost of subsequent cleanup operations, there are medium- to
long-term effects, such as reduced tree growth over a period of many years following the
incident…Hence, oil fallout, in the case of loss of well control, is a factor to be taken into account
in decisions on well locations, emergency procedures, contingency planning, etc. This requires
an estimate of the area around the well likely to be affected by oil fallout, given the
geomorphology of the terrain, prevailing winds, and expected outflow conditions [emphasis
added].”
37



34
Blotto, P., ENI- Exploration & Production, Development oI an Integrated Approach to the Risk Analysis oI a Blow-out
Accident, Society oI Petroleum Engineers Paper 86704-MS, SPE International ConIerence on Health, SaIety, and Environment in
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, 29-31 March 2004, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2004.
35
Pennsylvania Department oI Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania Geology, Vol 29, No.1, Spring 1998.
36
New York State, DraIt Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) on the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining
Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance Ior Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the
Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, September 2009, Figure 4.2.
37
Oudeman, P., Shell International E&P, Oil Fallout in the Vicinity oI An Onshore Blowout: Observations on A Field Case,
Society oI Petroleum Engineers, Facilities & Construction Journal, Volume 1, Number 4, December 2006.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 16

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 16 oI 44

The Woodland, Teeple and Crum wells are all located very near designated High Quality tributaries oI the
Delaware River. For example, the Woodland well, is adjacent to Hollister Creek and is less than halI a
mile Irom the Delaware River itselI. Hollister Creek Ilows into the River approximately 0.7 mile above a
colony oI DwarI Wedge Mussels, a Iederally protected endangered species. Teeple is located adjacent to
Shehawken/Rattlesnake Creek, and is approximately two miles Irom the River. The location oI these
wells in such sensitive areas increases the harms that might Ilow Irom these risks should a blowout occur.
Instead, the surIace location Ior these wells should have been sited in less sensitive locations with careIul
evaluation and planning.

DRBC`s decision to Iorego regulation oI these exploration wells because they are 'lower risk¨ is
inconsistent with the known higher risk proIile Ior an exploration well. There was no data provided Ior
this review to show that DRBC supported its lower risk Iinding with a written technical document.



Findings:
· Exploration wells are riskier than production wells, because drilling hazards are unknown.
The risk oI a well blowout or well control situation occurring is higher due to the increased
diIIiculty in designing and constructing a well based on unknown data.
· DRBC`s decision to Iorego regulation oI these exploration wells because they are 'lower
risk¨ is inconsistent with the known higher risk proIile Ior an exploration well.
· The grandIathered exploration wells should have been equipped to deal with a gas and/or oil
well blowout.



D.3 Did DRBC’s decision to grandfather 11 wells create the potential for increased risk
to water quality and water resources of the Delaware River Basin?

DRBC`s primary responsibility is to protect water resources in the Delaware River Basin. DRBC reports
to the public that its mission is one oI: 'providing comprehensive watershed management; acting as a
steward oI the Basin`s water resources particularly with respect to: surIace water quality, including both
point and nonpoint sources oI pollution; ground and surIace water quantity, including water demands,
water withdrawals, water allocations, water conservation, and protected areas; drought management; and
in-stream Ilow management; promoting eIIective inter-agency coordination to prevent duplication oI
eIIorts and seeking increased public involvement¨ (Exhibit 22).
38


Shale gas drilling operations use water and create wastewater. The amount oI water that is used and waste
that is generated depends on the well construction technique used, the depth oI the well, Iormations
encountered while drilling, well control incidents and other Iactors.

This report does not examine the exact amounts oI water use or waste Irom a shale gas well drilling
operation because DRBC determined that all shale gas wells, regardless of water use or waste
amounts, are subject to DRBC review. However, Chesapeake Energy reports that a Marcellus Shale gas
well can require 100,000 gallons
39
oI water to drill a well, even iI Iracturing operations are not planned.
This water is used Ior mixing cement, drilling mud, dust control and other routine uses.

38
DRBC Vision Statement, http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/vision.htm, retrieved October 24, 2010.
39
Chesapeake Energy, Water Use in Marcellus Deep Shale Gas Exploration, March 2010 (Exhibit 31).
Harvey Consulting, LLC 17

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 17 oI 44


On June 14, 2010, DRBC determined that all shale gas wells, regardless oI water use or waste amounts,
are subject to DRBC review. The DRBC issued a 'Supplemental Determination oI the Executive Director
Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area oI Special
Protection Waters¨ (Exhibit 3), eliminating any water or wastewater threshold Ior DRBC review oI shale
gas extraction projects, and requiring all shale gas wells to obtain DRBC review.

In my Determination of May 2009, I exercised the authority conferred on the Executive Director
by section 2.3.5 B.18 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP) by directing all
sponsors of natural gas extraction projects in shale formations within the drainage area of
Special Protection Waters to obtain Commission approval before commencing such projects,
notwithstanding that the thresholds for review established by the RPP were not exceeded
[emphasis added].

DRBC`s decision to eliminate any review threshold was reconIirmed in a January 19, 2010 DRBC
Presentation (Exhibit 21)
40
that stated:

Natural gas well activities (NGWA) [are] covered regardless of DRBC thresholds in RPP
41
and
Water Code [emphasis added].
42


In this Iinding, DRBC concluded that shale gas well drilling warranted DRBC review; it did not provide
any technical or scientiIic support Ior exempting review oI the grandIathered shale gas wells, except to
say companies would suIIer economic harm iI the projects were delayed, and the risk was 'comparatively
small.¨
43
DRBC reasoned that the number oI grandIathered wells constituted a small risk compared to the
thousands oI wells projected to be installed in the Basin over the next several years.

There does not appear to be any written economic assessment supporting the claim that the grandIathered
well Operators would suIIer economic harm or weighing the economic harm against the potential harm to
the watershed Irom the proposed drilling operations.

There does not appear to be any written risk assessment to support the claim that the risk oI drilling the
grandIathered wells was small. Likewise, there does not appear to be any evidence to show that the 11
wells listed in DRBC`s spreadsheet oI 'grandIathered wells¨ (Exhibit 4) meet DRBC`s deIinition oI an
'exploration¨ well.

Exploration wells that Iind commercial hydrocarbons are typically converted into the Iirst production
wells oI a commercial hydrocarbon reservoir development, once surIace production Iacilities are installed.
Additionally PADEP has no requirement to plug and abandon successIul exploration wells.

DRBC`s deIinition Ior an exploration well, which requires the well to be solely used Ior exploration data
gathering and immediately plugged and abandoned, (per the May 2009 EDD and accompanying press
release), does not reIlect typical industry practice or state approval processes. Furthermore, DRBC`s
decision to allow unregulated drilling impacts in sensitive watershed areas sets an unIavorable precedent

40
Muszynski, W.J., DRBC Manager Water Resources Management Branch, Presentation, DRBC Engagement in Natural Gas
Exploration and Development, Marcellus Shale Meeting, January 19, 2010.
41
DRBC`s Rules oI Practice and Procedure (RPP), Section 2.3.5.B.6.
42
DRBC`s Water Code Section 3.40.
43
DRBC, Supplemental Determination oI the Executive Director Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale
Formations within the Drainage Area oI Special Protection Waters, June 14, 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 18

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 18 oI 44

by potentially doubling drilling impacts. There will be the initial impacts oI the exploration well drilling,
Iollowed by repeated impacts when a production well is drilled to replace the plugged exploration well.

The more prudent approach would be Ior DRBC to review exploration wells to ensure they are properly
sited, drilled, completed, tested, and suspended, using the best well construction and environmental
practices, Ior potential later conversion to a production well.

The conversion oI properly sited and robustly constructed exploration wells to production wells ensures
the well is placed in the lowest environmental impact area, and eliminates the environmental impact oI
drilling a well into the same hydrocarbon target twice. For these reasons, it is important to properly site
and assess the impacts oI proposed exploration wells in as much detail as is needed Ior production wells.
A successIul exploration well is in essence the Iirst production well in the Iield.

There are limited cases where exploration wells are drilled solely to obtain subsurIace data (e.g. cores,
well logs, drill stem tests), and in these cases the well is immediately and permanently plugged and
abandoned aIter drilling. This approach is not common. Most Operators will convert a successIul
exploration well to a production well, unless there are unique circumstances preventing this Irom
occurring. It is not economically attractive Ior an Operator to drill a well twice.

When an exploration well is destined to be a production well, it is cased and completed with production
tubing and a producing wellhead. The well permits Ior the 11 grandIathered wells do not speciIy the
completion method or the Iinal disposition oI the wells and the required 30 day well completion reports
were not available Ior my review.


Findings:
· DRBC grandIathered wells based on economic and risk considerations, without the Operators
providing any apparent written economic or risk assessments to support this decision, nor any
analysis showing that these considerations trump DRBC`s watershed protection obligations.
· There does not appear to be any evidence to show that the permit applications Ior each oI the
grandIathered wells are in Iact shale gas 'exploration¨ wells.
· DRBC`s decision to Iorego regulation oI the grandIathered wells resulted in greater harm to
the Delaware River Basin. This harm was created by: allowing wells to be drilled without
evaluating whether they are sited in environmentally sensitive areas within the Delaware
River Basin; not requiring appropriate setbacks Irom sensitive locations; and creating a
situation whereby an exploration well must be drilled and plugged (even iI successIul), such
that drilling impacts are duplicated when a production well is re-drilled at the same or another
location at a later date.
· The DRBC`s deIinition oI an exploration well is inconsistent with industry practice, because
it is industry practice to convert successIul exploration wells into production wells, iI
commercial quantities oI hydrocarbons are Iound.
· DRBC`s decision to Iorego review oI the grandIathered wells, iI they are drilled solely to
collect data and immediately plugged and abandoned, does not provide the opportunity Ior
DRBC to mitigate the impacts oI exploratory operations on the Delaware River Basin. This
decision also results in economic waste and creates increased impacts, by requiring successIul
wells to be drilled twice.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 19

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 19 oI 44


· DRBC should have reviewed each exploration well to ensure it was properly sited and
environmental impacts were mitigated. In this way, iI Operators make a commercial Iind,
DRBC would have already ensured the well was positioned at a low impact surIace location.
· It is important to properly site and assess the impacts oI any proposed exploration well in as
much detail as is necessary Ior a production well, because a successIul exploration well is in
essence the Iirst production well in the Iield.


D.4 Are There Sufficient Plans and Protections Included in PADEP’s Approval to
Mitigate and Respond to the Risks Associated with an Exploration Well?

There are a number oI risks posed by exploration wells, including air, water and land pollution, resulting
Irom Iuel and chemical spills, stray gas migration, well blowouts, water use, waste disposal, and other
aspects oI drilling operations. One oI the most signiIicant and potentially catastrophic risks posed by
drilling is an uncontrolled blowout.

An uncontrolled blowout must be considered when planning an exploration well. The grandIathered wells
should have been equipped to deal with a gas and/or oil well blowout. Well blowouts can release
substantial amounts oI oil, gas, drilling mud, and Iormation water, resulting in signiIicant environmental
damage to the surrounding air, water and land. Methods to control a well blowout can require signiIicant
water withdrawals and can create large volumes oI waste. Well permit applications Iiled with the PADEP
Ior these grandIathered wells do not include any explanation or evidence oI blowout prevention or control
capability.

The Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act at § 601.209 requires a drilling Operator to use saIety devices
44
and the
25 PA Code § 78.72 requires the use oI blowout prevention equipment and trained personnel. The PA
Code Iocuses on the testing and inspection oI blowout preventers, and requires at least one person
certiIied in well control to be on the drill Iloor. However, neither Pennsylvania law nor regulation requires
Operators to demonstrate that they have the expertise, equipment and capability to actually control a
blowout and minimize environmental damage, iI one occurs.

While Pennsylvania currently requires a Pollution Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan to be
submitted as part oI a drilling application, that plan is inadequate Ior response to a blowout. PADEP`s
PCC Guidance
45
(Exhibit 27) does not speciIically require a well control plan, a written well control
barrier policy, a well blowout response plan, or well control experts on contract. This is in sharp contrast
to other state and Iederal agencies, which do currently require response plans to deal with a worst-case
blowout scenario. Additionally, the World Bank`s Environmental, Health, and SaIety Guidelines Ior
Onshore Oil and Gas Development recommend comprehensive blowout planning, training and equipment
as well as blowout modeling to ensure a well blowout plume radius is understood.
46


To compound the problem, the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Act at § 601.215 only requires a bond oI $2,500
per well, or a blanket bond oI $25,000 Ior all wells drilled in Pennsylvania by a single Operator. Neither

44
Section 601.209 requires: 'Any person engaged in drilling any oil or gas well shall equip the well with casings oI suIIicient
strength and with such other saIety devices, as may be necessary in a manner as prescribed by regulation oI the department, and
shall use every eIIort and endeavor eIIectively to prevent blowouts, explosions and Iires.¨
45
PADEP`s PCC Guidance Document 400-220-001.
46
World Bank`s Environmental, Health, and SaIety Guidelines Ior Onshore Oil and Gas Development, 2007.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 20

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 20 oI 44

amount would provide suIIicient Iunds to control, clean up and/or remediate the damage caused by a well
blowout. Nor would $2,500 go very Iar to meet PADEP`s stated uses Ior the bond which is to:

…act as a penalty for failure to comply with the drilling, water supply replacement, restoration
and plugging requirements of the Act.
47


Blowout response and control plans should not only include methods Ior controlling the well, but identiIy
environmentally sensitive areas, and list tactics and strategies Ior protecting those areas during a response.
For example, a plan should provide Ior special protection oI waters in the Delaware River Basin. Absent
these plans, the Delaware River Basin is at increased risk in the event oI an uncontrolled blowout.

NewIield`s PPC lists the potential Ior a Iire or explosion Irom its well drilling operations,
48
but provides
no blowout prevention or response plan to address an oil and /or gas well blowout, iI it were to occur.
NewIield`s PPC provides no inIormation on blowout preventer sizing, testing methods, or maintenance
programs; it provides no inIormation on methods to control a blowout or tactics, strategies or equipment
to respond to a blowout.

By comparison, other state and Iederal agencies require much more detailed Preparedness, Prevention and
Contingency Plans, deIining the worst-case blowout scenario, a well control response plan, and well
control experts and equipment. Most companies have a separate written well control and blowout
response plan that is reIerenced as part oI their emergency plan, but there is no evidence oI such a plan in
the NewIield PPC. The PPCs Irom other companies with grandIathered wells were not available Ior
review.

A well-thought-out, written blowout prevention and response plan, with trained and experienced drilling
staII able to rapidly identiIy well control problems and control them, has proven critical in reducing the
number and severity oI well control incidents across the US. Additionally, plans should be in place to
immediately access well control experts and equipment, preIerably staging well control equipment
nearby, in the event a well control situation exceeds a drilling company`s capacity or expertise. Access to
well control experts is especially critical Ior small companies that may have little or no well control
experience.

While, PADEP has made some attempt at improving Pennsylvania`s blowout control capability by
partnering with CUDD Well Control to locate a new Iacility in Canton Township in BradIord County in
response to 'recent high-proIile accidents at nature gas wells in Pennsylvania¨
49
the type oI equipment
located in Pennsylvania is still insuIIicient to cap a well. Equipment at CUDD`s new BradIord County
Iacility will include: a 2,000-gallon-per-minute pump; heat shields; pneumatic cutting devices; trained
crews, and a 'hot tap,¨ but does not include an athey wagon or a well capping stack. An athey wagon and
well capping stack are both large and critical pieces oI equipment used in well control. Because this
equipment must still be brought in Irom the GulI oI Mexico, Houston, Canada or Alaska, places where
much oI the North America well control equipment is located, this will delay well control, increasing a
blowout`s impacts.

The potential spill volume Irom a blowout is equal to the volume oI the reservoir contents (gas, oil, and/or
Iormation water) that can Ilow to the surIace, plus the discharge oI the drilling mud that is in the hole at

47
PADEP, Oil and Gas Manual, Chapter 3, October 2001.
48
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPCP), May 2010, submitted with all its
grandIathered wells.
49
PADEP, DEP Says Specialized Natural Gas Emergency Responders Locating in PA, Improving Response Times, PADEP
News Bureau Press Release, August 9, 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 21

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 21 oI 44

the time oI a blowout. Hydrocarbon reservoirs can contain large quantities oI gas, oil and/or Iormation
water, which could continue to be released into the environment until the well naturally bridges on its
own (e.g. plugged with sand or debris), is controlled by human/mechanical intervention (e.g. well
capping, drilling a relieI well, well ignition), or the subsurIace reservoir pressure Iinally drops to a level
that the well stops Ilowing. While blowouts are very inIrequent, they do occur, and are a reasonably
Ioreseeable consequence oI exploratory drilling operations. Blowouts can last Ior days, weeks, or months
until well control is Iinally achieved. A blowout in the Delaware River Basin could have signiIicant and
irreversible environmental impacts.

The most common method, and best technology, to control an on-land blowout is typically well capping.
However, well ignition or drilling a relieI well could be alternatives. Well capping requires large volumes
oI water to allow well control experts to work near the Iire with dozers, wagons, and well capping
equipment. Water requirements to cap a well depend greatly on the nature oI the well blowout, and
whether it has ignited.

SurIace (lakes, rivers and streams) or subsurIace (water wells) water supplies may be tapped to draw the
large volumes oI water needed Ior well capping operations, or water may be trucked in, iI no nearby
surIace water or supply well is available. Well control experts use high volume pumps to deluge the rig.
Well control experts recommend water supply sourcing and deluging equipment be incorporated in
drilling plans. Water requirements can range Irom 9 barrels oI water per minute (9 bpm)
50
to upwards oI
100 bpm.
51
This equates to 500,000 to 6,000,000 gallons oI water per day, with the average blowout
taking days to weeks to control. Deluge operations create large pools oI water on the surIace that drain
away Irom the well blowout. Deluge Iluids can transport oil, chemicals, Iuels, and other materials
released during the blowout toward lower elevation drainage areas.

Well control experts also use Ioam and dry chemicals to respond to blowouts. John Wright Co., a well
control expert company, explains:

Foam consists of water, foam concentrate and air. It is used on liquid hydrocarbon fires to
smother the fuel surface (excludes oxygen), suppress vapor emissions (explosive vapor release is
restricted), generate steam (removes heat and displaces oxygen), cool surface (heat absorption)
and reflect radiant heat. Use on blowouts is restricted to gas condensate fires and oil wells where
lateral flow has led to a large fire surface area. Foam can help contain fire near the source and
allow work near the flow source. Generally, water alone is adequate for this, but with large, low
velocity, lateral oil flow, foam may be required. Modern firefighting foam such as 3M Lightwater
ATC is commonly used… Nozzles are available to handle up to 6,000 gpm, but the 2,000-bpm
nozzle is most used on oil well fires. Dry chemical extinguishers work like water, but principally
act as a smothering agent. Common compounds used are sodium bicarbonate, Purple K
(potassium bicarbonate base) and Monnex (highest efficiency rating). Use is generally on
methane well fires where explosives cannot be used and water supply is inadequate.
52


Additionally, deliberate well ignition or spontaneous combustion can result in large amounts oI local air
pollution, which can distribute particulate matter and other airborne combustion materials that will
eventually deposit on downstream waters, and lands.


50
John Wright Co., well control expert, http://www.jwco.com/technical-litterature/p09.htm, and (Exhibit 28)
51
Grace, R. d., Blowout and Well Control Handbook, GulI ProIessional Publishing, 2003.
52
John Wright Co., well control expert, http://www.jwco.com/technical-litterature/p09.htm, and (Exhibit 28)
Harvey Consulting, LLC 22

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 22 oI 44

PADEP`s PPC Guidance
53
(Exhibit 27) does require a PPC to include: maps showing the well site layout,
boundaries, storage locations, high risk areas, drainage, and topography; location oI stored chemicals at
wellsite; drawings and plot plans showing sources and quantities oI materials and wastes; speciIic
countermeasures to be taken in the event oI a spill, including strategies and tactics Ior responders to
Iollow to contain and control the spill to prevent it reaching water sources, or environmentally sensitive
areas; inspection and monitoring programs; security plans; and external Iactor planning. Yet, many PPCs
in Pennsylvania that I have reviewed
54
do not include these components in practice. PADEP has on
occasion required PPC Plans to be revised aIter large spills to remedy plan deIiciencies, but this is oI little
assistance Ior the damaged environment, especially damaged water resources that are not easily
remediated. A more thorough review oI these plans prior to drilling is needed to ensure that they are
adequate.

For example,
55
NewIield`s May 2010 PPC (the only PPC available Ior this review) did not include many
oI the elements required by PADEP`s PPC Guidance Document 400-220-001. These required elements
are critical to preventing and responding to spills in areas and waters oI concern to DRBC. Missing plan
elements include:
! Drawings showing high-risk areas where spills and leaks most likely would occur;
! Drawings showing drains, pipes, and channels that lead away Irom potential leak or spill areas;
! Drawings showing outIall pipes that discharge to surIace streams or drainage channels;
! Locations oI surIace drainage courses leading away Irom the site, and major surIace streams
and tributaries near the site;
! Locations oI any known public and private surIace water intakes downstream Irom the site;
! Descriptions oI any existing plans previously developed Ior the project Ior the purpose oI
pollution incident prevention or emergency response preparedness;
! Descriptions oI the sources and areas where potential spills and leaks may occur, the direction
oI Ilow oI spilled materials, and the pollution incident prevention practices speciIic to the
source or area;
! Separate drawings, showing sources and quantities oI materials and wastes, sources and areas
where potential spills may occur, and pollution incident prevention practices, including a
prediction oI the direction oI the Ilow oI materials spilled as a result oI equipment Iailure,
accident, or human error;
! Summary oI the engineering practices Iollowed with regard to material compatibility, such as
the materials oI tanks, piping and other equipment, including their contents and the reaction oI
materials or wastes when intentionally or inadvertently mixed or combined;
! Summary oI the compatibility oI a container such as a storage tank or pipeline with its
environment;
! A preventive maintenance program Ior equipment and systems relating to conditions that could
cause environmental degradation or endangerment oI public health and saIety;

53
PADEP`s PCC Guidance Document 400-220-001.
54
In 2010, I completed a technical review oI the Atlas Energy Inc., Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, EOG Resources, Inc.,
NewIield Appalachia, and Range Resources PPC, none oI which met the PADEP PPC guidelines requirements.
55
Additional inIormation on the other grandIathered wells PPC plans would be needed to determine the adequacy oI the other
plans.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 23

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 23 oI 44

! Detailed explanation oI the employee training program to ensure that personnel are able to
respond eIIectively to emergencies, by Iamiliarizing them with emergency procedures and
emergency equipment systems, including, where applicable: procedures Ior using, inspecting,
repairing, and replacing emergency and monitoring equipment; key parameters Ior automatic
cut-oII systems; communications and alarm systems; response to Iires and explosions; site
evacuation procedures; and shut down oI operations procedures;
! SpeciIic countermeasures which will be undertaken by Iacility personnel in the event oI a
release, including: valve activations, equipment isolations, Ilow diversions, boom deployment,
and any other activities that will be undertaken to halt the migration oI the contaminant oII site
and to mitigate the consequences oI the release;
! A summary oI the services oI nearby contractors and pre-made arrangements Ior contractual
services on short notice. (PADEP requires equipment suppliers to be contacted to determine the
availability and delivery means oI equipment needed Ior removing pollution or hazards to
public health and saIety).
! A list oI available emergency equipment.
56
The list should include the location, a physical
description, and a description oI the intended use and capabilities oI each item on the list. All
installations should have equipment available to allow personnel to respond saIely and quickly
to emergency situations. Some examples oI emergency equipment are portable Iire
extinguishers, Iire control equipment (including special extinguishing equipment such as that
using Ioam, inert gas, or dry chemicals), spill control equipment, decontamination equipment,
selI-contained breathing apparatus, gas masks, and emergency
tool and patching kits.

Both exploration and production well operations require Iuel to operate
drilling and completion equipment and the process oI drilling a well
requires chemicals. NewIield`s PPC lists the potential Ior both Iuel and
chemical storage tanks to leak and contaminate the nearby environment,
water supplies, or water resources.
57
NewIield`s PPCP states:

“For large spills or spills of oils or hazardous materials which
may reach surface water or impact the environment, the employee
who first discovers the spill should contact the Emergency
Coordinator [emphasis added].”
58


Yet NewIield`s PPC lists insuIIicient onsite resources to respond to the
potential Iuel and chemical spills it lists. NewIield`s onsite resources are listed in Table 4
59
as shown to
the right.

56
NewIield`s PPC lists spill response equipment but the type and amount is insuIIicient, and there is no explanation oI its
intended use or capability as required.
57
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPCP), May 2010, included in Exhibit 7.
58
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html#disposalpast.
59
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPCP), May 2010, submitted with all its
grandIathered wells.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 24

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 24 oI 44


NewIield`s PPC, at Table 1, shown below, provides a list oI materials that it plans to use at its exploratory
drilling operations. This list shows there is a potential Ior hazardous materials to spill, including Iuels,
lubricants, drilling mud, and cement additives. To minimize environmental hazards, production
chemicals should be selected careIully by taking into account their volume, toxicity, bioavailability, and
bioaccumulation potential. There is no indication in the PPC that this work was completed.

The list provided by NewIield does not make a distinction between exploration or production drilling
operations. And, NewIield`s PPC does not contain suIIicient inIormation to veriIy whether it has trained
and qualiIied staII able to respond to the potential Iuel and chemical spills it lists in Table 1 oI its PPC
Plan.


Harvey Consulting, LLC 25

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 25 oI 44





Findings:
· An uncontrolled blowout is a catastrophic risk, but one that must be considered when
planning an exploration well. The grandIathered wells should have been equipped to deal
with a gas and/or oil well blowout.
· Well blowouts and spills can release substantial amounts oI oil, gas, drilling mud, and
Iormation water, resulting in signiIicant environmental damage to the surrounding air, water,
and land.
· Well permit applications Iiled with the PADEP Ior these grandIathered wells do not include
any explanation or evidence oI blowout prevention or control capability.
· Pennsylvania requires a Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan but that plan
does not require a written blowout control plan. Nor does the plan require evidence oI trained
and qualiIied personnel to respond to well control situations or evidence oI contracts with
experts to control well blowouts. In contrast, other state and Iederal agencies require response
plans to deal with worst-case blowout scenarios.
· Pennsylvania only requires a bond oI $2,500 per well, or a blanket bond oI $25,000 Ior all
wells drilled in Pennsylvania by a single Operator; neither amount would provide suIIicient
Iunds to control, clean up and/or remediate the damage caused by a well blowout.
· There are inadequate plans in place to identiIy environmentally sensitive areas, such as
special protection waters oI the Delaware River Basin. Tactics and strategies Ior protecting
those areas during a spill response are also inadequate.
· The most common method, and best technology, to control an on-land blowout is typically
well capping. Well capping requires large volumes oI water to allow well control experts to
work near the blowout. Water requirements can range Irom 500,000 to 6,000,000 gallons per
day. Deluge operations create large pools oI water on the surIace that drain away Irom the
well blowout. This water can transport oil, chemicals, Iuels, and any other materials released
during the blowout toward lower elevation drainage areas.
· Exploration well operations require Iuel to operate drilling and completion equipment and the
process oI drilling a well requires chemicals.
· NewIield`s PPC lists the potential Ior both Iuel and chemical storage tanks to leak and
contaminate the nearby environment, water supplies, or water resources; yet lists insuIIicient
onsite resources to respond to the potential Iuel and chemical spills it lists.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 26

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 26 oI 44

D.5 Was DRBC’s assumption that the risk associated with the grandfathered wells is
small because PADEP has sufficient human health, environmental and safety protections in
place for exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania well-founded?

DRBC`s assumption that the risk associated with grandIathered wells is small because PADEP has
suIIicient human health, environmental and saIety protections in place Ior exploration drilling projects in
Pennsylvania is not well Iounded Ior the Iollowing reasons:
! PADEP`s Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations are known to be deIicient;
! GrandIathered wells are not required to be constructed to industry best practices Ior shale gas wells
in Pennsylvania;
! PADEP did not apply 'Special Permit Conditions,¨ requiring a Water Management Plan, to most oI
the grandIathered wells;
! Fracture treatment operations are planned Ior the B&E well;
! Drilling waste can result in environmental harm iI not properly managed, and some drilling waste
has already been buried on-site and not transported out oI the Basin;
! Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water supplies, iI wells are not
properly constructed and operated;
! PADEP`s well siting criteria allows wells to be placed very close to water resources; and
! Air pollution impacts are not well understood or mitigated.


D.5.1 PADEP’s Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations are known to be deficient
DRBC`s June 14, 2010 decision to grandIather wells was based, in part, on the 'existing saIeguards¨
oIIered by PADEP permits issued under Chapter 78. DRBC concluded:

In contrast to the thousands of wells projected to be installed in the Basin over the next
several years, the risk to Basin waters posed by only the wells approved by PADEP since May
2009 are comparatively small. Not only are these wells subject to state regulation as to their
construction and operation, but they continue to require Commission approval before they can
be fractured or otherwise modified for natural gas production. In light of these existing
safeguards and the investment-backed expectations of the sponsors of these projects, this
Supplemental Determination does not prohibit any exploratory natural gas well project from
proceeding if the applicant has obtained a state natural gas well permit for the project on or
before the date of issuance set forth below [emphasis added].
60


Yet PADEP`s current regulatory initiative to substantially revise the Pennsylvania regulations at 25 PA
Code Ch. 78 (Chapter 78) Ior Oil and Gas Wells is evidence that Pennsylvania itselI acknowledges that
the existing Chapter 78 regulations are not currently reIlective oI best practices, and do not go Iar enough
to protect human health and the environment, especially Ior sensitive resources.


60
DRBC, Supplemental Determination oI the Executive Director Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale
Formations within the Drainage Area oI Special Protection Waters, June 14, 2010 (Exhibit 3).
Harvey Consulting, LLC 27

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 27 oI 44

The majority oI PADEP`s well construction and water supply replacement regulations were promulgated
in July 1989 and remained largely unchanged until PADEP proposed revisions to Chapter 78 in 2009.
ThereIore, Pennsylvania`s existing well construction standards are more than 20 years old and do not
reIlect best technology or practice. Several oI the grandIathered wells have already been constructed
using these out-dated rules.

PADEP summarizes the problems with the existing Chapter 78 regulations:

Many of the regulations governing well construction and water supply replacement were
promulgated in July 1989 and remained largely unchanged until this rulemaking. Since that time,
recent advances in drilling technology have attracted interest in producing natural gas from the
Marcellus Shale, a rock formation that underlies approximately two-thirds of Pennsylvania. New
well drilling and completion practices now employed to extract natural gas from the Marcellus
Shale and other similar shale formations in Pennsylvania, as well as several recent incidents of
contaminated drinking water caused by traditional and Marcellus Shale wells resulted in the
Department’s decision to re-evaluate the existing well construction requirements.

It was determined that the existing regulations were not specific enough in detailing the
Department’s expectations of a properly cased and cemented well, especially in light of the new
techniques used by Marcellus Shale operators. The Department also determined that the existing
regulations did not address the need for an immediate response by operators to a gas migration
complaint and did not require routine inspection of existing wells by the operator

The final rulemaking contains revised design, construction, operational, monitoring, plugging,
water supply replacement, and hydraulic fracturing reporting requirements. The final
rulemaking also provides material specifications and performance testing to ensure the proper
casing, cementing and operation of a well. Additionally, the final rulemaking contains new
provisions that require routine inspection of wells and outline the actions an operator and the
Department must take in the event of a gas migration incident [emphasis added].
61


ThereIore, DRBC`s lack oI review oI the grandIathered exploratory wells, as well as any other drilling
that DRBC allows beIore the new PADEP Chapter 78 regulations are in place, will allow the current well
construction deIiciencies, known to be a problem in Pennsylvania, to be repeated in the DRBC watershed.

In 2009 PADEP proposed numerous revisions to Chapter 78 and sought industry and public comment to
improve the regulations consistent with PADEP`s stated goals oI: minimizing public concerns associated
with gas migration into public drinking water supplies; updating material speciIications and perIormance
testing requirements; and revising design, construction, operations, monitoring, plugging, water supply
replacement, and gas migration reporting requirements.

The Iact that Pennsylvania has acknowledged deIiciencies in its own regulations, and the Iact that the
current, unimproved Chapter 78 regulations were used as criteria Ior review and approval oI the
grandIathered wells is evidence that the grandIathered wells do not have suIIicient protections in place.

PADEP received more than 2,000 comments Irom industry and the public recommending Chapter 78
improvements, including comments written by HCLLC (Exhibit 23).
62
PADEP has developed Iinal

61
PADEP Notice oI Final Rulemaking, Department oI Environmental Protection Environmental Quality Board, 25 Pa. Code,
Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Cementing and Casing, 2010 (Exhibit 30A).
62
Harvey Consulting, LLC, Recommendations Ior Pennsylvania`s Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Well
Construction Regulations, Report to Earthjustice and Sierra Club, March 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 28

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 28 oI 44

revisions to Chapter 78 (Exhibit 30 and 30A), but these changes will not be codiIied until early 2011.
Chapter 78 regulatory changes still must undergo review by the Independent Regulatory Review
Commission (planned Ior November 18, 2010) and then must be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
as Iinal rulemaking (planned Ior early 2011).
63


Proposed Chapter 78 improvements that do not apply to the grandIathered wells include:
! Additional protections Ior water supplies (§ 78.51) including improvements to restoration or
replacement oI impaired water supplies due to oil and gas well operations;
! Additional requirements Ior waste control and disposal plans (§ 78.55);
! Improved instructions on when a blowout preventer and other well control saIety control devices
are required (§ 78.72);
! Improved well construction and operational standards (§ 78.73), including standards to ensure
that: oil, brine, completion and well servicing Iluids do not pollute groundwater; annular
overpressuring does not cause gas migration into subsurIace water supplies; and gas is saIely
Ilared, captured or diverted during well drilling operations;
! Improved well cementing and casing standards (§ 78.83-78.85) to: prevent subsurIace inIiltration
oI surIace waters; establish more rigorous requirements to centralize casing, install cement, and
veriIy the cement integrity to protect ground water; require the Operator to prepare and maintain
a casing and cementing plan; and require use oI new pipe and pressure testing and quality
standards Ior that pipe;
! Improved mechanical integrity standards Ior operating wells (§ 78.88);
! Gas migration response (§ 78.89);
! Improved well plugging standards (§ 78.92-78.95); and
! A requirement Ior the Operator to certiIy that the well has been constructed to Pennsylvania`s
well construction standards (§ 78.122).
Three (3) oI the eleven (11) grandIathered wells were drilled under the existing regulatory structure that is
known to be inadequate. The remaining eight (8) grandIathered wells were permitted under the existing
Chapter 78 regulatory scheme, and may not be required to comply with the new Chapter 78 regulatory
requirements, depending on when the wells are actually drilled and when the Chapter 78 revisions are
codiIied.



Findings:
· Existing PADEP oil and gas well regulations at Chapter 78 are known by PADEP to be
inadequate to protect human health and the environment.
· PADEP is in the process oI revising Chapter 78 with the stated goals oI minimizing public
concerns associated with gas migration into public drinking water supplies; updating material
speciIications and perIormance testing requirements; and revising design, construction,
operations, monitoring, plugging, water supply replacement, and gas migration reporting
requirements.



63
November 3, 2010 phone conversation with Scott Perry, Director oI Pennsylvania Bureau oI Oil and Gas Management.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 29

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 29 oI 44


· PADEP has not yet promulgated Chapter 78 regulations that are adequate to protect human
health and the environment; grandIathered wells are being drilled under regulations known to
be deIicient.


D.5.2. Grandfathered wells are not required to be constructed to industry best practices
for shale gas wells in Pennsylvania
Because PADEP does not require well casing and cementing plans to be submitted, reviewed, and
approved as part oI a well permit application, there is insuIIicient inIormation available on the
grandIathered wells to veriIy the integrity oI the planned or installed casing and cementing conIiguration.
This problem will not be resolved as part oI the proposed Part 78 revisions, because the proposed Part 78
rules still do not require a well construction plan to be submitted and approved as part oI the permit to
drill.

The permit to drill issued by PADEP approves the well location and directs the applicant to Iollow
PADEP regulations, but does not include any PADEP engineering review oI the proposed well
construction plans.
64
Because there is no engineering review oI the permit application prior to drilling,
PADEP`s process does not ensure that the well will be constructed to best industry/best technology
practices at the time the well is drilled. ThereIore, the grandIathered well applications at issue here did not
include well construction plans, nor was there any engineering review completed by PADEP.

PADEP`s proposed Chapter 78 regulations do include an improvement that requires an Operator to certiIy
that the well has been constructed to Pennsylvania`s well construction standards (§ 78.122) aIter the well
has been drilled. However, major casing and cement design Ilaws are diIIicult to remedy once the well
has been drilled.

Recognizing the importance oI proper wellbore design prior to construction, the Iederal government and
many states require wellbore construction plans as part oI the permit application, subject to agency
engineering review and approval prior to well construction.

PADEP does currently require an aIter-the-Iact drilling completion report to be submitted providing
inIormation on the Iinal well construction conIiguration. However, the well completion reports Ior the
three grandIathered wells that have been drilled were not available Ior my review. ThereIore, there was
insuIIicient inIormation available on the well construction method used Ior these wells to veriIy iI the
wells were drilled to best industry practice using best technology standards.

Wells being drilled in the Delaware River Basin, that may be later used as production wells, and subject
to high-volume, high-pressure Iracturing should be designed and constructed using best industry practice
to protect ground water resources.

64
November 3, 2010 phone conversation with Scott Perry, Director oI Pennsylvania Bureau oI Oil and Gas Management
Harvey Consulting, LLC 30

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 30 oI 44



Findings:
· PADEP`s rules do not require mandatory use oI robust well construction practices and
designs Ior Marcellus Shale wells.
· PADEP`s well permit application process does not include any engineering review oI the
proposed well construction plans. Because there is no engineering review oI the permit
application prior to drilling, PADEP`s process does not ensure that the well will be
constructed to best industry/best technology practices at the time the well is drilled.
· There is insuIIicient inIormation available on the grandIathered wells to veriIy the planned or
installed casing and cementing conIigurations and whether they have a robust design.


D.5.3 PADEP did not apply “Special Permit Conditions,” requiring a Water
Management Plan, to most of the grandfathered wells
Recognizing the increased water use associated with shale gas drilling and completions, PADEP typically
adds a Special Permit Condition to shale gas wells requiring a Water Management Plan to be submitted.
The Water Management Plan must describe water sources that will be used Ior the drilling operation,
including saIe yield calculations Ior surIace water withdrawals Ior each new well. The Water
Management Plan must include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and must veriIy that anti-degradation
requirements are met and that designated uses oI surIace waters are protected.

PADEP required a Water Management Plan be submitted as a Special Permit Condition Ior the B&E
well, but did not require a Water Management Plan be submitted Ior the Crum, Woodland, Teeple #1,
Rutledge, SchweighoIer, Geuther, and Robson wells. There was insuIIicient inIormation available on the
permit history Ior the remaining grandIathered wells to determine iI Special Permit Conditions had or had
not been applied to them.

Because the Crum, Woodland, Teeple #1, Rutledge, SchweighoIer, Geuther, and Robson permits did not
include a Water Management Plan Special Permit Condition, and there were no documents provided Ior
my review showing that the Operators oI these wells prepared a Water Management Plan, it appears that
PADEP did not approve the method oI water withdrawal, use, storage, or distribution Ior these wells.
There is a lack oI consistency in permit conditions applied to the grandIathered wells and a lack oI Water
Management Plans Ior many oI the grandIathered wells.


Findings:
· PADEP did not require a Water Management Plan Ior the Crum, Woodland, Teeple #1,
Rutledge, SchweighoIer, Geuther, and Robson wells.
· There is a lack oI consistency in permit conditions applied to the grandIathered wells and a
lack oI Water Management Plans Ior many oI the grandIathered wells.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 31

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 31 oI 44


D.5.4. Fracture treatment operations are planned for the B&E well.
DRBC lists the B&E Well #1 as one oI the 11 grandIathered wells. DRBC maintains that the
grandIathered wells are limited to exploration shale gas wells that will not undergo Iracture stimulation
treatments; however, the B&E Well #1 permit issued by PADEP on March 5, 2009 includes a 'Special
Permit¨ condition that requires the Operator to:

…not drill the well until the permittee submits to the Department and the Department has
approved the method by which the permittee will withdraw, use, store, distribute, process and
dispose of water for well drilling and hydraulic fracturing purposes (“Water Management
Plan”).
65


The Iact that PADEP included a Water Management Plan requirement on the B&E Well #1 well is
noteworthy because it must have had a reason to believe that the Operator, Kevin E. Schrader, was
planning Iracturing operations Ior this well, which are clearly prohibited under the grandIathering
provisions.


Findings:
· PADEP permit indicates Iracturing treatments are planned Ior the B&E Well #1 well.
Fracture treatments are not allowed under the grandIathered well provisions.



D.5.5. Drilling waste can result in environmental harm if not properly managed
There is no assurance that a driller`s waste management plan will meet DRBC`s water protection
requirements, because PADEP allows waste disposal methods that DRBC does not. For example, PADEP
allows drill cuttings and residual waste to be disposed onsite, under certain circumstances (§ 78.61
disposal oI drill cuttings, § 78.62 disposal oI residual waste-pits, § 78.61 disposal oI residual waste-land
application and § 78.60 disposal oI tophole water by land application).

For example, a September 8, 2010 PADEP inspection report at the Matoushek wellsite shows that drilling
waste was leIt on-site and buried there. The Matoushek inspection report states that: drilling Iluids were
being removed Irom the drilling reserve pit; two workers were observed skimming an oil sheen oII oI the
pit; and the pit`s solid wastes would be encapsulated within liner and buried on site. Onsite waste burial
within Delaware River Basin is inconsistent with DRBC`s requirement to collect drilling waste to be
treated at an approved DRBC Iacility, or transported out oI the Delaware River Basin. Produced water
Irom the Matoushek well was transported to a sewage treatment Iacility that was not approved Ior drilling
waste.
66



65
B&E Well #1, PADEP Permit, March 5, 2009, in Exhibit 15.
66
Exhibit 18B shows an email exchange between Stone Energy (Woodland Well Operator), DRBC and PADEP. This
inIormation was obtained Irom DRBC through a DRN March 15, 2010 FOIA request. This email exchange questioned whether
Valley Joint Sewer Authority had accepted 270,000 gallons oI Woodland produced water waste. PADEP conIirmed with Valley
Joint Sewer Authority that they had stopped taking drilling waste as oI April 2009, but DRBC later conIirmed that the drilling
waste was sent to Valley Joint Sewer Authority prior to April 2009. This series oI events was conIirmed on November 4, 2010
via a phone call between DRN and DRBC staII.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 32

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 32 oI 44

Because the PPCs Ior some oI the grandIathered wells were not available Ior my review, it is unclear
what the waste management plan is/was Ior all oI the wells. There was also no inIormation provided Ior
my review showing that DRBC had reviewed the waste management plans Ior the grandIathered wells to
ensure that the waste management plans met the DRBC`s water protection requirements.

Best waste management practices in other states do not allow onsite burial oI drilling waste. For example,
New Mexico requires all Iluids be removed Irom the reserve pit and recycled or disposed oI in accordance
with state regulations.
67
New Mexico also requires the drill cuttings and reserve pit liners be sent to a
disposal Iacility in accordance with state regulations, and the soil under the reserve pit be tested Ior
benzene, total BTEX
68
, TPH
69
, the GRO,
70
and DRO
71
combined Iraction, and chlorides.
72
II
contamination is Iound, it must be excavated and remediated. II the soil is clean it can be backIilled. The
City oI Fort Worth, Texas, prohibits onsite burial oI drilling muds and cuttings.
73
The reserve pits are
temporary and all muds and cuttings must be removed and handled at an approved waste management
Iacility.

Although large-volume, high pressure Iracture treatments are not currently permitted Ior the
grandIathered wells, in the Iuture there will be requirements Ior very large impoundments that warrant
careIul design and limits.

The use oI closed loop tank systems, instead oI reserve pits and impoundment, is best practice. The
Bureau oI Land Management (BLM) recommends the use oI closed loop tank systems as a best practice
instead oI reserve pits and impoundments, whenever technically Ieasible.
74
Texas requires closed looped
mud systems with steel tanks.
75
It is much more eIIicient (Irom an energy standpoint) to collect waste in
the container that will be used to transport it oIIsite to a waste disposal Iacility than it is to create an
intermediate storage pit. The use oI temporary reserve pits and impoundments results in surIace
disturbance. It also has the potential Ior leakage to occur through the liner, impacting groundwater.
Impoundments also generate air pollution.

None oI the other grandIathered wells include the Special Permit Condition applied to the Teeple #1-2H
production well,
76
which requires an environmental assessment Irom PADEP Ior any impoundments and
chemical analysis and characterization oI drilling waste prior to processing or disposal. It is not clear why
PADEP would have required a more stringent Special Permit Condition Ior the Teeple #1-2H production
well than the other grandIathered exploration wells. There is inconsistency in permit conditions applied to
wells subject to this Hearing.

Reported waste handling concerns at the Teeple
77
and Mastoushek
78
wells are strong indications that
additional waste management oversight is needed.


67
Alpha Environmental Consultants, Inc., Report Ior NYS on DSGEIS, September 2009
68
BTEX÷ benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene.
69
THP÷ total petroleum hydrocarbons.
70
GRO÷ gasoline range organics.
71
DRO÷ diesel range organics.
72
Alpha Environmental Consultants, Inc., Report Ior NYS on DSGEIS, September 2009.
73
Alpha Environmental Consultants, Inc., Report Ior NYS on DSGEIS, September 2009.
74
Bureau oI Land Management, SurIace Operating Standards and Guidelines Ior Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, The
Gold Book, 2007.
75
Fort Worth Texas, Ordinance No. 18449-02-2009.
76
See Exhibit 20, PADEP well permit Ior DL Teeple 1 2H Ior Special Permit Conditions.
77
Exhibit 9B shows a May 26, 2020 violation at the Teeple well Ior an improperly lined pit.
78
Exhibit 18B
Harvey Consulting, LLC 33

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 33 oI 44

The amount and type oI waste generated during the drilling and completion oI an exploration well varies
based on: the drilling method (air or a drilling mud system), the completion and stimulation method, and
the amount oI well testing that is conducted.

Typical waste streams Irom an exploration drilling operation can include: domestic wastewater Irom on-
site septic tanks and portable toilets; produced Iormation water during well drilling, testing, and
stimulation; solids waste including drill cuttings, scrap metal, and debris; waste chemicals; waste oils; and
materials associated with chemical and Iuel spills. NewIield`s PPC lists its expected waste streams Irom
its 'natural gas exploration oI the Marcellus Shale Iormation¨ to include:

Wastes generated during these activities will be typical for gas drilling operations and will
include drill cuttings, produced water, drilling and frac fluids, waste oil and municipal waste
and trash [emphasis added].
79


According to the DRBC, there are no DRBC approved non-domestic wastewater treatment Iacilities in the
Delaware River Basin at this time (Exhibit 21).
80
Absent DRBC review oI exploration well permit
applications, there is no process to limit the amount and type oI waste generated at exploration wells in
the Delaware River Basin, and there is no method to ensure that it is collected and shipped to a state
approved waste treatment and storage Iacility outside oI the Delaware River Basin, because PADEP is not
providing this additional level oI oversight and assurance. PADEP only assures that PADEP`s standards
are met, not incremental local standards.

Examples oI signiIicant wastes that could be generated by an exploration well includes drilling mud,
cuttings and produced water. This is not an exhaustive list, but rather these drilling wastes are described
in more detail below to highlight some oI the more signiIicant environmental concerns.

Drilling Muds & Drill Cuttings: Drilling muds are used to control the hydrostatic pressure in a
wellbore.
81
The most common weighting agent used is barite. Barite can contain mercury and other heavy
metals.

Drilling muds are not used in air drilling techniques; however, it must be assumed that drilling muds will
be used, because there is no state statute in Pennsylvania limiting shale gas drilling to air drilling methods
only,
82
and the PPCs provided Ior review include drilling mud.

U.S. Department oI Energy studies show that barite contains mercury (1ppm-10ppm Hg, depending on its
origin).
83
Mercury concentrations can be reduced by using thermal methods, leaching with dilute acids, or
selecting barite with naturally occurring lower concentration levels oI mercury.
84


The U.S. Department oI Interior estimates that 0.8 metric tons oI mercury is discharged into the GulI oI
Mexico (GOM) annually (1839 lb Hg/yr) Irom mud disposed Irom drilling operations.
85
This equates to
approximately 1.69 lbs
86
oI mercury per well Ior wells drilled to a total depth oI approximately 12,000`.

79
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPCP), May 2010, submitted with all its
grandIathered wells.
80
Muszynski, W.J., DRBC Manager Water Resources Management Branch, Presentation, DRBC Engagement in Natural Gas
Exploration and Development, Marcellus Shale Meeting, January 19, 2010.
81
DRN communication with HCLLC on October 23, 2010.
82
While DRN reports that NewIield stated publically at a September 15, 2010 meeting that its wells use air drilling methods,
NewIield`s PPC documents plan Ior use oI drilling muds, not air drilling. DRN reports that the top-hole section oI some wells
may be drilled with air, and the remaining section oI the well drilled with mud.
83
http://www.Iossil.energy.gov, 'Mercury Removal Irom Barite Ior the Oil Industry.¨
84
http://www.Iossil.energy.gov, 'Mercury Removal Irom Barite Ior the Oil Industry.¨
Harvey Consulting, LLC 34

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 34 oI 44


Assuming that the top-hole oI some oI these wells is drilled using air drilling methods, an average
wellbore length oI 5,000` Ior the remaining section oI the well is drilled with mud, and there is a lower
barite use rate oI 100 lbs/It, to account Ior lower expected pressures, the mercury content in drilling mud
is estimated at 0.5- 5.0 lbs
87
per well, depending on barite quality.

Drilling muds may also contain the heavy metal cadmium, leading the EPA to establish cadmium
concentration limits in drilling muds.
88


Drill cuttings can also contain Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM). Absent data to support
otherwise, there is the potential Ior NORM content in drill cuttings in the Delaware River Basin. Gas
shales are known to contain NORM in some regions. Shales can be heterogeneous and the NORM
compositions can vary substantially. Recent studies on the Marcellus Shale in New York State
acknowledge that drilling and production waste and equipment may contain NORM. The New York State
Department oI Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) reports that the Marcellus Shale contains
Uranium-238 and Radium-226, and that this NORM may be present in drill cuttings, produced water and
stimulation treatment waste.
89
NYSDEC identiIied Radium-226 as the most signiIicant NORM oI
concern, because it is water soluble and has a halI-liIe oI 1,600 years.
90
Radiation pathways can include
external gamma radiation, injection, inhalation oI particulates, and radon gas.
91
ThereIore, exploration
drill cuttings should be tested to determine NORM content and be disposed oI accordingly at a licensed
radioactive waste disposal Iacility. Other oil and gas states, such as Texas and Louisiana, have adopted
stringent NORM regulations Ior E&P operations, including: occupational dose control, surveys, testing
and monitoring, record keeping, signs and labeling, and treatment and disposal methods.

Best practice Ior managing drilling muds and cuttings includes the use oI 'closed loop tank systems,¨
instead oI a reserve pit, and transportation to an approved waste disposal Iacility. This avoids the impact
oI constructing a reserve pit and the potential Ior leakage into the environment.

Yet PADEP did not require the best practice oI closed loop tank systems Ior these grandIathered wells.
Instead, PADEP allows drilling muds and cuttings in Pennsylvania to be disposed oI in a variety oI
methods, including subsurIace injection into a disposal well, annular injection into the annulus
92
oI a
previously drilled well, burial on site in pits, or transportation to an oIIsite waste treatment and disposal
Iacility. There is no assurance that exploration well waste handling will meet DRBC water protection
standards. Because PADEP allows onsite burial oI drilling cuttings and land spreading oI other E&P
wastes, we must assume that onsite burial may occur.

85
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/Hg°20discharge°20estimate.pdI.
86
(1,091 wells/yr drilled in GOM))* (12,038 It/well)*(140 lbs barite/It)*(1x10
-6
Hg/g barite)÷ 1,839 lb Hg/yr. (1,839
lb/Hg)/(1,091 wells) ÷ 1.69 lbs oI mercury per well.
87
1ppm Hg in barite÷ (1 Marcellus well)* (5,000 It/well)*(100 lbs barite/It)*(1x10
-6
Hg/g barite) ÷ 0.5 lb Hg/well
10ppm Hg in barite÷ (1 Marcellus well)* (5,000 It/well)*(100 lbs barite/It)*(10x10
-6
Hg/g barite) ÷ 5.0 lb Hg/well
88
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document Ior EIIluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source
PerIormance Standards Ior the OIIshore Subcategory oI the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, EPA 821-R-93-003,
1993.
89
New York State, 2009 DraIt Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining
Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance Ior Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the
Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, DSGEIS, p. 4-36.
90
New York State, 2009 DraIt Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining
Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance Ior Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the
Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, DSGEIS, p. 6-129.
91
US Department oI Interior, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment-
an Issue Ior the Energy Industry, USGS Fact Sheet FS-142-99.
92
Annulus is the space between the wellbore and the casing.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 35

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 35 oI 44


The drilling permits issued by PADEP Ior the 11 grandIathered wells do not limit drilling method, do not
set limits on drilling mud composition, and do not speciIy waste disposal method.

Produced Water Waste: Formation water (commonly reIerred to as 'produced water¨) can be generated
as a waste during exploration drilling and well testing operations. PADEP reports that air drilling
operations can produce larger quantities oI produced water than those wells drilled with mud.
93

Produced waters that are discharged to surIace waters or lands oI the US are regulated under the Iederal
Clean Water Act, under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. PADEP
administers the NPDES program in Pennsylvania.
94


The primary method Ior disposal oI oil Iield wastewater in Pennsylvania is through pre-treatment
Iacilities that clariIy and Iilter the waste and dispose oI it to surIace water or sewage treatment plants.
95
A
smaller amount oI wastewater is disposed oI into Class II injection wells.
96
Absent waste management
plans Ior most oI the grandIathered wells, it is unclear what the waste management plan is Ior produced
water, because PADEP also allows produced water to be disposed oI by land or road spreading, under
some circumstances.

Produced water is typically rich in chloride, which enhances the solubility oI other elements, including
the radioactive element radium. This oIten makes produced water unsuitable Ior land application or
surIace water disposal, especially in sensitive areas such as the Delaware River Basin.
97


Other states, such as Texas, require extensive produced water testing and speciIically prohibit road
spreading oI waste containing NORM.
98
A study conducted by Argonne National Lab Ior the US
Department oI Interior (DOI) concluded that land spreading oI diluted NORM waste presented the highest
potential dose oI exposure to the general public oI all waste disposal methods studied.
99


Furthermore, EPA identiIied produced water pits as an outdated practice iI produced water contains
NORM. EPA reports that:

Lined and/or earthen pits were previously used for storing produced water and other
nonhazardous oil field wastes, hydrocarbon storage brine, or mining wastes. In this case,
TENORM
100
in the water will concentrate in the bottom sludges or residual salts of the ponds.
Thus the pond sediments pose a potential radiological health risk….produced waters are now
generally reinjected into deep wells…No added radiological risks appear to be associated with
this disposal method as long as the radioactive material carried by the produced water is

93
PADEP Oil and Gas Manual Chapter 4, October 2001.
94
PADEP Oil and Gas Manual Chapter 2, October 2001.
95
Gaudlio, A.W., Paugh, L.O. (Range Resources) and Hayes, T.D. (Gas Technology Institute), Marcellus Shale Water
Management Challenges in Pennsylvania, 2008.
96
The Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) oI the Iederal SaIe Drinking Water Act governs control oI the injection oI
Ilowback and produced waters to ensure that injected waste is conIined to the injection zone in a manner that does not
contaminate Iresh water bearing Iormations that may serve as Underground Sources oI Drinking Water (USDW).
97
US Department oI Interior, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) in Produced Water and Oil-Field Equipment-
an Issue Ior the Energy Industry, USGS Fact Sheet FS-142-99.
98
Texas Railroad Commission (TXRRC), 16 Texas Administrative Code, Title 16, Part 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter F, §4.601 -
4.632. 'Disposal oI Oil and Gas NORM Waste¨. The TCEQ has jurisdiction over the disposal oI other NORM wastes.
99
Argonne National Laboratory, Radiological Dose Assessment Related to Management oI Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials Generated by the Petroleum Industry, Publication ANL/EAD-2, 1996.
100
TENORM is Technologically Enhanced Natural Occurring Radioactive Material.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 36

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 36 oI 44

returned in the same or lower concentration to the formations from which it was derived
[emphasis added].
101


NewIield`s Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan states:

Produced water will be removed periodically from the tanks at each wellsite and transported by
a licensed residual waste hauler to a permitted disposal facility [emphasis added].
102


NewIield does not speciIy who the waste hauler is, nor does it name the permitted disposal Iacility.
ThereIore, it is not possible to conIirm whether this waste handling plan conIorms to DRBC`s
requirements Ior waste Irom industrial operations in the Delaware River Basin.



Findings:
· Drilling waste can result in environmental harm iI not properly managed.
· Because waste management plans were not available, it is unclear what the waste
management plan is/was Ior most oI the grandIathered wells.
· Reported waste handling concern at the Teeple and Mastoushek wells are strong indications
that additional waste management oversight is needed.
· There is no assurance that a driller`s waste management plan will meet DRBC`s water
protection requirements, because PADEP allows waste disposal methods that DRBC does
not.
· Best waste management practices in other states do not allow onsite burial oI drilling waste.
· The used oI closed loop tank systems is a best practice, preIerred over reserve pits and
impoundments.
· Drilling waste can include Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), mercury,
cadmium and other heavy metals.



D.5.6. Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water supplies

PADEP stresses the importance oI proper well construction to mitigate stray gas, noting that these
protections are not currently Iound in PADEP`s regulations at Chapter 78, but will be when the
rulemaking is Iinalized in 2011:

Properly constructed and operated oil and gas wells are critical to protecting water supplies
and public safety. If a well is not properly cased and cemented, natural gas in subsurface
formations may potentially migrate from the wellbore through bedrock and soil. This stray gas
may adversely affect water supplies, as well as accumulate in or adjacent to structures such as
residences and water wells. Under certain conditions, stray gas has the potential to cause a fire
or explosion. These situations present a serious threat to public health and safety as well as the

101
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html#disposalpast.
102
NewIield Appalachia PA, LLC, Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan (PPCP), May 2010, submitted with all its
grandIathered wells.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 37

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 37 oI 44

environment. The purpose of this final rulemaking is to improve drilling, casing, cement, testing,
monitoring and plugging requirements for oil and gas wells to minimize gas migration and
protect water supplies [emphasis added].
103


In October 2009, PADEP released a draIt report summarizing 65 cases oI stray natural gas migration
associated with oil and gas wells (Exhibit 32), where improperly constructed and operated oil and gas
wells have reportedly introduced gas into drinking water wells, aquiIers, top soils, and structures. Most oI
these cases were attributed to inadequate well design and construction, improper well operation, poor
well abandonment procedures, or a Iailure to abandon a well that is no longer in use.

The risks associated with well
annulus over-pressuring, well
casing Iailure, improperly
constructed wells, and
improperly abandoned wells
could result in stray natural gas
migration in the Delaware River
Basin, iI these risks are not
mitigated.

There is insuIIicient inIormation
available on the grandIathered
wells to veriIy whether the
planned or installed casing and
cementing conIiguration is a
robust design. ThereIore, it is
not possible to veriIy whether
stray gas problems associated
with well construction practices
have been mitigated in the
grandIathered wells. Because
there are no plug and
abandonment applications or
approvals Ior the grandIathered wells, it is not possible to veriIy whether the wells have been plugged or
will be plugged in a manner that mitigates stray gas. Stray gas mitigation is a design concern Ior all types
oI well construction, including vertical and horizontal wells.

As shown in the Iigure above,
104
there are a number oI ways that gas can migrate in a wellbore through
Iailed piping (e.g. casing damage, corrosion, erosion) or through poor quality or improperly placed
cement.

Open hole completions, where no cement or casing is installed across hydrocarbon bearing intervals, can
increase the likelihood oI gas migration.


103
PADEP Notice oI Final Rulemaking, Department oI Environmental Protection Environmental Quality Board, 25 Pa. Code,
Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Cementing and Casing, 2010 (Exhibit 30A).
104
Potential Gas Migration Pathways Diagram, Alberta Energy Utilities Board.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 38

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 38 oI 44

Unmonitored annulus pressure in completed, temporarily suspended wells can also provide opportunities
Ior stray gas problems. Over pressured well annulus (see diagrams on next pages) can Iorce gas through
low integrity points in the well.

For the grandIathered wells that have been drilled, but not yet plugged, it is important that the well is
monitored to ensure that the annulus does not over-pressure, Iorcing high pressure gas Irom the well
annulus into lower pressure ground water zones. This happens under certain circumstances, such as when
a wellbore is not cased and cemented; casing Iailure occurs; cement is poorly bonded; or a production
packer Iails.

The diagrams shown in this report are simpliIied schematics showing the risk posed by gas migration due
to annular over-pressuring (in a completed well) or a well that is leIt open hole (uncased) and
uncompleted. These diagrams are not intended to show how the grandIathered wells may have been
constructed, because those construction diagrams were not available Ior my review. Rather these
diagrams are intended to show the types oI stray gas problems that can occur in cased and completed
wells, and in open hole completions.

New construction
practices do not
guarantee stray gas
migration will not occur,
but these practices do
signiIicantly reduce risk.
Over time production
packers can wear out or
casing can Iail due to
corrosive and erosive
conditions in the
wellbore, resulting in
gas leaks into the
annular space. Poor
cementing practices can
also result in gas
movement.

Proper monitoring oI the
annulus pressure can
help prevent gas
migration. Even in wells
constructed with more
modern well
construction techniques,
gas pressure can build in
the annulus. For
example, gas can bypass
a worn out production packer or leak into the annulus due to a casing and/or cement Iailure. Gas Irom a
higher pressure oil and gas Iormation will move into the annulus through a leak because the annulus is oI
lower pressure. By the laws oI physics, gas will always Ilow toward a decreasing pressure gradient.
ThereIore, the higher pressure gas will move Irom the oil and gas reservoir into the lower pressure
annulus. As long as the annulus is not over pressured, this gas can be extracted at the surIace. However,
G
a
s
!
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
!
i
n
!
!
A
n
n
u
l
u
s
Surface!Sediment
Surface!Ground!Water
Oil!and!Gas!Formation!
Harvey!Consulting,!LLC!©
wellhead
Conductor!Casing!
Surface!Casing
Cement!Behind!Surface!Casing!
Open!Annulus!
Where!Gas!Can!Accumulate
Production!Casing
Cement!Behind!Int.!Casing!
Production!Tubing!(Oil! &!Gas!
Flows!Through!Up!the!Wellbore)
Production!Packer!set!to!prevent!
gas!from!entering! the!annulus
Cemented!and!Perforated!
Production!Interval
Annulus!gas!valve!in!shut!position!
allows!pressure! to!build!in!annulus
Oil!&!Gas!Flow
If!gas!pressure! builds! in!the!
annulus,! pressurized! gas!can!be!
forced!through! low!integrity!
points!in!the!well
Gas!will! always!flow!towards! a!
decreasing!pressure!gradient;!
therefore,!it!is!important! to!keep!
the!annulus!pressure!low
Gas!can!by"pass!a!worn!production!
packer,!or!leak!into!the!annulus!due!
to!a!casing!and/or!cement!failure!
Gas!Leak!From!Over!Pressured!
Annulus!Through!Failed! Casing!and!
Poor!Cement
Harvey Consulting, LLC 39

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 39 oI 44

iI the annulus becomes over pressured, Iormation gas will take the path oI least resistance, which may
cause it to migrate into shallower Iormations.

An open-hole provides several
pathways Ior gas to migrate Irom
deeper, higher pressure Iormations
to shallower, lower pressure
Iormations. Gas can leak though
poor cement placed at the bottom oI
the production casing. Smaller
amounts oI methane gas in the
Iormation above the commercially
targeted reservoir can break out oI
solution, and move toward the lower
pressure open-annulus. An over-
pressured annulus can cause gas to
move Irom the higher pressure
annulus into lower pressure,
shallower zones.

The problem oI ground water
contamination by open-hole
completions in Pennsylvania is well
documented in two articles
published in the Ground Water
Journal by Samuel Harrison, a
ProIessor oI Geology and
Environmental Science Irom
Allegheny College, Meadville,
Pennsylvania.
105,106


Dr. Harrison concluded:

This annulus is a potential avenue of migration of contaminants from strata of higher
hydrodynamic pressure into formations of lower hydrodynamic pressure. If gas from the strata
exposed to the annulus is not permitted to escape to the atmosphere, the annulus may become
pressurized and a hydraulic gradient may be created between the potential contaminants in the
annulus (e.g. brine and/or natural gas) and the overlying fresh-water aquifers. If a
permeability pathway exists between the pressurized annulus and an overlying fresh-water
aquifer, contamination of the aquifer will result [emphasis added].”
107


OI note, Dr. Harrison`s article Irom 1985 stated that gas should be vented to atmosphere to relieve
pressure on the annulus. However, best practices to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane,

105
Harrison, S.S., Evaluating System Ior Ground-Water Contamination Hazards Due to Gas-Well Drilling on Glaciated
Appalachian Plateau, Groundwater, November-December 1983, Vol. 21, No.6.
106
Harrison, S.S., Contamination oI AquiIers by Overpressuring the Annulus oI Oil and Gas Wells, Groundwater, May-June
1985, Vol. 23, No.3.
107
Harrison, S.S., Evaluating System Ior Ground-Water Contamination Hazards Due to Gas-Well Drilling on Glaciated
Appalachian Plateau, Groundwater, November-December 1983, Vol. 21, No.6.
Surface!Sediment
Surface!Ground!Water
Oil!and/or!Gas!Formation!
Harvey!Consulting,!LLC!©
wellhead
Conductor!Casing!
Surface!Casing
Cement!Behind!Surface!Casing!
Open!Hole! Location
Where!Gas!Can!Accumulate
Gas!Pressure!
in!the!Annulus
Oil!&!Gas!Flow
Open!Hole!Construction
Gas!Migration
Geologic!Barriers
If!pressure!build"ups!in!well,! exceeding!the!normal!
pressure!in!the!adjacent!reservoir! strata!then!gas!
can!be!forced!to!move!vertically! through!the!
reservoir.!Insufficient!geologic!barriers! between!the!
gas!and!water! can!cause!the!gas!to!migrate!
vertically.
Shale
Smaller,!amounts!of!methane!gas!in!the!
formation!above!the!commercially!targeted!
reservoir!can!break!out!of!solution!due!to!the!
pressure!drop!in!the!annulus!and!contribute!to!
gas!movement
Annulus!gas!valve!in!shut!position!
allows!pressure! to!build!in!annulus
Shale
Shale
Shale
Harvey Consulting, LLC 40

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 40 oI 44

now recommend collecting this gas in a low pressure gas system or using it as Iuel at the well site, rather
than venting it to atmosphere, where technically Ieasible.

Dr. Harrison goes on to write:

The risk of contaminating fresh ground water with the contents of a gas- or oil-well annulus
could be greatly reduced by filling the annulus with cement.

The oil and gas industry has learned Irom experience that casing and cementing the wells along the
entire length oI the hole provides added protection to ground water resources, as shown in the more
current wellbore construction approaches used today.

Gas pressure buildup in the annulus can cause gas to move vertically in the reservoir toward the lower
pressure ground water aquiIer. This problem can be mitigated by opening the annulus valve and
producing the gas to the surIace, thereby decreasing the pressure in the annulus ('gas annulus de-
pressuring¨). An open-hole design does not guarantee that gas will migrate vertically to the lower
pressure groundwater aquiIer. It is just more likely to occur than in a more robust well construction
design, with multiple barriers oI cement and casing.

Geologic barriers to vertical Ilow, such as thick continuous shale layers, can trap gas and prevent vertical
migration. Sealed Iaults and other sealed geologic unconIormities can also provide barriers to vertical
Ilow. Moreover, the pressure oI the gas in the annulus must exceed the normal hydrostatic pressure
gradient Ior it to Ilow vertically. Higher pressure gas will naturally seek equilibrium pressure and Ilow
toward areas oI lower pressure. II the gas pressure is suIIicient enough to overcome the natural
hydrostatic pressure gradient, and there are insuIIicient geologic barriers to prevent vertical gas migration,
then gas may reach the ground water reservoir.

Pennsylvania has casing pressure regulations at Subchapter D, § 78.73 requiring Operators to monitor and
prevent gas well annulus over-pressuring. The Iact that gas well annulus over-pressuring is occurring,
despite this rule being in place points to the need Ior additional agency monitoring and oversight to ensure
the regulation is being complied with in the Iield.


Findings:
· Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water supplies.
· Well construction improvements to mitigate stray gas problems associated with oil and gas
drilling have been proposed by PADEP Ior adoption in 2011, but will not apply to most oI the
grandIathered wells.
· Risks associated with well annulus over-pressuring, well casing Iailure, improperly
constructed wells and improperly abandoned wells could result in stray natural gas migration
in the Delaware River Basin, iI these risks are not mitigated.
· Because there are no plug and abandonment applications or approvals Ior the grandIathered
wells, it is not possible to veriIy whether the wells have been plugged or will be plugged in a
manner that mitigates stray gas.
· Open hole completions and/or unmonitored annulus pressure in completed, temporarily
suspended wells can provide opportunities Ior stray gas problems.

Harvey Consulting, LLC 41

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 41 oI 44

D.5.7. PADEP’s well siting criteria allow wells to be placed very close to water resources

The Oil and Gas Act, §601.205(a) only requires oil and gas wells be located at least 200 Ieet Irom
existing buildings and existing water wells, and allows Ior granting a variance
108
to place the well even
closer.

The Oil and Gas Act, §601.205(b) only requires oil and gas wells be located at least 100 Ieet Irom any
stream, spring or body oI water, as identiIied on the most current 7½ minute topographic map, and at least
100 Ieet Irom any wetland greater than one acre in size, and allows Ior granting a variance
109
to place the
well even closer.

These surIace siting criteria do not provide suIIicient setbacks Irom sensitive water resources in the
Delaware River Basin. For example, blowouts can eject drilling mud, gas, oil and/or Iormation water
Irom the well and onto waters and lands adjacent to the well, within the radius oI the blowout plume.
Depending on the reservoir pressure, blowout circumstances, and wind speed these pollutants can be
distributed hundreds to thousands oI Ieet away Irom the well.
110
Pressurized Iluids can spray hundreds oI
Ieet, and spilled Iluids can travel across surIace terrain, or seep into the ground and travel towards water
resources though the soil. For example, in September 2009 well chemicals spilled at the Cabot Heitsman
4H well Ilowed to the nearby Steven`s Creeks located more than 100` away.
111


The Crum well site is on the North Branch oI Calkins Creek, a 'High Quality¨ Creek, as classiIied by
PADEP. It has high quality biota in the stream that will be impacted by inIluxes oI sediment and
pollution, and changes in stream Ilow. Calkins Creek supports brook trout, brown trout (both are
temperature sensitive), merganser ducks, and great blue herons. It is also habitat Ior black bear and bald
eagles that Iish the river and roost the Iorest in this sub-watershed.
112
The Woodland well site is less than
one-halI mile Irom the river, on Hollister Creek, a 'High Quality¨ stream, as classiIied by PADEP. Black
bear and bald eagles use this area Ior hunting, Ioraging and nesting.


Findings:
· PADEP`s setback requirements oI 100` Irom a water body or 200` Irom a well are not
suIIicient to protect high-value water resources.


D.5.8 Air pollution impacts are not well understood or mitigated.

The 25 PA Code § 127.14 (38) exempts oil and gas drilling operations Irom air quality control
requirements (Exhibit 33).


108
Where the restriction would deprive the owner oI the oil and gas rights, the right to produce or share in production, the
Department may grant a variance upon submission and approval oI Iorm 5500-FM-OG0058, Request Ior Variance From
Distance Restriction From Existing Building or Water Supply.
109
The Department may waive distance requirements upon submission and approval oI Iorm 5500-FM-OG0057, Request Ior
Waiver Ior Distance Requirements From Springs, Streams, Body oI Water or Wetland.
110
S.L. Ross Environmental Research Limited, Oil Deposition Modeling For SurIace Oil Well Blowouts, 1998.
111
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Engineering Study, Prepared Ior PADEP, In Response to Order Dated September 24, 2009,
prepared by URS Corporation Ior Cabot, October 9, 2009.
112
Biological InIormation provided by DRN November 1, 2010.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 42

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 42 oI 44

“38. Oil and gas exploration and production facilities and operations that include wells and
associated equipment and processes used either to: a) drill or alter oil and gas wells; b) extract,
process and deliver crude oil and natural gas to the point of lease custody transfer; c) plug
abandoned wells and restore well sites, or d) treat and dispose of associated wastes. This
includes petroleum liquid storage tanks which are used to store produced crude oil and
condensate prior to lease custody transfer.”

This exemption includes shale gas drilling; thereIore, air pollution impacts Irom the grandIathered wells
are currently unregulated and unmitigated.

PADEP is in the process oI determining whether this air permitting exemption is warranted Ior Marcellus
Shale Drilling Operations. PADEP is currently studying short-term air quality impacts and is expected to
complete these studies in early 2011 (Exhibit 33 includes a news report summarizing PADEP`s study).

PADEP`s study does not examine combined and cumulative impacts oI multiple drilling operations, nor
does PADEP`s study examine the impacts oI air pollutant transport and deposition on waters and lands
downwind oI drilling operations.

Components oI atmosphere pollution caused by exploration drilling includes gaseous products oI
hydrocarbon evaporation and burning as well as aerosol particles oI unburned Iuel, including nitrogen
oxide, sulIur oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants. These airborne
pollutants interact with atmospheric moisture, and transIorm in the presence oI solar radiation and
precipitate onto land and water surIaces causing both local and regional pollution.
113


There are a number oI potential air emission sources Irom drilling operations, including combustion
source emissions (drilling engines and Ilares), direct venting oI gas, and Iugitive emissions Irom pits,
impoundments and other leaks.

Since PADEP does not require a permit and there is no list oI emission sources, or any assessment oI the
air pollution impact, it is not clear whether air pollution impacts Irom the grandIathered wells are
signiIicant and warrant mitigation to protect the Delaware River Basin airshed and associated waters. Air
pollution can transport airborne pollutants downwind, depositing pollutants to water and land surIaces.
These impacts are not well understood or mitigated Ior the grandIathered wells.

EPA explains the direct relationship between air pollution and water quality impacts:

Airborne pollutants from human and natural sources can deposit back onto land and water
bodies, sometimes at great distances from the source, and can be an important contributor to
declining water quality. Pollutants in waterbodies that may originate in part from atmospheric
sources include nitrogen compounds, sulfur compounds, mercury, pesticides, and other toxics
[emphasis added].”
114


Airborne pollution can fall to the ground in precipitation, in dust, or simply due to gravity. This
type of pollution is called “atmospheric deposition” or “air deposition.” Pollution deposited
from the air can reach water bodies in two ways. It can either be deposited directly onto the
surface of the water (direct deposition) or be deposited onto land and be carried to water bodies

113
Rana, S., Facts and Data on Environmental Risks- Oil and Gas Drilling Operations, Society oI Petroleum
Engineering Paper 114993, October 2008.
114
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/airdeposition¸index.cIm
Harvey Consulting, LLC 43

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 43 oI 44

through run off (indirect deposition). Once these pollutants are in the water, they can have
undesirable health and environmental impacts, such as contaminated fish, harmful algal
blooms, and unsafe drinking water [emphasis added].
115


The diagram below shows the air pollution pathway Irom industrial sources to water resources.
116


EPA explains that there are several pathways Ior air pollution to contaminate water resources, including:
! Direct deposition where air
pollutants are directly deposited to
the water resource;
! Indirect deposition where the air
pollutant is deposited to the water
resource, initially only impacting
one part oI the water resource, but
later those pollutants are transported
through runoII, rivers, streams and
groundwater contaminating larger
areas;
! Wet deposition where pollutants are
deposited in rain, snow clouds or
Iog. Acid rain is an example oI wet
deposition oI sulIur and nitrogen
compounds associated with Iossil
Iuel combustion;
! Dry deposition where air pollutant particles settle on water surIaces via gravity.

In many states, drilling equipment has been exempt Irom air permitting requirements because oI its
mobile, short-term nature, but upon Iurther study regulators are Iinding that the air pollution impacts are
more substantial than initially expected especially the amount oI hazardous air pollution that is emitted,
when large open-air impoundments are used to store Iracture Iluids and drilling chemicals.

A recent Environmental Impact Statement completed Ior Marcellus Shale drilling in New York State
identiIied the potential Ior large amounts oI hazardous air pollution (methanol
117
) may be present at
central impoundments (32.5 tons per year).
118
A major source oI hazardous air pollution is one that emits
more than 10 tons/yr oI any single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/yr oI multiple hazardous air
pollutants, thereIore New York`s study Iound that shale drilling operations exceeded the hazardous
pollutant threshold by more than three times.

115
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/airdeposition¸index.cIm
116
EPA's OIIice oI Air and Radiation (OAR) and OIIice oI Water (OW), Frequently Asked Questions about Atmospheric
Deposition Handbook: A Handbook Ior Watershed Managers, EPA-453/R-01-009, September 2001.
117
EPA lists methanol as a hazardous air pollutant, but has not yet classiIied methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hltheI/methanol.html. Chronic inhalation or oral exposure may result in headache, dizziness,
giddiness, insomnia, nausea, gastric disturbances, conjunctivitis, blurred vision, and blindness in humans. Neurological damage,
speciIically permanent motor dysIunction, may also result. The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia oI Chemicals, Drugs, and
Biologicals. 11th ed. Ed. S. Budavari. Merck and Co. Inc., Rahway, NJ. 1989.
118
New York State, 2009 DraIt Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement On the Oil, Gas & Solution Mining
Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance Ior Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the
Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs, DSGEIS, p. 6-57.
Harvey Consulting, LLC 44

DRBC Hearing Report Ior Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability, Inc. Page 44 oI 44


The New York State Environmental Impact Statement did not estimate signiIicant amounts oI benzene
emissions; however, recent reports indicate the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is Iinding
surprisingly high levels oI benzene emitted Irom Barnett Gas Shale activities in Texas.
119
Benzene is a
known, EPA-listed human carcinogen.

Air toxics do not just remain airborne when emitted Irom industrial operations, these toxins can deposit
onto soils or surIace waters where they are taken up by plants and ingested by animals and can be
magniIied through the Iood chain.
120



Findings:
· PADEP exempts oil shale gas drilling operations Irom air quality control requirements, but
has yet to complete a study to veriIy that short and long-term (cumulative impacts) meet the
Clean Air Act requirements and are protective oI human health and the environment.
· PADEP is in the process oI determining whether this air permitting exemption is warranted
Ior Marcellus Shale Drilling Operations. PADEP is currently studying short-term air quality
impacts and is expected to complete these studies in early 2011.
· PADEP`s study does not examine combined and cumulative impacts oI multiple drilling
operations, nor does it examine the impacts oI air pollutant transport and deposition on waters
and lands downwind oI drilling operations.
· Shale gas drilling operations, when combined with use oI Iracture and drilling chemical
impoundments, can be major sources oI hazardous air pollutants.
· The use oI closed looped collection and tank systems can mitigate water, land and air
pollution impacts and are best pollution mitigation practices Ior shale gas drilling.
· Fuel and power selection options can also be considered to reduce air pollution impacts.







119
Dr. Michael Honeycutt, Head oI TCEQ`s Toxicology Division, quoted in WFAA-TV new report, November 20, 2009. Dr.
Michael Honeycutt 'was shocked to see air sampling revealed high levels oI benzene, a cancer-causing toxin, near some natural
gas Iacilities.¨
120
http://www.epa.gov/oar/toxicair/newtoxics.html
Report on Selected Environmental Impacts oI
Exploratory Gas Drilling in the Delaware River Watershed !

!
Prepared by:
!
Emmet M. Owens, P.E.
Senior Research Engineer


!

!
Prepared Ior:

!
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
300 Pond Street, Bristol, PA 19007

!
and

!
Damascus Citizens Ior Sustainability
P.O. Box 147, Milanville, PA 18443

!

!

!

!

!

!
November 18, 2010

!

!
!
  1
Executive Summary

This report is concerned with the construction and operation oI exploratory vertical gas wells in
the Special Protection Waters portion oI the Delaware River watershed.

Current well drilling technologies, as applied in practice, do not guarantee that surrounding
groundwater and surIace water will be protected Irom the eIIects oI exploratory well drilling.
Regulators should proceed with caution in evaluating the impact oI exploratory gas wells on
surrounding surIace waters. Current regulations in Pennsylvania do not require analysis oI
surrounding surIace waters and there is no evidence that the well operators will perIorm or have
perIormed any surIace water analysis prior to, during or aIter drilling oI these wells.

Stream buIIer strips have proven to be an eIIective means oI reducing the eIIect oI land
development on surIace waters, both in general land development and in the particular case oI
drilling Ior oil and gas exploration and extraction. Pennsylvania regulations only require a 100
Ioot separation distance between a gas well and a surIace water body. This is wholly inadequate
as a stream buIIer and will not provide needed protection to the Special Protection Waters oI the
Delaware River.

The loss oI intact Iorest land and the increase oI Iorest Iragmentation associated with oil and gas
development is well documented. In this Special Protection Waters area, development that
results in such changes to the land should be careIully evaluated. Where such development is
approved, mitigating steps or measures should be implemented in order to preserve water
quality. Pennsylvania regulations do not provide adequate protection oI Iorest and does not
prevent or reduce Iorest Iragmentation leading to inadequate protection oI Iorest cover required
to protect the Special protection Waters oI the Delaware River Basin.

At issue here is the impact oI multiple exploratory wells. It is important that, in evaluating the
environmental impact oI these wells, the evaluation consider not only the impact oI each
individual well site, but also oI the cumulative impact oI all sites operating together and
simultaneously. When viewed in this manner, the impact oI the exploratory wells in question is
ampliIied. There is no evidence that any cumulative impact analysis oI the potential impacts oI
and risks posed by the multiple exploratory wells on receiving water bodies, particularly the
main stem Delaware River, has been done.

It has been Iound (The Nature Conservancy and Pennsylvania Audubon, 2010) (Exhibit 1) that,
with proper planning in advance oI well construction, integration oI conservation Ieatures into
the development oI well sites can lead to signiIicantly reduced impacts on surIace waters.
However, there is no evidence that such planning has occurred in the development oI the
exploratory well sites that are oI interest here. As a result, it is prudent that the procedures used
in selecting the sites Ior the exploratory sites, and the activities on these sites, be careIully
reviewed. This is particularly important given the Special Protection Waters status oI the
watershed.

The opinions provided in this report are stated to a reasonable degree oI scientiIic and
proIessional certainty
  2

Introduction

Exploratory gas wells have been or are permitted to be drilled in northeastern Pennsylvania as a
part oI a project to extract natural gas Irom the Marcellus shale Iormation. This gas extraction
will use the process oI hydraulic Iracturing in the Iuture to extract the gas Irom this deep
geologic Iormation. The portions oI the Delaware River watershed where the exploratory wells
grandIathered under the Supplemental Executive Director Determination (SEDD) at issue in this
hearing are located have been designated as Special Protection Waters (SPW) by the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC). Waters receiving this designation have been Iound to have
exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological and/or water supply values. The regulations
establishing SPW signiIicantly restrict new and increased discharges oI wastewater directly to
the designated waterways by prohibiting discharges that create any measurable change in water
quality.

Groundwater Contamination

An important issue in evaluating potential pollution pathways Irom exploratory gas wells is
groundwater contamination Irom poorly constructed water wells. Generally, drinking water
wells are shallower than natural gas wells, and their casing may not extend their entire depth.
This is particularly the case Ior domestic water wells that may not be subject to the same level oI
oversight and scrutiny as municipal or privately owned water supply Iacilities. This is
particularly true Ior older water wells and Ior spring wells, which are used in the regions oI the
Delaware River watershed that are underlain by Marcellus shale, including Wayne County, and
the local areas immediately adjacent or quite close to where these grandIathered exploratory
wells are located. A water well that is not cased Irom the surIace, or is not constructed and cased
properly, might allow contaminated water to Ilow Irom the ground surIace and enter the water
well, possibly compromising the quality oI drinking water in the well, as well as the drinking
water aquiIer itselI.

In such instances, and particularly where natural gas drilling activities are nearby, leaky surIace
impoundments or careless surIace disposal oI drilling Iluids at the natural gas operation could
increase the risk oI contaminating the nearby water well. While the quantity oI chemicals used
in the installation oI exploratory wells may be less than Ior production wells, the potential Ior
this type oI contamination is signiIicant. The grandIathered wells under the SEDD are each
located close to groundwater wells or springs providing potable water to residents in, adjacent to,
and downgradient Irom these exploratory well sites.


  3
SurIace Water Impacts oI Well Drilling

The Pennsylvania Academy oI Natural Sciences has called Ior a comprehensive research plan
that would result in guidelines and an assessment tool Ior regulators and managers in order to
minimize the environmental impact oI Marcellus Shale gas drilling. Dr. David Velinsky
Testimony (Exhibit 2) (available at http://www.ansp.org/about/news/marcellus-shale.php)

The research described by Dr. Velinsky Iound that there is very little inIormation available as to
the impacts oI long-term exposure oI a watershed to Marcellus Shale drilling activities. It is
unknown iI there is a cumulative impact oI drilling activity on a small watershed. Initial
research by Academy scientists shows the environmental impact oI drilling may be directly
related to the density oI drilling in a speciIic area. This research has pointed out that a question
that needs to be addressed is whether there is a threshold point past which a certain amount oI
drilling activity has an impact on the ecological health and services oI the watershed, regardless
oI how careIully drilling is conducted. This is very important in regards to the exploratory wells
that are being drilled in the Basin under the grandIathered wells provision oI the SEDD. Three
oI the grandIathered wells in southern Wayne County drain over a short distance to a relatively
small stretch oI the Delaware River that inIluences vulnerable species such as dwarI wedge
mussel, a Iederally listed endangered species, and other Iish, wildliIe and aquatic species that are
sensitive to water quality and Ilow changes.

The Academy scientists examined small watersheds in northeastern Pennsylvaniathree in
which there had been no drilling, three in which there had been some drilling and three in which
there had been a high density oI drilling. At each site, they tested the water, the abundance oI
certain sensitive insects, and the abundance oI salamanders. The presence oI salamanders is
particularly important because amphibians are especially vulnerable to changes in the
environment. The absence oI amphibians is oIten an ecological early-warning system. For each
oI the measures, there was a signiIicant diIIerence between high-density drilling locations and
locations with no drilling or less drilling. The studies showed that water conductivity (which
indicates the level oI contamination) was almost twice as high in the high density sites as the
other sites, and the number oI both sensitive insects and salamanders were reduced by 25
percent.

Site preparation on the surIace at the well site is likely to cause increased erosion and runoII into
surrounding streams. For both exploratory and production wells, the wellbore acts as a conduit
between adjoining geologic Iormations, which can allow contaminants to Ilow into shallow
groundwater or surIace waters.

It has been reported (DRBC 2009) that wastewater generated during the drilling oI the
Matoushek well (which was completed as a Iuture production well but has not gone into
production and thereIore is similar to an exploratory well) was stored on site and then trucked to
a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Athens, PA. It is known that the wastewater treatment
processes used at municipal treatment plants, including the plant at Athens, are not capable oI
removing the industrial pollutants (organic chemicals, heavy metals, etc.) that are present in the
wastewater that is generated by well drilling operations. As a result, it is likely that these
pollutants were discharged into either surIace or groundwater without treatment. The
  4
grandIathered exploratory wells at issue here either have already generated wastewaters or will
generate them when they are drilled and such wastewaters will most likely be transported Irom
the well site to another treatment or disposal location that has not been identiIied by DRBC
because it is not exercising any regulatory control over these wells.


Land Disturbance - General

Drill sites involve land disturbance, making sites susceptible to runoII during storm events that
can cause pollution oI streams, lakes, ponds, etc. downstream Irom the site. Construction oI drill
pads as a surIace Ior operations and storage oI large equipment/containers is completed prior to
the commencement oI drilling and can be as large as Iive acres. Roads may also need to be built
Ior access to the site. Phase II Stormwater Regulations require that construction activities
disturbing one or more acres oI land must have a stormwater discharge permit. In New York
such permits are issued by NYS DEC under its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) General Permit Ior construction activities. As part oI this permit, a Stormwater
Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required, with NYS DEC charged with
ensuring the SWPPP is met. Apparently no such permitting oI this type is required in
Pennsylvania Ior oil and gas projects less than 5 acres. Stormwater runoII Irom the
grandIathered exploratory well sites is a source oI pollutants to the Special Protection Waters.

With regard to land disturbance, the grandIathered exploratory wells that are at issue here are
generally the same as production wells. This includes disturbance on the well site itselI,
placement oI well Iacilities such as the well pad and pit, and in the construction oI access roads
to the site, and traIIic on such roads.

It should be noted that the Marcellus shale Iormation underlies a signiIicant portion oI the
watershed oI the New York City water supply system in southeastern New York State and the
watershed Ior water supply to Philadelphia, central and southern New Jersey, and all oI the
communities along the Delaware River. The New York City public water supply is unusual in
that there is no Iiltration applied to the water diverted Irom the Delaware River Basin beIore
delivery to the public. New York City has been granted a waiver Irom Iederal regulations that
require such Iiltration. The granting oI this waiver is dependent on enIorcement oI various
regulations in the watershed that are designed to maintain water quality. The goals and
associated requirements oI the Special Protection Waters status oI the portion oI the Delaware
River watershed where the grandIathered exploratory wells are located are applicable to protect
the downstream water users and are similar in many ways to the requirements that exist in the
watershed oI the New York City water supply system.

The entire New York City watershed located west oI the Hudson River (the Catskill and
Delaware portions oI the watershed) is underlain by Marcellus shale, and gas development has
been proposed in this area. In response to this potential gas development, the New York City
Dept. oI Environmental Protection completed a study to evaluate the impact oI gas development
on general water quality in the watershed, and speciIically on the risk to the Iederal Iiltration
waiver (Hazen and Sawyer 2009)(Exhibit 3).
  5
While this study was concerned with both gas exploration and production, many oI the Iindings
and recommendations apply to the grandIathered exploratory wells in question here, because, as
reported by Dr. Rubin in recent comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Exhibit
4), the geology oI the Delaware River Basin watershed below the New York City reservoirs is
the same as the geology oI the areas oI New York state addressed by Hazen and Sawyer. Among
other conclusions, the Hazen and Sawyer study Iound that land disturbance associated with gas
exploration and development would lead to increased risk to the water supply. With regard to
land disturbance, these conclusions also apply to the Special Protection Waters oI the Delaware
River watershed. The Hazen and Sawyer study more generally documented the problems that
may be associated with well drilling (exploratory or production), such as migration oI drilling
muds, hydrocarbons, and naturally occurring radioactive compounds into surIace and
groundwater.

Projects that involve only exploratory wells have been Iound to result in problems aIIecting
surrounding land and water resources (U.S. Forest Service, 2005). Monitoring oI the Gunnison
Energy Exploratory Gas Drilling Project in the Grand Mesa/Uncompahgre/Gunnison (GMUG)
National Forest and the Willsource Exploratory Project in the White River National Forest
demonstrated unexpected negative environmental impacts aIter exploration began. Gunnison
Energy Corp., the developer at the GMUG National Forest, experienced the movement oI
signiIicant quantities oI sediment Irom well sites into nearby streams. Measures that were
designed to prevent an increase in runoII Irom well sites were Iound to not be eIIective. At the
Willsource Exploratory Project, sediment Irom access roads was deposited in nearby stream
channels, and runoII Irom well sites was not properly controlled. The grandIathered well sites at
issue here present similar runoII pollution risks.


Land Disturbance - BuIIer Zones

A riparian Iorest buIIer is a streamside Iorest composed oI native trees, shrubs and herbaceous
plants (Lee et al. 2004). Use oI such buIIer areas provides various beneIits. BuIIers are natural
Iilters. LeaI litter on the Iorest Iloor traps sediments beIore they can enter the stream. In addition,
the presence oI trees and shrubs along a stream's banks minimizes erosion and the eIIects oI
Ilooding. BuIIers also encourage groundwater inIiltration. Trees convert the excess nutrients in
stormwater runoII into a Iorm that actually sustains the growth oI the Iorest. In addition, buIIers
provide shade necessary to maintain cool water temperatures and higher dissolved oxygen levels.
Native trout, Ior example, require water temperatures below 68
o
F to survive, and Iorested
streams are as much as 10 degrees cooler than streams that Ilow through meadows (Lee et al.
2004). In addition, insects, the primary Iood Ior trout, are abundant both above and in wooded
streams and cannot survive in water temperatures that exceed 68
o
F.

The results demonstrate the positive impact oI Iorest buIIer zones in reducing the inIluence oI
agricultural nutrients and chemicals on surIace stream waters (Anbumozhi et al. 2005).
Some oI the adverse eIIects oI impervious surIaces (such as paved roads, parking lots, and
manmade structures) and agricultural areas can be mitigated by tree cover and streamside
vegetation buIIers, which reduce the Iorce oI overland Ilows, uptake excess nutrients, maintain
stream bank integrity, and provide shade that reduces solar warming oI waterways (Goetz et al.
  6
2004). In addition, it has been Iound that Iorest cover provides more optimal land cover Ior
protecting water quality than many oI the potential uses to which that land may be converted
(Hall et al. 2008). 

There is solid evidence that providing riparian buIIers oI suIIicient width protects and improves
water quality by intercepting nonpoint source pollution (NPSP) in surIace and shallow
subsurIace water Ilow (Lowrance et al. 1984; Pinay and Decamps 1988). The spatial placement
oI buIIer strips within a watershed can have proIound eIIects on water quality. Riparian buIIers
in headwater streams (i.e., those adjacent to Iirst-, second-, and third-order systems) have much
greater inIluences on overall water quality within a watershed than those buIIers occurring in
downstream reaches. Downstream buIIers have proportionally less impact on polluted water
already in the stream (Fischer and Fischenich, 2000).

The areas that have been or will be disturbed by the construction oI the grandIathered well sites
at issue here include Iorested and other land areas that will be or have been disturbed. This will
compromise buIIer zones to streams and creeks in close proximity to the well sites. These
streams and creeks are mostly classiIied as high value or exceptional value streams and provide
spawning habitat Ior native trout, among other important aquatic species.

It has been Iound that species richness was positively correlated with wetland area, Iorest cover,
and the amount oI wetlands on adjacent lands and negatively correlated with road density
(Houlahan and Findlay, 2003). Lowrance et al. (1997) Iound that riparian Iorest buIIers retain
50°90° oI the total loading oI nitrate in shallow groundwater, sediment in surIace runoII, and
total nitrogen in both surIace runoII and groundwater, thereby reducing the loading oI these
nutrients to downstream waters.

In a study oI Pennsylvania streams by Brenner et al. (1991), riparian woodlands were eIIective in
reducing Iecal coliIorm, suspended solids, and total phosphorus. The establishment and
maintenance oI wetlands and riparian vegetation were determined to be a cost eIIective means oI
non-point source pollution abatement. Stormwater treatment strategies that Iocus on inIiltration
and take advantage oI trees and intact Iorest buIIers can counter the unhealthy eIIects oI
development. The areas surrounding the grandIathered well sites generally provide all or most
oI these land Ieatures.
Pennsylvania`s Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) recently passed two new
regulations that provide protections Ior water resources and Ior drinking water and watersheds
Irom the impacts oI natural gas drilling pollution as well as other new development projects. The
rules Iall under Title 25, in the PA code, Chapter 95, Wastewater Treatment Requirements, and
Chapter 102, Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Changes to Chapter 102 state regulations
approved by the IRRC will require some developers to maintain or create a 150-Ioot natural
vegetative buIIer beside Pennsylvania`s best rivers and streams. These rules aIIect so-called E&S
permitting or Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures implemented with construction
projects to reduce impact on streams and rivers. Streams in the top 20° statewide Ior water
quality will be subject to the increased protections. This would presumably include streams
designated as Special Protection Waters. UnIortunately, natural gas projects are exempted Irom
the additional buIIer width requirements that are being adopted Ior Pennsylvania`s best streams.
  7
The subject exploratory wells will not employ these extra buIIer protections, exposing the high
and exceptional water quality oI the tributaries and main stem Delaware River in the Wayne
County region to degradation in proximity to the places where the grandIathered wells have been
or will be located.
Streamside buIIers are widely considered to be the best and most eIIective long-term solution Ior
protection water quality. BuIIers help Iilter water, reduce the impacts oI Ilooding, shade and
reduce water temperatures creating better habitat Ior Iish and aquatic species. Over 200
municipalities within Pennsylvania require streamside buIIers Ior such development projects.
Again, no natural gas well, exploratory or production well, will be required to Iollow this rule to
which all other development projects are now subject.

Land Disturbance - Intact Forest Land Cover and Forest Fragmentation

Ecosystem Iragmentation generally causes large changes in the physical environment as well as
biogeographic changes (Saunders et al. 1991). The exchange oI solar radiation, water, and
nutrients across the land surIace and landscape are altered signiIicantly. These in turn can have
important inIluences on the biota within remnant areas, especially at or near the edge oI the
remnant. It has generally been Iound that intact Iorests that have not been subject to
Iragmentation by construction oI roads and pipelines support more diverse and healthier
ecosystems (Spellerberg 1998).

Areas oI high ecological integrity that may serve as core reIugia include: intact old growth
Iorests, native Iorest ecosystems operating within the bounds oI historic disturbance regimes,
intact watersheds and large roadless areas (DellaSala et al. 2003). Intact natural vegetation helps
to reduce or control Iloods and retain moisture in the soils (O`Neill et al. 1997; Hunsaker and
Levine. 1995). Construction oI logging and other roads in Iorested areas has been correlated
with decrease in the acreage oI intact Iorest (Heilman et al. 2002).

For gas well drilling in Iorested areas, trees and vegetation are removed Ior the well pad, access
roads, and pipelines (Woodring 2009). This habitat destruction and Iorest Iragmentation has the
potential to seriously disrupt and endanger Ilora and Iauna. Furthermore, noise Irom traIIic
could have a negative eIIect on local wildliIe and clearings Ior pipelines may present an
opportunity Ior increased traIIic Irom oII-road vehicles (Woodring 2009). Indirect impacts
include road-building and pipeline development, which may result in habitat Iragmentation and
increased access to remote areas. While larger intact Iorest ecosystems may withstand the
impacts oI mining and oil development, smaller Iragments are likely to be particularly sensitive
to clearing (Mooney et al. 1995). Several oI the sites where grandIathered wells have been or
will be located will suIIer Iorest Iragmentation Irom the construction oI these well sites.
General decline in the diversity oI animal populations has been observed as a result oI Iorest
Iragmentation in Pennsylvania (Yahner 1996). One potential repercussion oI Iorest
Iragmentation is a decline in migratory bird populations, which become more vulnerable without
continuous Iorest cover (Robinson et al. 1995). It has been Iound that maintenance oI intact
Iorests encourages the vitality oI bird populations in Pennsylvania (Porneluzi et al. 1993). Food
  8
supply Ior various bird species in Pennsylvania has been Iound to be reduced as a result oI Iorest
Iragmentation (Robinson 1998).
Forest Iragmentation has been Iound to increase the susceptibility oI Iorests to damage Irom
unusual weather events. For example, in the Iirst autumn aIter Iragmentation, a period with high
winds caused severe blowdown and other Iorest damage in all Iive Iragments oI a previously
intact Iorest. Total tree mortality aIter 67 months showed a steep increase with decreasing area oI
contiguous Iorest areas (Esseen 1994). Because the Executive Director oI the Delaware River
Basin Commission decided in the SEDD not to exercise the Commission`s review jurisdiction
over the grandIathered sites, there is no assessment Irom the Commission staII whether the
cumulative eIIect oI these grandIathered projects could result in similar Iorest Iragmentation and
its consequences.




  10
ReIerences

Alberts, S. Reduction oI total suspended sediment concentration in agricultural runoII by a
vegetative buIIer strip in Chester County, Pennsylvania. M.S. Thesis, West Chester University,
2000.

Anbumozhi, V., Radhakrishnan, J., and E. Yamaji, 2005. Impact oI riparian buIIer zones on
water quality and associated management considerations. Ecological Engineering Volume 24,
Issue 5, 30 May 2005, pp. 517-523.

Angermeier, P.L., A.P. Wheeler, and A.E. Rosenberger, 2004. A Conceptual Framework Ior
Assessing Impacts oI Roads on Aquatic Biota. Fisheries Volume 29, pp. 19-29.

Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and R.Jackson, 2002. Forest Cover, Impervious-SurIace Area, and the
Mitigation oI Stormwater Impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association,
Volume 38, Number 3, pp. 835845.
 
Brenner, F.J., Mondok, J.J., and McDonald, R.J., 1991. Impact oI Riparian Areas and Land Use
on Four Non-Point Source Pollution Parameters in Pennsylvania Journal of the Pennsylvania
Academy of Science, Volume 65, Number 2, pp. 65-78.

Castelle, A. J., A. W. Johnson, and C. Conolly, 1994. Wetland and Stream BuIIer Size
Requirements A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality Volume 23, pp.878-882.

Delaware River Basin Commission , 2008. Admininstrative Manual Part III, Water Quality
Regulations, with Amendments through July 16, 2008, 18 CFR Part 410.

Delaware River Basin Commission, 2009. DOCKET NO. D-2009-18-1, Special Protection
Waters, Stone Energy Corporation, Matoushek 1 Well Site, Shale Gas Exploration and
Development Project, Clinton Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania

DellaSala, D.A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. van Daalen, J. Kreilick,
R. Brown, and G. Aplet, 2003. A Citizen`s Call Ior Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest
Restoration Principles and Criteria. Ecological Restoration Volume 21, Number 1, pp.14-23.
Quote: Relatively intact natural areas and core reIugia that have high ecological integrity and
little need Ior restoration should be protected and maintained.

Doyle, R. C., Stanton, G. C., and WolI, D. C. (1977). "EIIectiveness oI Iorest and grass
buIIer strips in improving the water quality oI manure polluted runoII," American Society oI
Agricultural Engineers, Paper 77-2501, St. Joseph, MI.

Esseen, P.-A., 1994. Tree mortality patterns aIter experimental Iragmentation oI an old-growth
coniIer Iorest. Biological Conservation Volume 68, Issue 1, pp. 19-28.


  11
Fischer, R. A., Martin, C. O., Barry, D. Q., HoIIman, K., Dickson, K. L., Zimmerman, E. G., and
Elrod, D. A., 1999. "Corridors and vegetated buIIer zones: A preliminary assessment and study
design," Technical Report EL-99-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.

Fischer, R.A. and J.C. Fischenich, 2000. 'Design Recommendations Ior Riparian Corridors and
Vegetated BuIIer Strips¨. EMRRP Technical Note (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-24), US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS.

Goetz, S.J. and C.A. Jantz, S.D. Prince, A.J. Smith, D. Varlyguin, and R.K. Wright, 2004.
Integrated Analysis oI Ecosystem Interactions With Land Use Change: The Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. In: R. S. DeFries, G. P. Asner, and R. A. Houghton (Eds.), Ecosystems and land
use change (pp. 263275). American Geophysical Union.

Hall, M., R. Germain, M. Tyrrell, and N. Sampson, 2008. Predicting Future Water Quality Irom
Land Use Change Projections in the Catskill-Delaware Watersheds. Joint Report by The State
University oI New York College oI Environmental Science and Forestry and The Global
Institute oI Sustainable Forestry, Yale University School oI Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Hazen and Sawyer, Environmental Engineers and Scientists, 2009. Final Impact Assessment
Report, Impact Assessment oI Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply
Watershed. Report prepared Ior the New York City Dept. oI Environmental Protection.

Heilman, G.E., J.R. Strittholt, N.C. Slosser, and D.A. DellaSala. 2002. Forest Iragmentation
oI the conterminous United States: Assessing Iorest intactness through road density and spatial
characteristics. BioScience Volume 52, Number 5, pp. 411-422.

Houlahan, J.E., and C.S. Findlay, 2003. The eIIects oI adjacent land use on wetland amphibian
species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic
Science Volume 60, Number 9, pp. 10781094.

Hunsaker, C.T. and D.A. Levine. 1995. Hierarchical Approaches to the Study oI Water Quality
in Rivers. BioScience. Volume 45, Number 3, Ecology oI Large Rivers, pp. 193-203.

Kargbo, D.M., R.G. Wilhelm, and D.J. Campbell, 2010. Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus
Shale: Challenges and Potential Opportunities Environmental Science and Technoogy, Volume
44, Number 15, pp 56795684.

Keister, T., 2009. Marcellus gas well water supply and wastewater disposal, treatment, and
recycle technology. Web site:
http://www.prochemtech.com/Literature/TAB/PDF¸TAB¸Marcellus¸
Gas¸Well¸Water¸Recycle.pdI.

Kogelmann, W.J., H. Lin, and R.B. Bryant, 2002. A Statewide Assessment oI the Impacts oI P-
Index Implementation in Pennsylvania, Phase 1 Report, Pennsylvania State Conservation
Commission, Pennsylvania Department oI Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.
  12
Lee, P., C. Smyth, and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review oI riparian buIIer width guidelines
Irom Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management Volume 70,
pp.165-180.

Lowrance,R., L.S. Altier, J. D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P.M. GroIIman, J.M. Denver, D.L.
Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J.L. Robinson and R.B. BrinsIield. 1997. Water Quality Functions oI
Riparian Forest BuIIers in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. Environmental Management Volume
21, Number 5, pp. 687-712.  
 
Lowrance, R. R., Todd, R. C., Fail, J., Hendrickson, O., Leonard, R. A., and Asmussen, L. E.,
1984. "Riparian Iorests as nutrient Iilters in agricultural watersheds," BioScience Volume 34, pp.
374-77.

MehaIIey, M.H., Nash, M.S., Wade, T.G., Edmonds, C.M., Ebert, D.W., Jones, K.B., 2002. A
Landscape Assessment oI the Catskill/Delaware Watershed 1975-1998: New York City`s Water
Supply Watersheds. United States Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA/600/R-01/075.

Mooney, H.A. et al., 1995. 'Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Ecosystem Analyses,¨ In
V.H. Heywood and R.T. Watson, Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press,
London.

National Park Service, 1999. Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River, U.S. Department oI the Interior, October, 1999.

O'Neill, R.V., C.T. Hunsaker, K. B. Jones, K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, P.M. Schwartz, I.A.
Goodman, B.L. Jackson and W.S. Baillargeon, 1997. Monitoring Environmental Quality at the
Landscape Scale. BioScience Volume 47, No. 8, pp. 513-519.

Pinay, G., and H. Decamps, 1988. "The role oI riparian woods in regulating nitrogen Iluxes
between the alluvial aquiIer and surIace water: A conceptual model," Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management. Volume 2, pp.507-516.

Porneluzi, P., Bednarz, J. C., Goodrich, L. J., Zawada, N. and Hoover, J., 1993. Reproductive
PerIormance oI Territorial Ovenbirds Occupying Forest Fragments and a Contiguous Forest in
Pennsylvania. Conservation Biology Volume 7, pp. 618622.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995.
Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success oI Migratory Birds. Science Volume
267, pp. 1987-1990.

Robinson, S. K., 1998. Another Threat Posed by Forest Fragmentation: Reduced Food Supply.
The Awk, A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology. Volume 115, Number 1, pp. 1-3.

Spellerberg, I., 1998. Ecological eIIects oI roads and traIIic: a literature review. Global Ecology
and Biogeography, Volume 7, pp. 317333.

  13
The Nature Conservancy, and Audubon Pennsylvania, 2010. Pennsylvania Energy Impacts
Assessment, Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind, November 15, 2010.

U.S. Forest Service, 2005. Methodology Ior Project Data Collection and Results oI Review, Oil
& Gas Exploration and Development Categorical Exclusion, Forest Service Research and
Development, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., December 12, 2005.

Velinsky, D. 2010. Testimony on the economic and environmental impacts oI hydraulic drilling
oI Marcellus shale on Philadelphia and the surrounding region. BeIore the Joint Committees on
the Environment and Transportation & Public Utilities oI the Council oI the City oI Philadelphia.
September 28, 2010. Available at http://www.ansp.org/about/news/marcellus-shale.php
Woodring, D. 2009. Natural Gas Pipelines and Forest Fragmentation: Challenges Ior the Forest
Landowner. Forest Leaves, School oI Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University
Volume 18, pp.1-2.
Yahner, R.H., 1996. Forest Fragmentation, ArtiIicial Nest Studies, and Predator Abundance
Conservation Biology, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 672-673.
 


1




Report for the Delaware River Basin Commission Consolidated Administrative Hearing on
Grandfathered Exploration Wells

To
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
and
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability

Prepared by
Paul A. Rubin
HydroQuest
November 15, 2010

1) On behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Damascus
Citizens for Sustainability, I have reviewed numerous reports and much material that relates to
the practice of developing gas wells in shales. Much of my focus relates to the Appalachian
Basin that encompasses portions of New York State, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
While this testimony is oriented to exploration wells in Wayne County, PA and the broader
Delaware River Basin, the concepts forwarded are applicable throughout the Appalachian Basin
to areas overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales. In my professional opinion, vertical
exploratory gas wells, as well as horizontal hydraulically fractured wells, create a high risk of
contamination of the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. This risk exists not only at
the time of drilling but also increases over time, because of a) the likelihood of failure of the well
over time, b) the likelihood of eventual migration of toxic natural and drilling-related substances
through extensive natural fractures that exist throughout the region, and c) the exacerbation of a)
and b) above by natural or drilling-induced seismic activity. This report also documents
significant natural seismic activity in and adjacent to the Delaware River Basin over time.
Ground motions from even one significant earthquake, among many that occur over time, may
catastrophically shear numerous gas well casings or, at the very least, may result in fracturing
and loss of integrity of well casing cement designed to isolate freshwater aquifers from deep
saline waters. As such, earthquakes may instantly destroy the integrity of hundreds of gas wells,
thereby forever and irreparably compromising the hydrologic integrity of geologic formations
that formerly protected freshwater aquifers. Restoration of contaminated freshwater aquifers is
probably not possible, thus well failures from any single or combination of mechanisms is likely
an irrevocable commitment of natural resources. These points will be discussed in greater detail
below.

2) I offer this opinion based on my training as a geologist, hydrogeologist, and hydrologist with
more than twenty-nine years of professional environmental experience, which includes work
conducted for the New York State Attorney General’s Office (Environmental Protection
Bureau), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Environmental Sciences Division), the New York City


2


Department of Environmental Protection, and as an independent environmental consultant as
President of HydroQuest. My educational background and professional experience are more
fully set forth in my Curriculum Vitae, attached as Addendum A,! attached! to! my! report.! ! I
have conducted detailed assessments of streams, wetlands, watersheds, and aquifers for
professional characterizations, for clients, and as part of my own personal research. I have
authored numerous reports and affidavits related to this work and have made presentations to
judges and juries. In addition, I have published papers and led all-day field trips relating to this
work at professional conferences.


Location and Bedrock Geology

3) The Delaware River Basin encompasses portions of New York State, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Delaware. Figure 1 portrays this large watershed area. The exploratory wells that
are the subject of this testimony lie in Wayne County, the furthest northeastern county of
Pennsylvania. Immediately north, northeast, and east of Wayne County are three New York
State counties: Broome, Delaware, and Sullivan respectively.

4) Geologically, Wayne County, PA is virtually indistinguishable from portions of Broome,
Delaware, and Sullivan Counties. Figure 2 depicts similar geologic formations present in
Broome, Delaware, Sullivan and other counties throughout New York State that lie in close
proximity to Wayne County. Geologically, these units are composed of a series of sedimentary
shales, siltstones, sandstones, and some conglomerates layered from the Honesdale Formation
downward through and below the Marcellus Formation. These rock units were deposited under
the same hydrologic conditions through the widespread area now recognized by geologists as the
Catskill Delta. Before the sediments of these rock units were lithified into bedrock, they were
shed northwesterly from the ancestral Acadian Mountains.

5) The subcrop of the Marcellus shale underlies portions of these New York State counties and
all of Wayne County, PA. Portions of these counties, as well as portions of Schoharie, Greene,
and Ulster counties in New York State, lie within the headwater region of the Delaware River
Basin. In Figure 2, Wayne County, PA lies in a white area directly southwest of the boxed label
titled: Cannonsville Reservoir Delaware R. headwaters.

6) As reflected in Figure 2, it is apparent that erosion has, in places, removed some of the
uppermost bedrock units through glaciation and erosion. In places, Wayne County and nearby
watershed areas have the same bedrock units exposed at the ground surface. Significantly,
geologically and hydrologically, ground and surface water flow in Wayne County and
surrounding counties behaves similarly – all potentially being vulnerable to gas field related
contaminants from below and above.

7) The Marcellus and Utica shales extend under a large, multi-state, land area. The
environmental risks associated with the installation of vertical exploratory wells and hydraulic
fracturing are interstate in nature and must be fully evaluated in this manner - not solely state by
state or watershed by watershed. The need to comprehensively evaluate and regulate hydrologic
and hydrogeologic risks on a gas field basis is paramount.


3


Joints, Faults, Methane Presence, and Blowouts

8) Jacobi (2002) documented numerous joints and faults (collectively termed fractures) present
throughout the headwaters of the Delaware River Basin, as well as elsewhere throughout
portions of New York State overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales (Figure 3). While much of
Jacobi’s work did not extend into Pennsylvania, the density of these fractures clearly argues that
similar joint sets and faults are present in neighboring Wayne County, PA and beyond.
Reference to Figure 3 reveals the dominant NW, N-NW, NE, and E-NE fracture orientations. As
seen below, these trends coincide with those throughout the broader Appalachian Basin.

9) Exploratory wells may target or have a high likelihood of penetrating vertical bedrock joints
that have the potential of hydrologically connecting saline and freshwater horizons. Prominent
joint orientations throughout the Appalachian Basin, inclusive of Wayne County Pennsylvania,
are well documented by Evans (1994), Engelder et al. (2009), and Lash and Engelder (2009).
Figure 4 depicts four figures from Engelder et al. (2009) and Lash and Engelder (2009) that
illustrate dominant joint orientations throughout the Appalachian Basin. These geologists
determined that most pervasive systematic joints hosted by Devonian black shale strike east-
northeast (J
1
joint set) with younger cross-fold joints striking northwest (J
2
joint set). They
concluded that “[B]oth sets were driven exclusively by fluid pressure generated as a
consequence of hydrocarbon-related maturation supplemented by subsequent tectonic
compaction during the Alleghanian tectonic cycle. In the more deeply buried, proximal region of
the Catskill Delta, joints of both sets cross-cut.” (Lash and Engelder, 2009). Figure 3 confirms
this cross-cutting relationship in New York State counties immediately north, northeast, and east
of Wayne County. Engelder et al. (2009) confirm that the more permeable J
1
joint sets are found
at depth in the Marcellus based on the presence of systematic J
1
joints in Marcellus outcrops on
either side of the deep central region of the Appalachian Basin, as well joint appearance in
Formation MicroImager images of recent wells. Thus, two regional, well-integrated,
perpendicular joint sets exist throughout Wayne County, PA. Exploratory and other wells have a
high likelihood of intersecting these interconnected joint sets.

10) Vertical exploration wells, even in the absence of stimulation via hydraulic fracturing, pose
similar environmental risks as do horizontal well completions. Natural fractures function as
high-permeability gas pathways (Engelder et al., 2009). The greater the fracture
interconnectivity, the greater the potential gas production. Recent drilling technology in the
Marcellus Shale uses hydraulic fracturing to take advantage (i.e., maximize production) of the
more densely spaced and more permeable E-NE oriented J
1
joint sets by interconnecting them
via horizontal drilling methods oriented perpendicular to J
1
joints (i.e., N-NW and S-SE).
Hydraulic fracture interconnection results in J2 joints draining to J1 joints and gas production
wells. In the absence of hydraulic fracturing, vertical exploratory wells have been known to
intersect high permeability gas-bearing fractures, sometimes with disastrous results. Engelder et
al. (2009) document the presence of unhealed (i.e., methane-filled) joints at depth in the
Marcellus shale and major blowouts that occurred when these unhealed joints were encountered
(as cited from Bradley and Pepper, 1938 and Taylor, 2009). For example, Taylor (2009)
discusses the 1940 Crandell Farm blowout near Independence, New York where massive
uncontrolled gas flow occurred from joints intersected by an unstimulated vertical Marcellus
well that lacked any evidence of faulting. Engelder et al. (2009) further discuss blowouts in the


4


Marcellus Shale after the Crandell Farm blowout:

“Over the following half century, blowouts were a common consequence of drilling
vertical wells penetrating the Marcellus. The low permeability of the Marcellus suggests
that many, if not all, blowouts must have tapped a reservoir of interconnected natural
fractures. In fact, blowouts were one of the major attractions drawing Range resources
to Washington County, Pennsylvania, where Range started targeting the Marcellus gas
shale during 2004 (W.A. Zagorski, personal communication).”

11) Engelder et al. (2009) document that, even in the absence of stimulation, some gas wells that
tap unhealed and well-interconnected joint sets at depth are excellent producers. Clearly,
preserved unhealed joints are important to gas production because healed fractures and veins
would otherwise serve as barriers to gas flow (Engelder et al., 2009). Thus, vertical exploration
wells that intersect permeable, gas-rich, interconnected joint sets pose a potential hydraulic
pathway (i.e., with a decreasing pressure gradient) for upward migration and release of methane,
especially in the event of casing or grout failure or stemming from seismic activity – whether
natural or induced at some point later in time by hydraulic fracturing. In the latter case,
earthquake or micro-seismicity stemming from future hydraulic fracturing in the area may result
in shearing of exploration well casing and the opening of inter-formational pathways. Beyond
this, blowouts themselves may pose a means of catastrophically interconnecting brine-rich and
freshwater geologic horizons. Therefore, vertical exploration wells bear many of the same
potential adverse environmental impacts as hydraulically fractured horizontal wells.

12) Numerous joints in the Appalachian Basin, even in the absence of gas well installations,
provide open, functioning, avenues for upward migration of methane. Gas-rich joints
encountered by exploration well boreholes may interconnect and enhance preexisting joint
pathways for methane, deep-seated saline water, radioactivity and, following development of
horizontal gas wells, for contaminated LNAPL (Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids; e.g.,
chemicals with a density less than freshwater, such as benzene) fracture fluids to migrate to
aquifers, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, streams, wells, and even homes.

13) Importantly, Figure 3 of New York State counties north, northeast, and east of Wayne
County, PA provides a conservative approximation of the actual number of joints and faults
present throughout the area. In establishing a relationship between seismicity and faults, Jacobi
(2002) examined Fracture Intensification Domains (FIDs: closely spaced fractures commonly
with a frequency greater than 2/m and with a fracture frequency an order of magnitude greater
than in the region surrounding the FID), E97 lineaments (Fig. 3), topographic lineaments,
gradients in gravity and magnetic data, seismic reflections profiles, and well logs. Jacobi states:

“In interbedded shales and thin sandstones in NYS, fractures within the FID that parallel
the FID characteristically have a fracture frequency greater than 2/m, and commonly the
frequency is an order of magnitude greater than in the region surrounding the FID.”

14) Jacobi makes a case for repeated reactivation along faults in the Appalachian Basin.
Furthermore, and importantly, Jacobi addresses his and Fountain’s identification of FIDs based
on soil gas anomalies over open fractures:


5



“Certain sets of FIDs are marked by soil gas anomalies commonly less than 50 m wide
(Jacobi and Fountain, 1993, 1996; Fountain and Jacobi, 2000). In NYS, the background
methane gas content in soil is on the order of 4 ppm, but over open fractures in NYS, the
soil gas content increases to 40-1000+ ppm.”

The fact that Jacobi and Fountain have successfully identified and measured methane seepage
from fractures that most likely extend downward to gas producing shales shows that open
vertical pathways already exist, confirming the risk of increasing gas excursions as a result of
exploratory boreholes penetrating joints or, later in time, as horizontal wells are hydraulically
fractured. Clearly, Jacobi and Fountain’s work suggests that opening and expanding fractures
that now naturally release methane from gas-rich shales will provide even greater gas and
contaminant migration pathways if later interconnected and widened via hydraulic fracturing.
As with environmental concerns attendant to completing hydrofracked horizontal gas wells,
installing vertical exploratory boreholes into gas-rich joint sets should not occur until after full
environmental review.


Earthquakes, Seismicity, and Risk of Casing Shearing

15) The installation of exploratory wells that open borehole or nearby joint pathways between
formerly separated geologic horizons pose an environmental risk, particularly because the area is
seismically active. Ground motion associated with seismic activity has the real potential of
instantly shearing multiple well casings, degrading cement grout designed to isolate geologic
horizons, and thereby opening vertical joint and borehole vectors between formerly separated
geologic horizons. Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania, New York, and
adjacent states (see Addendum B and Addendum C), pointing out that the region of the
exploratory wells is seismically active. Figure 5 depicts historical earthquake epicenters,
documenting that significant portions of the Appalachian Basin are seismically active. Figure 6
portrays USGS seismic hazard maps for Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, and New Jersey.
The Wayne County, PA area shows a peak horizontal ground acceleration of some 6-8% g with a
2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., earthquake ground motions that have a common
given probability of being exceeded in 50 years). The %g relates to the acceleration due to
gravity. It is a measure of ground motion that decreases the farther one is from an earthquake
epicenter. A 6-8%g roughly correlates with a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. This intensity
of an earthquake is likely to be felt by everyone, may result in movement of heavy furniture, and
may damage house plaster and chimneys (DCNR, 2006). While damage on the ground surface is
slight, it is likely that damage to casing grout and possibly well casings may occur – potentially
compromising the integrity and physical isolation of different bedrock horizons.

16) Seismic activity in Pennsylvania and nearby states may result in significant ground motions
that may compromise the integrity of well grout and casing. This, in turn, may result in
interformational mixing of groundwater along exploratory well boreholes or adjacent joints.
Earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere (DCNR, 2006). One of the largest
earthquakes, of unknown magnitude, had an epicenter near Attica, NY and is reported to have
cracked walls in Sayre, PA in 1929. Sayre is located in Bradford County, only some 50 miles


6


from Wayne County. Another nearby New York State earthquake, with a magnitude of 5.5,
occurred in New York City in 1884 (only about eighty miles from Wayne County, PA), again
documenting that the region is seismically active.

17) Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania, many in recent time, with the largest
recorded in 1998 with a magnitude of 5.2. Some of those reasonably close to Wayne County
include Berks County (to magnitude 4.0 and 4.6 in 1994), Bucks County (to 2.5), Lancaster
County (to 4.4), Lehigh County (to 3.3), Monroe County (immediately south of Wayne County;
3.4, epicenter may have been in NJ), and Montgomery County (3.5). While these earthquakes
did not produce substantial damage, there is a reasonable probability that higher magnitude
earthquakes, with related damage, may occur. DCNR (2006) details this real possibility:

“Earthquakes having magnitudes greater than 5 can occur in Pennsylvania, as
demonstrated by the earthquake of September 25, 1998 (Armbruster and others, 1998)
(Table 2, Crawford County). Southeastern Pennsylvania, the state’s most seismically
active region, is not known to have experienced an earthquake with magnitude greater
than 4.7, but the historical record goes back only about 200 years. No obvious reason
exists to conclude that an earthquake of magnitude between 5 and 6 could not occur
there also. An earthquake with magnitude greater than 6 is much less likely, but the fact
that such large earthquakes have occurred elsewhere in the East means that this
possibility cannot be ruled out entirely for Pennsylvania. … The possibility that a
magnitude 7 earthquake could occur having an epicenter near New York City cannot be
completely discounted, and such an earthquake could produce significant damage
(intensity VIII) in eastern Pennsylvania. … A large local earthquake, one with
magnitude greater than 6, though unlikely, is not impossible.”

18) Earthquakes of these magnitudes in Pennsylvania have the real potential of resulting in
sufficient ground motion to shear well casings and degrade the integrity of grout designed to
physically separate different geologic and hydrologic horizons. For example, earthquakes of
magnitude 5.0 to 5.9 on the Richter or moment magnitude scales can cause major damage to
poorly constructed buildings. Wikipedia provides an approximate energy equivalent in terms of
TNT explosive force for a 5.0 Richter magnitude earthquake as being equivalent to the seismic
yield of the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Clearly, the decision to permit installation of exploratory
wells, or horizontal wells, should be based on a comprehensive analysis of all environmental
risks. It should be noted that the risk to grout and casing integrity exists both from natural
earthquake activity and, in the case of hydraulically fractured horizontal wells, from
microearthquakes stemming from fluid-induced seismicity (Bame and Fehler, 1986; LI, 1996;
Feng and Lees, 1998; Horálek et al., 2009; Shapiro and Dinske, 2009). Therefore, the potential
impacts of seismicity, whether from natural or man-induced activities, should be extensively
analyzed prior to any deep drilling efforts. Because portions of Pennsylvania are seismically
active, a real risk exists that earthquakes might instantly and catastrophically degrade casing
grout integrity and shear multiple well casings, resulting in the commingling of formation fluids
and release of methane. Unlike the recent British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, once
the integrity of bedrock formations is breached, it will not be possible to restore degraded
freshwater aquifers.



7


19) As an example of active seismicity in the Appalachian Basin, Jacobi and Smith (2002)
document the epicenters of three seismic events in eastern Otsego County, New York. These
seismic events indicate that earth movement occurs from great depth along faults upward to
aquifers and near the ground surface. The great lateral extent of these faults, and their visually
observable connectivity with other faults, confirms that the process of gas drilling activities,
which may interconnect naturally occurring faults and fractures, has a great and very real
potential of causing contaminants to migrate to aquifers and surface water from localized zones
across and beyond county and watershed boundaries.


Grout and Casing Failure

20) The high risk of compromising the integrity of the physical separation of freshwater aquifers
from deeper saline water-bearing bedrock formations may be compounded as a result of well
grout and casing failures that occur A) as a result of poor well construction (e.g., as in the BP
well failure), B) due to mechanisms including cement shrinkage, or C) due to differences in
downhole bedrock conditions (e.g., pressure differentials). Zhou et al. (2010) point out that
casing pipes in well construction may suddenly buckle inward as their inside and outside
hydrostatic pressure difference increases. Dusseault et al. (2000) document the many reasons
why oil and gas wells leak, thus providing important supportive scientific rationale as to why
both vertical exploratory wells and horizontal gas wells should not be permitted in advance of
extensive environmental risk characterization:

“Oil and gas wells can develop gas leaks along the casing years after production has
ceased and the well has been plugged and abandoned (P&A). Explanatory mechanisms
include channeling, poor cake removal, shrinkage, and high cement permeability. The
reason is probably cement shrinkage that leads to circumferential fractures that are
propagated upward by the slow accumulation of gas under pressure behind the casing.

The consequences of cement shrinkage are non-trivial: in North America, there are
literally tens of thousands of abandoned, inactive, or active oil and gas wells, including
gas storage wells, that currently leak gas to surface. Much of this enters the atmosphere
directly, contributing slightly to greenhouse effects. Some of the gas enters shallow
aquifers, where traces of sulfurous compounds can render the water non-potable, or
where the methane itself can generate unpleasant effects such as gas locking of
household wells, or gas entering household systems to come out when taps are turned
on.”


21) Dusseault et al. (2000) detail the underlying causes behind tens of thousands of grout failures
in North America that likely compromise environmental security and zonal isolation while
leading to contamination of freshwater aquifers. They conclude that:

!" Surface casings have little effect on gas migration;
!" Water-cement slurries generally placed at low densities will shrink and will be
influenced by elevated pressures and temperatures encountered at depth;


8


!" While cement is in an almost liquid, early-set state, massive shrinkage can occur by
water expulsion, resulting in shrinkage of the annular cement sheath;
!" Portland cements continue to shrink after setting and during hardening;
!" Other processes can lead to cement shrinkage. High salt content formation brines and
salt beds lead to osmotic dewatering of typical cement slurries during setting and
hardening, resulting in substantial shrinkage;
!" Dissolved gas, high curing temperatures, and early (flash) set may also lead to
shrinkage;
!" Initiation and growth of a circumferential fracture (“micro-annulus”) at the casing-
rock interface will not be substantially impeded because cement shrinks;
!" Circumferential fractures develop and gas leakage typically increase over time;
!" Wells that experience several pressure cycles are more likely to develop
circumferential fractures;
!" Circumferential fractures propagate vertically upward because of the imbalance
between the pressure gradient in the fracture and the stress gradient in the rock;
!" Free gas will serve to further degrade the casing-grout-rock interface, increase gas
flow into circumferential fractures, and may lead to continuous gas leakage;
!" In turn, differences in pressure favor driving gas, and pressurized fluids present at
depth, upward and outward from circumferential fractures back into bedrock
formations (including those present in freshwater aquifers) where the pore pressure is
less. Over time, the excess pressure is large enough to fracture even excellent cement
bonds and force flow outward into surrounding strata;
!" Methane from leaking wells into freshwater aquifers is unlikely to attenuate, and the
concentration of the gases in shallow aquifers will increase with time;
!" Loss of this zonal seal can have negative effects, such as pressurizing higher strata, or
leakage of brines and formation fluids into shallower strata causing contamination;
and
!" Despite our best efforts, the vagaries of nature and human factors will always
contribute to grout failures.

22) As detailed above by Dusseault et al. (2000), gas leakage up circumferential fractures at the
cement-bedrock interface may also enter and degrade freshwater aquifers. In fact, the greatest
risk of this occurring is in vertical wells, not in deep horizontal wells that have not been
hydraulically fractured (Dusseault et al., 2000). Thus, unfracked vertical exploratory wells pose
a greater environmental risk than do deep, unfracked, horizontal boreholes. When the above
issues are considered within the broader context of documented regional seismicity, the real
threat to the long-term integrity of our freshwater aquifers and quality of our surface waters is
obvious.


Contamination of Freshwater Aquifers and Loss of Aquifer Integrity

23) Contamination of freshwater aquifers via the mechanisms detailed above by Dusseault et al.
(2000) (i.e., methane entering formations from leaking circumferential fractures) is likely to be
far greater than more limited contamination proximal to well heads. Freshwater aquifers in


9


Wayne County, PA extend to at least 665 feet, as observed at the Matoushek #1 well (Stiles,
2010). Permitting the installation of vertical exploration wells needs to be considered in the
broader environmental setting where these wells may ultimately be completed as hydrofracked
horizontal production wells. Should natural ground motion from earthquakes (and possibly from
seismically induced earthquakes from future hydrofracked wells) occur, it is likely that alternate
groundwater flow paths will develop. These flow paths will then provide avenues for migration
of gas well related contaminants, particularly low density or gaseous ones. Pre-existing joint sets
that are already open to gas-rich shales (Jacobi, 2002) will provide pathways and release avenues
for methane and any Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids that may be present. In this way,
vertical fractures extending into overlying bedrock formations may result in the disruption and
alteration of natural groundwater flow.

24) Understanding the cumulative impacts of natural gas drilling in the Delaware River
Watershed is essential in order to determine how this activity should be regulated. By way of
analogy, using a somewhat different but worst case example, solution mining in Tully Valley,
New York, demonstrates how alteration of a previously isolated and intact freshwater aquifer
was compromised via anthropogenic activities. While not physically observable on the ground
surface, the adverse environmental impacts of gas production throughout large portions of the
Appalachian Basin, may have much broader and far reaching impacts. The Tully Valley
example described below demonstrates the nature and consequences of disrupting a previously
intact groundwater flow regime. This analogy is especially applicable to adverse environmental
impacts likely to occur with additional well drilling.

25) Deep solution mining of salt beds in Tully Valley, conducted under NYSDEC mining
permits, regulation, and oversight has resulted in slow and catastrophic collapse of portions of
Tully Valley from depths of 1,700 feet (518 m) to the ground surface. Rubin et al. (1992)
document the structural failure of portions of the valley overlying and adjacent to brine cavities
where salt was removed. The resulting settlement area is in excess of 550 hectares (~1,360 acres;
2.1 mi
2
). It continues to expand outward. Upward fracture propagation eventually resulted in
open permeable pathways where fresh aquifer and infiltrating meteoric water began to recharge
formerly isolated groundwater flow regimes, thereby establishing new deep flow routes that now
result in connate, saline, and turbid water discharge to the ground surface, and Onondaga Creek
(see Figure 7).

26) As illustrated in the Tully Valley example, once even a few significant fracture
interconnections (i.e., planer, laterally extensive, and potentially interconnected with Fracture
Intensification Domains) are established between target shale beds and the ground surface,
naturally isolated groundwater flow systems then become accessible for commingling of
formation waters, for transmission of contaminants, for the unnatural and increased recharge of
deeper formations, and for the establishment of new groundwater flow routes. Much as methane
can be released upward to lower pressure formations from exploration wells, so will LNAPLs
rise upwards along fault and fracture pathways as more wells are drilled and developed, thereby
broadly contaminating freshwater aquifers. Then, as new groundwater circulation pathways
develop in response to repeated hydro-fracturing and newly available freshwater
hydraulic/pressure heads, more and more commingling of freshwater and contaminant-laden,
saline, water is likely. Thus, extensive natural fractures present throughout the Delaware River


10


Basin and broader Appalachian Basin may provide vectors for new interconnected groundwater
circulation pathways.

27) With time, methane (and hydro-fracturing chemicals as gas production is permitted) will
move with groundwater flow, down valley, toward zones of lower hydraulic head, particularly
valley bottoms, major streams, and principal aquifers. Areas with higher groundwater flow
velocities are likely to develop groundwater circulation patterns along Fracture Intensification
Domains (i.e., high permeability pathways), especially where hydro-fracturing has opened
elongate fracture pathways that have high hydraulic gradients between watershed uplands and
valleys. To a large degree, these new circulation pathways will resemble those illustrated in the
Figure 7 Tully Valley example – albeit fracture aperture width may be narrower and associated
catastrophic collapse less likely.

28) While the focus of this testimony does not directly extend to horizontally hydraulically
fractured gas production wells, it is not prudent to ignore the overall physical setting within
which exploration well installations may ultimately fit. Since it has been shown above that many
of the environmental risks normally attributed only to horizontal gas wells directly relate to
unfracked vertical exploration wells (e.g., seismic risk, grout shrinkage, vertical flow pathways
into freshwater formations), it is prudent to at least cursorily review broader gas production
based environmental considerations. While gas field fracture aperture may be narrower than the
disrupted Tully Valley example, it is important to recognize that the hydraulic transmissivity of
fractures increases by the cube of the effective fracture width, thereby pointing out the likely
increased risk associated with repeated hydro-fracturing. The combination of excessive pressure
associated with hydro-fracturing and lubricated fault planes may lead to increased faulting and
seismicity, followed by increased groundwater circulation between formerly isolated hydrologic
horizons. Northrup (2010), for example, references a hydro-fracturing induced earthquake in
Cleburne, Texas – the likely tip of the iceberg. Once these new groundwater circulation
pathways are established, it will be impossible to restore the integrity of adversely impacted
freshwater groundwater flow systems, contaminant migration and dispersal will expand, and
plugging and abandonment procedures of gas production wells will have little impact on
retarding water quality degradation throughout irreparably compromised aquifer systems.

29) Cumulative impact studies must address potential adverse environmental impacts associated
with both exploratory wells and the overall long-term plan for the installation of hundreds or
thousands of horizontal hydraulically fractured wells throughout the Delaware River Basin.
Naturally occurring excursion of methane gas via faults and fractures has long been recognized.
Recent studies are now beginning to confirm that methane, drilling chemicals, and hydro-
fracking chemicals are migrating upward along hydro-fractured fracture pathways to freshwater
aquifers and homeowner water supplies. For example, Lustgerten (2009) references scientific
work conducted on methane gas excursions in Garfield County, Colorado where a three-year
study used sophisticated scientific techniques to match methane from water to a deep gas-rich
bedrock layer stating:

“The Garfield County report is significant because it is among the first to broadly
analyze the ability of methane and other contaminants to migrate underground in drilling
areas, and to find that such contamination was in fact occurring. It examined more than


11


700 methane samples from 292 locations and found that methane, as well as wastewater
from the drilling, was making its way into drinking water not as a result of a single
accident but on a broader basis. As the number of gas wells in the area increased from
200 to 1,300 in this decade, methane levels in nearby water wells increased too. The
study found that natural faults and fractures exist in underground formations in
Colorado, and that it may be possible for contaminants to travel through them.
Conditions that could be responsible include vertical upward flow along natural open-
fracture pathways or pathways such as well-bores or hydraulically-opened fractures …”

30) What we are just beginning to understand is the fact that repeated fracturing at each well will
further amplify all of these risks. Reaping maximum gas production from horizontal gas wells
commonly requires repeated hydro-fracturing of wells (see discussion by Northrop, 2010). With
each successive hydro-fracturing event, more toxic contaminants are introduced into subsurface
formations, including those already aggravated and potentially opened in the first fracturing
cycle. In addition, as gas companies expand their operations, they may turn to the new, more
effective, multilateral drilling technology to selectively tap multiple target zones in adjacent
areas. This will necessarily result in multiple wellheads and multiple fracturing operations in
close proximity. Through these processes, it is highly likely that new, previously unconnected,
fractures will be integrated into the area influenced by each production well.

31) David Kargbo et al. (2010), U.S. EPA Region III, recently cautioned about the particular
challenges still unresolved about drilling in tight shale formations:

“The control of well bore trajectory and placement of casing become increasingly
difficult with depth…At the Marcellus Shale, temperatures of 35-51°C (120-150°F) can
be encountered at depth and formation fluid pressures can reach 410 bar (6000 psi) (8).
This can accelerate the impact of saturated brines and acid gases on drilling at greater
depths. In addition, the effect of higher temperature on cement setting behavior, poor
mud displacement and lost circulation with depth makes cementing the deep exploration
and production wells in the Marcellus Shale quite challenging. For example following a
recent report by residents of Dimock, PA, of natural gas in their water supplies,
inspectors from the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (PADEP)
discovered that the casings on some gas wells drilled by Cabot Oil & Gas were
improperly cemented, potentially allowing contamination to occur….During drilling into
the tight Marcellus Shale, there is a slight risk of hitting permeable gas reservoirs at all
levels. This may cause shallow gas blowouts and underground blowouts between
subsurface intervals. Other geo-hazards that may pose challenges to drillers in the
Marcellus Shale include: (1) disruption and alteration of subsurface hydrological
conditions including the disturbance and destruction of aquifers, (2) severe ground
subsidence because of extraction, drilling, and unexpected subterranean conditions, and
(3) triggering of small scale earthquakes.”


32) With each additional well and well activity, all of the “challenges” noted by Kargbo,
Wilhelm, and Campbell of necessity multiply and increase. See also the BP internal report
reported September 9, 2010, attributing fault for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion to


12


unexpected cementing problems at pressures less than those of the average shale gas frack.
Studies have not yet been done regarding the effect of depth and pressure on casing failure rates
in tight shale formations nor on the repeated fracturing re-pressurization under such temperature
and depth conditions on cement casings and joints. Nor have studies or plans been developed for
remedial action should the casings and joints fail at extreme depth.

33) Risks of casing failure are further compounded by the frequency (or spacing) of casing
couplings which may be on the order of every 100 feet or less. Zhou et al. (2010) assessed
casing pipes in oil well construction and the risk that they may suddenly buckle inward as their
inside and outside hydrostatic pressure difference increases. They point out the importance of
measuring the stress state of casing pipe, complete with real-time monitoring and state-of-the-art
warning system installations. Consideration should be given to evaluating cost-effective and
reliable sensing technologies and installation techniques for long-term monitoring and evaluation
of casing pipe before issuing gas well related regulations. Most deeply buried casings are
difficult to repair or replace and, as such, can lead to aquifer contamination. Even a small
percent casing or grout failure can be effectively irremediable at deep depths and irreparably
harm ground and surface water sources.

34) Repeated hydraulic fracturing may activate pre-existing faults or induce shifting or
settlement along lubricated fractures. Parts of Pennsylvania and New York State within and near
the Delaware River Basin are seismically active. Excessive lubrication of faults and fractures
with highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluids, bolstered by repeated hydrofracturing
episodes, may result in fault activation and bedrock settlement. This, in turn, may result in
catastrophic shearing of production well boreholes and casing strings even in the absence of
natural seismic activity. Pre-existing old and poorly abandoned oil and gas wells may also
provide additional contaminant migration pathways. Unlike the British Petroleum well that was
finally plugged, once the structure of the bedrock has been compromised by faulting and/or
hydraulic expansion of joints, and formation waters have commingled, aquifer restoration will
not be possible.

35) The risk of ground collapse as a result of repeated fracturing cycles should also be studied
prior to issuing regulations. “Severe ground subsidence” may occur “because of extraction,
drilling, and unexpected subterranean conditions”, as may “disruption and alteration of
subsurface hydrological conditions including the disturbance and destruction of aquifers”
(Kargbo et al., 2010).

36) Homeowner wells do not need to be near gas production wells to be adversely impacted from
the upward migration of methane gas and Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid contaminants from
gas-rich shales. Neither discussion of known fracture frequency nor existing maps depicting
massive fracturing throughout the Delaware River Basin appear to have been incorporated into
the well permitting review process. As such, many of the real risks attendant to vertical
exploratory well installations, or future horizontal hydraulic fracturing of gas-rich shale beds,
have not been addressed. As some vertical fractures are widened and opened via
hydrofracturing, they will and most probably have already, in some cases, provided a hydraulic
avenue where methane is released upward into and throughout these well-integrated Fracture
Intensification Domains. Thus, fractures enlarged by hydrofracturing will provide lower


13


pressure gas release points or routes. Once vertical and lateral fracture pathways are open, even
a limited number, natural gas and LNAPLs will migrate extensively throughout formerly isolated
upper bedrock and freshwater aquifer groundwater flow systems. As methane is released upward
along vertical borehole pathways, and along future hydrofractured boreholes and their
interconnected fractures, homeowner wells will provide a final open fracture and cased pathway
to the ground surface from methane contaminated aquifers. Because horizontal components of
gas wells extend may thousands of feet and may intersect numerous planar vertical pathways,
large-scale aquifer degradation is possible. Initially, aquifer degradation can be expected above
and adjacent to boreholes with poor grout seals. With time and successive hydrofracturing
episodes conducted in individual wells, methane and LNAPLs that are released upward through
fault planes and related fractures will widely contaminate freshwater aquifers and surface water
receptors.

37) Some of the contaminated groundwater in areas now undergoing hydraulic fracturing is far
removed from gas production wellheads, thus strongly indicating that groundwater
contamination is already occurring along vertical fault and fracture pathways, distant from
potential poor wellhead grout jobs or casing failures. This topic is discussed here because
understanding the cumulative impacts of natural gas drilling in the Delaware River Watershed is
essential in order to determine how this activity should be regulated. Fractures extend from gas-
rich shales to the ground surface and naturally leak methane gas. Repeated hydraulic fracturing
is likely to exacerbate this situation. Repeated hydraulic fracturing within numerous individual
wells will serve to expand and extend these existing fractures through freshwater aquifers. This
will increase upward migration of methane to aquifers, streams, homes, and wellheads. Dimock,
Pennsylvania provides an excellent case in point.

38) It is likely that contaminant dispersal along fault, joint, and fracture pathways will be the
more common mechanism whereby natural gas and LNAPL excursions find their way into
aquifers, homeowner homes, well houses, and streams – not solely via pathways stemming from
poor casing grouting. This mechanism also explains why many of the gas contamination
incidents reported to date are far removed from individual gas production wellheads (e.g., up to
1,300 feet in the Dimock, PA area; COP 2009). This contaminant dispersal mechanism also
strongly accents why gas companies would much prefer to admit that poor or failed casings or
poor grout integrity is the root cause of gas excursion problems. Certainly, in the gas industry, it
is far preferable to invoke any gas leak mechanism other than that of widespread, uncontrolled,
and undocumented upward and lateral migration of formerly isolated methane gas into and
through freshwater aquifers.

39) As in the Tully Valley example above, the loss of natural geologic and hydrologic integrity
throughout formerly isolated geologic formations poses an enormous threat to the existing and
future way of life in planned gas exploitation areas. However, the disruption of the geologic
strata presented in the Tully Valley Figure 7, while having wider fracture apertures and relatively
great vertical offset of geologic beds, has occurred in an area far smaller in areal extent than what
is planned extensively throughout the Delaware River Basin and much of the Appalachian Basin.
Gas excursions are likely to occur throughout the Appalachian Basin, wherever there are mapped
and as yet undocumented fractures. Because of the physical nature of existing fractures systems,
these excursions, even a few in an area, are likely to degrade freshwater aquifers such that


14


existing and new homeowner well installations will be degraded.

40) Because permitting of vertical exploration wells may result in numerous adverse
environmental impacts (discussed above), it is important to fully consider the broader gas field
development picture and related environmental impacts. Radioactive radium present in the
Marcellus may also be mobilized in fluids and thus become available for transport in the
groundwater flow system. This appears to be particularly true of uranium that University of
Buffalo researchers recently determined is released during the hydraulic fracturing process
(presented at a GSA meeting on Nov. 2, 2010). Tracy Bank and her colleagues determined that
hydrofracking forces toxic uranium into a soluble phase and mobilizes it, along with chemically
bound hydrocarbons, thereby making it available for groundwater transport. In addition,
uranium tainted flow back water poses the risk of contaminating streams, wetlands, and
ecosystems.

41) Fracking contaminants, once mobilized vertically along fault planes and joints, especially
under pressurized conditions, can reach freshwater aquifers. Even if all fracking fluids were
composed of non-toxic chemicals, the risk of interconnecting deep saline-bearing formations
(i.e., connate water) and/or radioactive fluids with freshwater aquifers is great. Any
commingling of deep-seated waters, with or without hazardous fracking fluids is unacceptable.
Documented gas excursions near existing gas fields demonstrate that vertical pathways are open.
If gas can migrate to the surface, it is highly likely that hydrocarbon and contaminant-rich Light
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids will also reach aquifers and surface water resources. These
contaminants may then also migrate to down gradient wells, principal aquifers, and waterways.

42) Artificially enlarged and expanded hydrofracked fractures may provide vertical pathways for
light, low density, drilling fluid chemicals and radon. Some fracking related contaminants will
migrate upwards via fractures into freshwater aquifers - particularly Light Non Aqueous Phase
Liquids (i.e., less dense hydrocarbons) inclusive of benzene, a known carcinogen. In addition,
increased upward migration of radon is likely to occur. The pathways are already there and
functioning, waiting to be further expanded and laced with toxic chemicals.

43) There is a growing catalog of hydro-fracking related accidents in other gas-field plays (see
e.g., Hazen and Sawyer, 2009). Accidental spills of fracking fluids and flow-back water has the
potential of contaminating ground and surface water. Similarly, lateral and upward migration of
hydro-fracturing chemicals pose a real risk to Delaware River Basin aquifers, especially to
moderate and high yield unconfined aquifers situated in stream valleys that receive their base
flow recharge from up-gradient groundwater aquifers.

44) Excursion of drilling fluids and produced fluids from breached flow-back wastewater
containment structures, whether via rupture, leakage, or overflow poses a real threat to surface
water quality. Overland flow of flow back fluid chemicals to streams, ponds, wetlands, and
waterways poses an immediate water quality and ecosystem concern that should be fully
evaluated prior to issuance of draft regulations.


45) In the broader context of fully examining all potential adverse environmental impacts, it is


15


necessary to not only look at impacts associated with vertical exploration wells, but also planned
future horizontal hydrofracked wells. Excursion of frack fluids from breached flow-back
wastewater containment structures, whether via rupture, leakage, or overflow, poses a real threat
to groundwater quality. Slow infiltration of frack fluid chemicals to groundwater and its
potential degradation need to be fully addressed prior to issuance of draft regulations.

46) Poor or failing exploratory and production well construction (e.g., poor grouting, corroded
casing) may provide vertical pathways for contaminant excursions from deep shale beds upward
into freshwater aquifers. While this has already been documented, increased gas well
installations will also increase the number of failed wells and resultant contaminant migration.
Apparently, at this time, gas field contaminant excursions are not being treated as outward
expanding contaminant plumes that warrant expensive, full-scale, hydrogeologic
characterization, groundwater clean-up, and remedial action. The importance of this must be
underscored because aquifer restoration on a gas field scale, even if cost were not an issue, may
not be possible.


Endangered Species

47) Methane that is released up vertical annular pathways between outer casing walls and
bedrock formations almost certainly enters freshwater aquifers. The mechanisms involved are
detailed by Dusseault et al. (2000) and pose a risk of groundwater contamination stemming from
vertical exploration wells. As methane enters and accumulates in freshwater aquifers, it will
move down gradient of its initial release avenues until an open release pathway is encountered
(e.g., open joints). A risk that requires further research is that to Dwarf Wedge Mussels and
other species present in streamways of the Delaware River Basin. Should methane or other gas
field contaminants (e.g., benzene, LNAPLs) bubble up and be released into surface streams, they
may compromise surface water quality and jeopardize the survival of an endangered species.

48) Excursions of gas field related contaminants may lead to degradation or loss of endangered
and other species. Potential commingling of deep connate waters, hydrofracking fluids,
methane, and freshwater aquifers, as a result of disrupted bedrock strata, may lead to new,
altered, groundwater flow regimes. Altered flow regimes may, in turn, result in the formation of
new aquifer discharge locations that effuse methane and other contaminants to streams, springs,
wetlands, or other locations. The potential exists for such contaminants to degrade surface water
quality and sensitive ecosystems that support threatened or endangered species (Tzilkowski et
al., 2010; NYSDEC and PFBC, 2010), such as the federally endangered Dwarf Wedge Mussel
(Alasmidonta hereroden). Of the few remaining populations of this species, one is found within
the Neversink River, one in the mainstem of the upper Delaware River, and another within a
small coldwater tributary of the middle river (Playfoot and Snyder, 2010). Dwarf wedge mussels
are protected under the Endangered Species Act. It is critically important that pristine water
quality conditions be maintained to protect this species.

49) There are real environmental, water quality, air quality, explosive, health, and endangered
species concerns regarding gas exploitation below carbonate beds, inclusive of in caves.
Carbonate formations in portions of the Delaware River Basin are recognized among karst


16


hydrologists as being karstic or cave/conduit bearing in nature. Contaminants that may enter
karstic solution conduits, from below or above, would quickly degrade groundwater and surface
water quality.


50) Carbonates of the Onondaga Formation and Helderberg group outcrop in portions of the
Delaware River Basin (Figure 10; Veni, 2002). These carbonate formations, while
stratigraphically lower than the Marcellus shale, overlie other shale beds that are gas rich (e.g.,
the Utica shale of the Trenton Group). These carbonate formations are recognized among karst
hydrologists as being karstic or cave/conduit bearing in nature. An important aspect of karst is
its effect on water supply and contaminant transport. Water in solution conduits can travel up to
several kilometers per day, and contaminants can move at the same rate. This poses serious
problems when monitoring for water quality. Contaminants enter the ground easily through
sinkholes and sinking streams, and filtering is virtually non-existent. Even small solution
conduits can transmit groundwater and contaminants hundreds of times faster than the typical
unenlarged fracture network. Methane or drilling-related contaminants that may enter karstic
solution conduits, from below or above, would quickly degrade groundwater and surface water
quality. Because karst aquifers are extremely vulnerable, it would be prudent to characterize the
environmental risks to them prior to conducting drilling activities.

51) Gas drilling activities may pose a health risk to cave-dwelling species and cavers, including
the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). The build up of methane and other toxic
chemicals in caves and mines may pose both an explosive and health risk to cavers, cave
scientists, and cave-dwelling fauna. People and bats in caves may potentially be overwhelmed
by the build up of methane and other toxic chemicals. This could lead to their deaths via
inhalation or via explosions similar to those that have occurred at wellheads above gas plays. If
methane or LNAPLs were to seep or flow into caves (from below or from leaking surface
holding pits) situated above gas-rich shales, caves might in effect become "confined spaces" -
toxic to breathe in with great and, possibly, rapid exposure risk. Importantly, cave dwelling
animals, such as bats (Figures 8 and 9), might have their already stressed populations (i.e., via
White-Nose Syndrome; USGS, 2010) further decimated by gas field related contaminant
excursions.

52) The endangered Indiana bat has one or more hibernacula in the Delaware River Basin
stratigraphically above the Utica Shale. To protect these bats, the NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation (i.e., State of New York) purchased Surprise Cave, located near
Mamakating, NY (Sullivan County) some years ago. There may be other bat hibernacula within
the Delaware River Basin. Contaminants that may migrate into areas inhabited by the Indiana
Bat would constitute unauthorized taking of the bats under the Endangered Species Act.









17


Conclusions

53) Significant natural seismic activity is well documented in and adjacent to the Delaware River
Basin over an extended period of time. Ground motions from even one significant earthquake,
among many that occur over time, may catastrophically shear numerous gas exploration and well
casings or, at the very least, may result in fracturing and loss of integrity of well casing cement
designed to isolate freshwater aquifers from deep saline waters. As such, earthquakes may
instantly destroy the integrity of hundreds of gas wells, thereby forever and irreparably
compromising the hydrologic integrity of geologic formations that formerly protected freshwater
aquifers. Restoration of contaminated freshwater aquifers is probably not possible, thus well
failures from any single or combination of mechanisms is likely an irrevocable commitment of
natural resources.

54) The installation of exploratory wells that open borehole or nearby joint pathways between
formerly separated geologic horizons pose an environmental risk, particularly because the area is
seismically active. Ground motion associated with seismic activity has the real potential of
instantly shearing multiple well casings throughout gas fields, degrading cement grout designed
to isolate geologic horizons (i.e., freshwater aquifers), and thereby opening vertical joint and
borehole vectors between formerly separated geologic horizons. Numerous earthquakes have
occurred in Pennsylvania, New York, and adjacent states, pointing out that the region of the
exploratory wells is seismically active.

55) Vertical exploration wells and related surface activities have the potential to permanently and
irreparably harm ground and surface water resources in the Delaware River Basin. Extensive
existing fracture and fault networks throughout the Appalachian Basin may provide upward
pathways for contaminant and gas migration through geologic zones believed to be physically
isolated, based on incomplete data. Although gas producers have asserted publicly that these
zones are physically isolated, to date there are no publicly available studies to prove this claim.
On the contrary, multiple studies indicate the presence of pervasive natural fracturing that will
allow for migration to freshwater aquifers of methane, other hydrocarbons and their constituents,
drilling fluids and materials, and naturally occurring hazardous materials including deep saline
waters and NORMs. As a result, there are significant health and environmental risks associated
with advancing exploratory gas wells in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the
Appalachian Basin.

56) The characterization of vertical fractures, faults, seismic hazards, casing and grout failures,
contaminant hazards, and methane soil gas in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the
Appalachian Basin is not adequate to address potential adverse environmental impacts. Existing
information does not sufficiently address pre-existing contaminant (i.e., gas and fluid) pathways
that extend from the Marcellus shale to aquifers, surface water bodies, and the ground surface.
Vertical exploratory wells, as well as future hydro-fracturing and enhancement of gas-bearing
fractures may significantly increase gas excursions to formerly isolated geologic formations.
Review of reports and news articles indicate that significant environmental contamination has
occurred in geologically similar settings, including explosive hazards and groundwater and
surface water contamination. This puts the Delaware River, its tributaries, and watershed at
substantial risk of pollution and degradation.


18



57) Documentation by Jacobi of Fracture Intensification Domains based on methane soil gas
anomalies over open fractures reveals evidence that naturally occurring fractures and faults
provide upward gaseous migration pathways, even in the absence of deep hydro-fracturing in the
Marcellus shale. If fracture and fault networks are intersected by vertical exploratory well
completions and/or integrated and enlarged via hydro-fracturing processes, it is likely that
methane, LNAPL, and radioactive gas excursions will increase.

58) The reality is that methane gas extraction from tight shale formations, including the
Marcellus and similar formations throughout the country, have contaminated ground and surface
waters. Reasons for this include poor containment of fracturing fluids, spills of flow-back water,
intentional illegal disposal, mixing of different formation waters (e.g., brine and fresh water),
inadequately grouted casing, failed grout, spills, and various forms of operator error. Gas
production in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the Appalachian Basin would almost
certainly result in contaminant excursions, even under the best planned conditions. The presence
of confirmed fractures and faults that extend from gas-rich geologic beds to the ground surface,
some of which extend laterally for miles and are closely linked with others formed under similar
structural conditions, pose potential contaminant pathways to surface waterways, reservoirs, and
freshwater aquifers.

59) Because the density, location, aperture width, and length of all fractures (often present and
not visible beneath a soil mantle) are not known, it would not be prudent to risk placement of
numerous gas wells within sub-basins that contain lakes and reservoirs used for public water
supplies. From a water quality standpoint four facts stand out: 1) there is a point at which the
actual total number of toxic contaminants introduced into a groundwater flow system no longer
matters because the water is unlikely to ever be potable again no matter how much money is
spent attempting to remediate it, 2) new groundwater circulation pathways are likely to develop
in response to repeated hydro-fracturing and newly available freshwater hydraulic/pressure
heads, resulting in commingling of freshwater and contaminant-laden waters, 3) eventually, even
deep groundwater flow systems discharge to surface water, albeit it may take many years to
occur (i.e., analogous to a slowly ticking time bomb), and 4) it makes little sense to jeopardize
the quality of surface and groundwater by intentionally introducing vast quantities of toxic
contaminants into the environment, especially where gas-conducting fractures and faults are
known to extend from gas-bearing formations to the ground surface.

60) It is important to recognize that once our natural resources have been compromised as a
result of an operator error, grout and/or casing failure, a major contaminant excursion, seismic
activity, or an unforeseen breaching of geologic beds, that it may be impossible to remediate and
restore them to their pre-existing conditions. Failed confining beds and contaminated natural
resources often represent an irrevocable commitment of our lands. Our decision to risk natural
resources in the Delaware River Basin must weigh all the health and environmental risks against
exploitation of relatively short-lived gas reserves and financial gain.

The opinions expressed herein are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific and
professional certainty.



19




__________________________________! !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Paul!A.!Rubin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




References

Bame, D. and Fehler, M., 1986, Observations of long period earthquakes accompanying
hydraulic fracturing. Geophysical Research Letters, v. 13, no. 1, p. 149-152.

Bradley, W.H. and Pepper, J.F., 1938, Structure and gas possibilities of the Oriskany Sandstone
in Steuben, Yates, and parts of the adjacent counties, New York: U.S. Geological Survey
Bulletin, v. 899-A, p. 68.

COP – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Consent Order and Agreement with Cabot Oil and Gas
Corporation, Nov. 4, 2009. Order addresses failure to properly cement casings and failure to
prevent the unpermitted discharge of natural gas, a polluting substance, from entering
groundwater.

DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006, Earthquake hazard in
Pennsylvania, Educational Series 10. First edition, June 1989; second edition, May 2003; slightly
revised June 2006. Author: Charles K. Scharnberger, PA Geological Survey.

Dusseault, M.B., Gray, M.N. and Nawrocki, P.A., 2000, Why oilwells leak: cement behavior and
long-term consequences. Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. (SPE 64733). Paper prepared for
presentation at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China held in
Beijing, China 7-10 November 2000.

Engelder, T., Lash, G.G., and Uzcátegui, 2009, Joint sets that enhance production from Middle
and Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin. AAPG Bulletin; July 2009: v. 93; no.
7; p. 857-889.

Evans, M.A., 1994, Joints and decollement zones in Middle Devonian shales; evidence for
multiple deformation events in the central Appalachian Plateau: geological Society of America
Bulletin, v. 106, p. 447-460.

Feng, Q. and Lees, J.M., 1998, Microseismicity, stress, and fracture in the Coso geothermal field,
California. Tectonophysics, v. 289, issues 1-3, p. 221-238.

Hazen and Sawyer, 2009, Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City
Water Supply Watershed, Rapid Impact Assessment Report. Sept. 2009. Prepared for NYCDEP.


20



Horálek, J., Dorbath, L., Jechumtálováa, Z., and Šilen!, J., 2009, Source mechanisms of micro-
earthquakes induced in hydraulic fracturing experiment at the HDR site Soultz-sous-Forêts
(Alsace) in 2003 and their temporal and spatial variations. Geophysical Research Abstracts, v.
11, EGU2009-14008.

Jacobi, R.D., 2002, Basement faults and seismicity in the Appalachian Basin of New York State.
Tectonophysics, v. 353, Issues 1-4, 23 August 2002, p. 75-113.

Jacobi, R.D. and Smith, G.J., 2000, Part I. Core and cutting analyses, surface structure, faults and
lineaments, and stratigraphic cross-sections based on previous investigations. In: Jacobi, R.D.,
Cruz, K., Billman, D. (Eds.), Geologic Investigation of the Gas Potential in the Otsego County
Region, Eastern New York State: Final Phase One Report to Millennium Natural Resources
Development, L.L.C. NYSERDA, Albany, NY, 45 pp.

Kargbo, D.M., Wilhelm, R.G. and Campbell, D.J., 2010, Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus
Shale: Challenges and Potential Contaminants. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 44,
pp. 5679 – 5684, June 2, 2010.

Lash, G.G. and Engelder, T., 2009, Tracking the burial and tectonic history of Devonian shale of
the Appalachian Basin by analysis of joint intersection style. GSA Bulletin; Jan/Feb 2009; v.
121; no. ½; p. 265-277.

LI, Y-P, 1996, Microearthquake analysis for hydraulic fracturing process. Acta Seismologic
Sinica, v. 9, no. 3, p. 377-387.

Lustgarten, A., 4-22-09, Digging at mystery of methane in wells - The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12195167#ixzz0ywZqfVcB; Article references work
conducted by S.S. Papadopulos and Associates.

NYSDEC and PFBC, 2010, Recommended improvements to the flexible flow management
program for Coldwater Ecosystem protection in the Delaware River Tailwaters. Authored by
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission,
9 p.

Northrup, J.L., 2010, The Unique Environmental Impacts of Horizontally Hydrofracking Shale.
Report of Otsego 2000 prepared for September 2010 public hearing.

Playfoot, K.M. and Snyder, E.M., 2010, Genetic relationships among Federally-endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon within the Delaware River Basin. Penn State School of Forest Resources.

Rubin, P.A., Ayers, J.C., and Grady, K.A., 1992, Solution mining and resultant evaporite karst
development in Tully Valley, New York. Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management
of Ground Water in Karst Terranes Conference (3rd, Nashville, Tenn., Dec. 1991), Proceedings.
National Ground Water Association, Dublin, Ohio, p. 313-328.




21


Shapiro, S.A. and Dinske, C., 2009, Fluid-induced seismicity: Pressure diffusion and hydraulic
fracturing. Geophysical Prospecting, v. 57, p. 301-310.

Stiles, K., 2010, DRBC data request. E-mail dated 1-25-10 to David Kovach detailing drilling
summary of Matoushek #1 well.

Taylor, R.G., 2009, Oil, oil and more oil: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ny/county/allegany/OIL-
COUNTY/OIL-OIL-MORE%20OIL.HTM (accessed by Engelder et al. - January 31, 2009)

Tzilkowski, C.J., Callahan, K.K., Marshall, M.R. and Weber, A.S., 2010, Integrity of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in the upper Delaware scenic and recreational river; Eastern
rivers and mountains network 2008 summary report. Natural Resource Data Series
NPS/ERMN/NRDS – 2010/029.

USGS, 2010, White-Nose Syndrome Threatens the Survival of Hibernating Bats in North
America. Web page information from Fort Collins Science Center:
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/wns/

Veni, G., 2002, Revising the karst map of the United States. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies,
v. 64, no. 1, p. 45-50.

Zhou, Z., He, J., Huang, M., He, J., and Chen, G., 2010, Casing Pipe Damage Detection with
Optical Fiber Sensors: A Case Study in Oil Well Constructions; In Advances in Civil
Engineering, v. 2010, Article ID 638967, 9 pages.




Figure Listing

Available at http://hydroquest.com/Riverkeeper/

Figure 1: Watersheds of the Delaware River Basin
Figure 2: Bedrock Geology of Delaware River & Susquehanna River Headwater
Watershed Areas
Figure 3: Lineaments and Faults of NYS
Figure 4: Joint Orientation Throughout the Appalachian Basin
Figure 5: Earthquake Epicenter Map of Pennsylvania
Figure 6: Seismic Hazards Maps
Figure 7: Modification of Groundwater Flow Routes – Structural Collapse of Tully
Valley, NY
Figure 8: Range of Endangered Bat Species
Figure 9: Spread of White-Nose Syndrome in Bats in Eastern US
Figure 10: US Karst Map





22


Addenda Listing

Available at http://hydroquest.com/Riverkeeper/


Addendum 1: Paul Rubin Resume
Addendum 2: Pennsylvania Earthquake History
Addendum 3: New York Earthquake History!


 

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
Consolidated Administrative Hearing on
Grandfathered Exploration Wells

Report to:
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
And
Damascus Citizens for Sustainability


Prepared by:

Daniel Thau Teitelbaum, M.D.,P.C.

November 19, 2010

 
As a toxicologist and physician specializing in environmental medicine and public health, I
have been asked by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens for Sustainability to
provide my professional opinion on the potential toxicological effects that may result from exposure
to chemicals and substances that may be released from natural gas wells, including certain
“grandfathered” exploratory wells, that have been or may be drilled in the drainage area of the
Special Protection Waters of the Delaware River Basin.
In my professional opinion, due to the multiple known risks to human health from exposure
to such chemicals and substances, such exploratory well drilling should not be done until the
consequences of such exposure are thoroughly examined in a comprehensive health effects study for
the Delaware River Basin. The necessity for such a study, before drilling begins, has been
established in our research and in that of others in the western United States, especially in the
Battlement Mesa area of Garfield County, Colorado. In Garfield County we found in 2008 that
there was a total lack of research into the health effects from gas development activities. As a result
of this study, a comprehensive Health Impacts Assessment was commissioned by Garfield County
and completed in September, 2010. It is imperative that a similar study be performed for the
Delaware River Basin before any gas development – including the grandfathered wells – is allowed
to proceed.
One of the most glaring omissions of the gas drilling process has been the exclusion of
consideration of human health impacts. Only through anecdotal reports can impacts to human
health in the Delaware River Basin be presumed as no epidemiological or environmental health
studies have been done in the Basin. This is necessary before drilling proceeds in the Basin in part
because the Delaware River supplies water to more than 15 million people. In addition to the
potential toxicological effects from exposure to water contaminated by pollutants released from gas
drilling activities, there are significant air pollution issues which also may become water pollution
issues due to downwash. We have studied these potential water and air pollution issues in certain
areas in the western United States, but such studies have not been done in the significantly more
densely populated northeastern United States.

In preparation for our September 2010 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) report on
Battlement Mesa in Garfield County, Colorado ( http://www.garfield-

 
county.com/index.aspx?page=1408 and copy attached), in 2008 my colleagues and I reviewed
previously completed studies from the general area of Garfield County and concluded that there
were major gaps in public health information. At the request of the Garfield County Board of
Commissioners, the Colorado School of Public Health (working in conjunction with the Garfield
County Health Department) undertook a public health impacts assessment of the gas development
activities underway or planned for this area. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of
existing environmental, exposure, health and safety data for the Battlement Mesa community. We
offered specific recommendations and produced a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) which involved
several defined steps. The HIA looked at health stressors specific to gas development and rated
them. Our results are in the HIA report, a copy of which is being submitted with this report.

The health effects on the Battlement Mesa residents were based on a careful study of the
area population and the locations of gas development activity. The general conclusions of this HIA
can be extrapolated from the study of the Battlement Mesa area to other areas with similar gas
development activity across the county, including the northeastern United States. However, it is
necessary to additionally look at the unique characteristics of any particular area, such as the
Delaware River Basin including its geology and subsurface faulting and jointing, radioactivity of the
underlying layers, water resources in proximity and downstream or down gradient from gas
development areas and, of course, the unique population of that area. Therefore a study similar to
the HIA should be done for the Delaware River Basin before exploratory drilling and gas
development occurs and in preparation for any issuance of regulations. This study must precede
permits, not the other way around, including any “test” or “exploratory” wells. These wells will
include all the stressors we found, and perhaps additional ones, to a greater or lesser degree,
depending on the unique population and geology of the potentially affected areas of the Delaware
River Basin. Therefore it is imperative to study these issues before allowing gas drilling and
development to proceed.

As part of the 2008 preliminary review that led to the 2010 HIA, my colleagues and I
undertook an extensive review of the professional literature on the toxicology of the types of
chemicals being used by the gas development industry and the substances being brought to the
surface by gas drilling activities. As part of this report and my professional opinion in this matter, I

 
am incorporating that 2008 literature review, entitled “Potential Exposure-Related Human Health
Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A Literature Review (2003-2008),” into this report. The
toxicology assessment in this literature review is just as relevant for the Delaware River Basin as it is
for western Colorado. The same sorts of chemicals and substances are involved in gas drilling and
development activities in the Delaware River Basin as are involved in such activities in western
Colorado. Moreover, the toxicological effects of exposure to these various chemicals and
substances do not change based on the location where the exposure occurs. For this same reason,
references throughout the Literature Review to natural gas “exploration,” “extraction,” or
“production” are essentially interchangeable as related to toxicity of chemicals and substances that
may be released into the environment anywhere during these activities. The one exception to the
applicability of the Literature Review to this hearing is that the portion of that Review related to
chemicals used exclusively in fracking operations would not be relevant to this hearing related only
to the drilling of exploratory wells. Everything else in the Literature Review is relevant to the issues
involved in this hearing.
I have attached as appendices the 2008 White Paper and Literature Review Appendices
listing all of the professional publications that were included in the literature review. I have also
attached for completeness the 2010 report entitled, “Health Impact Assessment for Battlement
Mesa, Garfield County Colorado.”
The opinions provided in this report are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific and
professional certainty.


/s/ Daniel Thau Teitelbaum
Daniel Thau Teitelbaum, M.D., P.C.

Attachments:
Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A
Literature Review (2003 – 2008)

Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A
Literature Review Appendices


 
Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development:
A White Paper

Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, Colorado


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The construction and operation of Marcellus Shale Gas Extraction facilities, including wells intended for exploratory purposes, can have significant and adverse environmental impacts on the water quality of the Special Protection Waters of the Delaware River Basin. Specifically, impacts associated with erosion and sediment discharge and stormwater discharge during construction, operation, and after well closure can negatively and significantly impact water quality. The existing environmental regulations and policies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, either as enacted by the Commonwealth or implemented by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP), do not provide adequate performance standards, review, implementation, or enforcement to protect the Commonwealth’s water resources, including the Special Protection Waters of the Delaware River Basin. The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) requirements for a Non-Point Source Pollution Control Plan are not sufficient to protect these water resources in lieu of adequate Pennsylvania requirements, leading to the possibility and likelihood of adverse environmental effects on water resources. Additionally, the Pennsylvania erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management regulations and policies, as applied to Oil and Gas facilities, are significantly less stringent and comprehensive and are subject to far less regulatory review than virtually any other construction or industrial activity in Pennsylvania. Construction and performance requirements and regulatory review requirements related to sediment control and stormwater management are far more rigorous for schools, highways, homes, and even geothermal energy wells than for Oil and Gas facilities. By grandfathering the exploratory wells that were permitted by PaDEP prior to the June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations of the DRBC, DRBC has effectively held these facilities to a lower environmental standard than that which is applied to other activities within Pennsylvania, as well as a lower standard than that which will presumably be applied to other oil and gas activities within the Delaware River Basin once its regulations are adopted. Since negative water quality impacts related to sediment discharge and stormwater

management from these facilities can and do impact existing water quality, these facilities cannot be exempt from the requirements to protect and maintain Special Protection Waters, or subject to lower regulatory requirements than other construction and industrial activities. ANALYSIS AND OPINION My name is Michele C. Adams, I am a professional engineer registered in the state of Pennsylvania and several other states. As indicated in the attached CV, I have twenty-six years of experience specializing in water resources, stormwater management, and site design engineering. I am one of the primary authors of the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, and currently chair the calculations sub-committee for the Manual update. To form the opinions in this report, I reviewed the available Well Drilling Permit applications and supporting information for several of the exploratory wells in question, including but not limited to Davidson 1V, Woodland Management Partners 1 1, DL Teeple 1 1 and 1 2H, Geuther 1. I also reviewed a number of documents and reports that are listed at the end of this report as references. It is my opinion, given with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that gas exploratory and extraction facilities can adversely impact water quality as a result of inadequate erosion and sedimentation control during construction and operation, and inadequate stormwater management for rate, volume, and discharge of pollutants. As discussed in this report, the current regulatory process for review, approval, and operation of these facilities, as administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, fails to ensure design and implementation of both erosion control and stormwater management measures that are sufficient to protect water quality. The exploratory wells that have been permitted prior to the June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010 Supplemental Determinations of the DRBC should not be held to lower standards than facilities that will be subject to the anticipated DRBC regulations.

Construction of Gas Exporatory and Extraction Facilities and Impacts to Water Quality as a Result of Inadequate Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Impacts to water quality from the Gas Exploratory and Extraction facilities can occur during the construction of the facility. Because the Well Location Plat does not indicate the full area of disturbance. However. Based on these diagrams. a page-sized copy of the Woodland Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (included as part of the “Preparedness. 8-1/2” by 11” Well Location Plat diagrams provided within the PaDEP Well Permit applications (for two wells) indicate approximate areas of pad and entrance drive that can be measured from the diagrams. Prevention. it provides virtually no information on the project’s disturbance footprint. During construction. Facilities with less than 5 acres disturbance must prepare an . Approximately 1 acre of disturbance appears to be related to the entrance driveway. the well pad and entrance driveway area are shown as 1. for the specific wells in question as part of this Hearing that are less than five (5) acres in disturbance. Disturbance is a result of: • • • • Construction of the pad site Construction of the entrance road Widening or paving of existing roads for access to the site Construction of pipeline facilities The amount and type of area disturbed directly impacts the potential for erosive conditions and sediment discharge.4 acres. There is no information on the PaDEP “Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well” or available Well Location Plats regarding total acreage of disturbance. and Contingency Plan”) indicates approximately 4. PaDEP would not have an estimate of the Total Area of Disturbance from the Well Location Plat. and as a result of inadequate restoration of the facility after operations have ceased. significantly more than 2. the water quality impacts are related to the discharge of sediment-laden waters from disturbed areas and the increased amount and rate of runoff from disturbed areas. the operation of the facility.7 acres of disturbance when this area is measured from the plan.4 acres for the Woodland Management 1 1 well. Little specific information regarding the disturbed area is available in the permit application materials.80 acres for the Teeple 1 1 well and 2. In contrast.

widened. but are not required to submit the Plan to PaDEP for review. Information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). In addition to the well pad site. EPA Publication . • • This study concludes that “Gas well sites have the potential to negatively impact surface waters due to increased sedimentation rates.0 tonnes/hectare/year (tonne = 1000 Kg. to monitor and assess the impact of gas well drilling on stormwater runoff.S.4 to 40. Gas site TSS EMCs ranged from 394 to 9898 mg/l and annual sediment loadings ranged from 21. or altered for vehicle access to and from the well pad site can be a source of sediment and pollutants during both construction and operation.000 square meters). Compared to the median EMCs of storms sampled by Denton near one of their outfalls. The U. this study determined that: Gas well sites have the potential to produce sediment loads comparable to traditional construction sites.Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.” (US EPA ID No. not including access roads. roads that are constructed. the gas well site median EMC was 36 times greater. the U. and were comparable to previous studies of construction site sedimentation. CP83207101-1. page 2). which regulates gas drilling in Marcellus Shale formations in New York State. Texas. In 2005.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U. • Total suspended solids (TSS) and turbidity event mean concentrations (EMC = pollutant mass / runoff volume) at gas sites were significantly greater than at reference sites (the median TSS EMC at gas sites was 136 times greater than reference sites).S. hectare = 10. The area of disturbance is significant because it directly affects the potential amount of sediment-laden water that can occur if erosion and sediment control measures are not adequate. With regards to the discharge of sediment during construction. (NY DEP) indicates that well sites generally involve two to five acres of disturbance per site. EPA) awarded a grant to the City of Denton. The results of this effort were published in December 2007 in a report titled “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize These Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances”.

moving engine parts. brake lining wear. Table 1. steel highway structures such as bridges and guardrails. and bridges from reaching surface waters. Heavy metals. bearing and brushing wear. oils. vehicles. Erosion. Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways” (EPA-841-F95-008d) states that: Runoff controls are essential to preventing polluted runoff from roads. highways. motor oil and grease Auto body rust. highway. moving engine parts and brake lining wear Copper Cadmium Chromium . highways. Typical pollutants found in runoff from roads and highways. as identified in Table 1. Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways | Polluted Runoff | US EPA Sedimentation Nutrients Heavy Metals Pollutant Particulates Nitrogen & Phosphorus Lead Zinc Iron Source Pavement wear. fungicides & insecticides Tire wear and insecticide application Metal plating. the atmosphere and maintenance activities Atmosphere and fertilizer application Leaded gasoline from auto exhausts and tire wear Tire wear. and debris from construction traffic and spillage can be absorbed by soil at construction sites and carried with runoff water to lakes. This publication (EPA-841-F-95-008d) identifies a number of pollutant types and sources related to Roads and Highways. which can deteriorate water quality and lead to fish kills and other ecological problems. Runoff control measures can be installed at the time of road. and bridges can contribute large amounts of sediment and silt to runoff waters. Erosion during and after construction of roads. and public health. fish habitats. Such measures can effectively limit the entry of pollutants into surface waters and ground waters and protect their quality. and bays. other toxic substances. and moving engine parts Metal plating. rivers.“Erosion. and bridge construction to reduce runoff pollution both during and after construction.

This is in contrast to most other construction activities. and therefore the DRBC’s Supplemental Determination of June 14.Nickel Manganese Cyanide Sodium. but is not subject to regulatory review and approval before construction. a Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well (5500-PMOG0001) is sufficient. lubricating oil. 2010 is incorrect in determining that the “existing safeguards” applied to “wells subject to state regulation as to their construction and operation” is sufficient to prevent water quality impacts from construction. Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities that result in disturbance of fewer than five (5) acres are not required to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. However. and this can be seen in the application requirements for Erosion and Sediment Control Permits. fuel and deicing salts Spills. bushing wear. the “safeguards” applied in the Pennsylvania regulatory process for Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities fail to address a number of concerns. For Oil and Gas facilities that are fewer than 5 acres in disturbance. For these facilities. brake lining wear and asphalt paving Moving engine parts Anti-caking compounds used to keep deicing salt granular Deicing salts Roadway beds. and these facilities have the same potential as other construction activities to degrade water quality. leaks. antifreeze and hydraulic fluids and asphalt surface leachate Based on these two studies. an Erosion & Sediment . metal plating. calcium & chloride Sulphates Hydrocarbons Petroleum Diesel fuel and gasoline. the construction of Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities and associated construction and/or improvement of roads can negatively impact water quality. Pennsylvania does not apply the same standards of performance or regulatory oversight to Gas Exploration and Extraction facilities as is applied to other construction activities. Specifically. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be developed. which are subject to erosion and sediment control requirements at 1 acre under the Pennsylvania Chapter 102 requirements and NPDES requirements.

namely. Significantly.Control plan is required. There is only a General Permit option for Oil and Gas facilities. Processing or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities ESCGP-1). but it is not subject to regulatory review prior to construction. the permit application requirements in the PaDEP “Application for an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit (ESCP)” for projects that are not already addressed under an NPDES permit. virtually no information is required related to the amount of area disturbed and erosion control measures. . This is significant because the permit application is essentially for the same item. the requirements for a “standard” ESCP REVIEW THIS application are significantly more stringent than the requirements for an Oil and Gas facility ESCP application for coverage under a general permit. Production. As can be seen from this table. This table also indicates the comparable requirements for the permit application for Drilling or Altering a Well (for oil and gas projects disturbing fewer than 5 acres). are different than the PaDEP application for Oil and Gas Facilities (Notice of Intent for Coverage under the Erosion & Sediment Control General Permit for Earth Disturbance Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration. is provided in Table 2. as compared to the permit application requirements for Oil and Gas facilities. an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit. regardless of whether or not the facility is located in Special Protection Waters. A comparison of permit application requirements for non-oil and gas facilities. Other construction activities require an Individual Permit within Special Protection Waters. There are also significant differences between the application for coverage under the General (PAG-02) NPDES Permit or Individual NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. For oil and gas facilities with fewer than five acres of disturbance.

Oil and Gas Facilities.Table 2. and Oil and Gas Facilities under 5 acres disturbance. . Comparison of Erosion and Sediment Control Permit Application Requirements for “Non” Oil and Gas Facilities.

As can be seen by the overlay of the Well Location Plat onto a USGS 7-1/2 minute quadrangle map. The potential impacts to water quality can be seen in the existing D. designated in Pennsylvania as High Quality (HQ). This well is located in the Shehawken Rattlesnake Creek. The permit application for this well indicates under Item 8 of the “Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well” that the well site is not within 100 feet (horizontally) of a stream. 191. Wayne County and owned by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC (permit # 37-127-20013. the soil type and potential for erosion. Additionally. Failure to stabilize site until total restoration under OGA Sec 206(c)(d). the well pad is not within 100 feet of a body of water as indicated on the USGS 7-1/2 minute quad. implement E&S Plan. 2010). A second violation was also issued on 5/26/2010 under Pa Code 78 for an improperly lined pit. This well location was cited on 5/26/2010 for a violation of Chapter 102. None of this information is available for regulatory review before construction for Oil and Gas facilities of fewer than 5 acres. maintain E&S controls. including the total area of disturbance. the topographic slopes. The site is bordered on the western side by S. but it is situated at the top of a hill surrounded on three sides by streams and wetlands that are delineated on the quad map. there is no opportunity for regulatory reviewers to determine if measures such as reducing the area of disturbance and restoring disturbed areas promptly will be implemented.There are a number of site-specific conditions that can directly affect the potential for erosion and pollutant discharge during construction activity. there is significant potential for discharge of sediment and other pollutants to surface waters if erosion and sediment control measures are not actively maintained and implemented. located in Manchester Township. issued on April 23.L.” This violation was issued just over one month after the permit was issued. spring. Teeple 1 1 well. or water body of water delineated on the most current 7-1/2 minute topographic map.R. . and a wetland can be seen just over 100 feet downhill from the construction entrance. shown as Figure 1. 4 for “Failure to minimize accelerated erosion. Given the topography and surrounding surface waters at the Teeple 1 1 site. and the proximity to surface waters.

205(b)) states that “no well site may be prepared or well drilled within 100 feet measured horizontally from any stream.000 feet from the watershed divide does not reflect differences in hydrologic performance among various combinations of climate.The Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act (58 P. For example. Many of these features will NOT be mapped on a USGS quad as blue lines. wetlands. The preparation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan under the requirements for Oil and Gas facilities also does not guarantee that the measures represented on the plan will be adequate to protect water quality. S. Section E: Special Protection Waters lists “cost effective best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to meet the requirements of Pa Code Chapter 93. Geological Survey. Therefore. and geology” and “blue lines on a map are drawn by non-professional.S. Under this list is included “Roads stabilized with crushed rock and/or vegetation. surface waters are defined in Chapter 93 as “Perennial and intermittent streams.” In other words. natural seeps and estuaries…”.” (page 228). 1994) that the USGS instructions regarding blue lines on quad maps “do not reflect any statistical characteristic of streamflow occurrence. The specifications that the blue line terminate no higher than about 1. The current Pennsylvania permitting process for Oil and Gas facilities is not sufficiently protective of surface waters. springs. or body of water as identified on the most current 7-1/2 minute topographical quadrangle map of the United States geological survey or within 100 feet of any wetlands greater than one acre in size”. This question is asked in Item 8 of the PaDEP Permit Application for Drilling or Altering a Well. reservoirs. ponds. spring. roads constructed of crushed rock are considered to be a “best management practice” adequate for protection of . topography. Luna B. or they will not be mapped adequately.§ 601. writes in his book A View of the River (Harvard University Press. former Chief Hydrologist for the U. lakes. reliance of these “blue lines” does not represent adequate identification and setback from surface waters as defined under Pa Code Chapter 93. Leopold. However. low-salaried personnel …they are drawn to fit a rather personalized aesthetic. rivers. In other words. on the Erosion and Sediment Control permit application for Oil and Gas facilities (ESCGP-1). blue lines on 7-1/2 minute USGS quads are not scientific representations of surface waters or even perennial or intermittent streams.

Summary Statement) that begins to quantify sediment production from gravel roads and sediment reductions from several commonly used practices. .2 pound event was generated from a wider. compost sock.7 pound event was generated from a flat narrow farm lane with grass growing between the wheel tracks.000+ miles of public unpaved roads. This study found that: Runoff Rates from Existing Roads: The five “existing condition” tests done for this study found sediment production rates ranging from 0. gravel roads are a source of sediment pollution. there are no erosion and sediment control measures. the construction of roads – including crushed rock roads – is considered earth disturbance that requires its own erosion and sediment control measures (as well as stormwater management measures). no silt fence.000 tons* of sediment form the State’s 20. The 12. Roads for other construction projects are subject to management requirements for erosion and sediment control. Penn State’s Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies (Center) recently completed a research project for the Chesapeake Bay Commission (Sheetz. for the approximately 850 linear feet of new entrance driveway to the well pad.7-12. In virtually all other construction projects that are subject to Chapter 102 requirements. In other words.2 pounds of sediment runoff in a single 30 minute. rather than a “best management practice” for Special Protection Waters as listed on the ESCGP-1 application.6 pounds per event.55 inches simulated rainfall. etc.. Using the average sediment runoff rate of 5. The 0. This highlights the great variability in erosion rates based on specific site conditions. but under ESCGP-1. gravel roads are considered a “best management practice”. i.55 inch rain event moving across Pennsylvania can be conservatively expected to generate over 3.Special Protection Waters. a single 30 minute 0. mixed limestone/clay road at a 4-5% slope. 0. Review of the page-sized copy of the “Woodland Management Partners Well Pad Erosion & Sediment Control Plan” indicates that. The Pennsylvania Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies provides information on measures to maintain gravel roads in a manner to reduce the discharge of pollutants and protect water quality.e.

2010 and July 23. the current state regulations under which the wells in question were permitted do not guarantee that the measures designed or implemented are sufficient to protect water quality from construction-related impacts due to erosion and sedimentation. These wells should not be excluded under the June 14. Gravel roads for geothermal well construction must also include measures such as silt fence or compost sock (and are not considered a best management practice). and reducing site disturbance. In summary. Geothermal wells are generally not more than several hundred feet deep. including both exploratory and extraction well sites. This includes requirements for dewatering material from the wells. PaDEP began imposing requirements on the construction of geothermal energy wells. and reflect that both well construction and gravel road construction and use are significant sources of nonpoint source pollutants. are a result of: • • • • Increased runoff (volume and rate) from roads Increased runoff (volume and rate) from pad site areas Increased pollutants from truck movement Pollutants from pad materials . This is in stark contrast to the ESCGP-1 representation of gravel roads as a best management practice. Recently. Detailed guidance for E&S measures related to the construction of geothermal wells will be included in the updated Erosion and Sediment Control Manual. Stormwater impacts at Oil and Gas facilities. Gas Extraction Facilities and Impacts to Water Quality as a Result of Inadequate Stormwater Management The discharge of stormwater runoff and the pollutants conveyed in stormwater runoff also negatively impact surface water quality. protecting the water resources from discharge of pollutants. and that have significant potential to adversely impact water quality.Roads and gravel roads for gas exploration and extraction facilities are not the only construction items that are regulated differently for oil and gas facilities than they are for other construction sites. PaDEP has begun imposing requirements for separate Erosion and Sediment Control Plans specific to the construction of geothermal wells and the handling of material from these wells. 2010 Supplemental Determinations.

• • • • • • • Air deposition of pollutants Inadequate handing of drilling materials Decreased stormwater recharge Decline of adjacent vegetation Degradation of roads Erosion of pad Failure to restore site to natural conditions The stormwater impacts on water quality and stream health include: • • • • • • Increased flooding as a result of increased stormwater flow rates and volumes of runoff Increased frequency of runoff discharges Thermal impacts from disturbed surfaces and removal of vegetation Changes in receiving water stream channel geometry. chlorides. alkalinity and pH were higher at gas well sites compared to reference sites. • • • The Summary Document for this study further concluded that: • Gas well sites have the potential to negatively impact surface waters due to increased sedimentation rates and an increase in the presence of metals in stormwater runoff. Mn and Ni).” noted that discharges of stormwater from oil and gas facilities include a number of pollutants. EPA report “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize These Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances. Mn and Ni.S. calcium. and corresponding increases in sediment loads Discharge of pollutants Decreased stream baseflow as a result of reduced recharge In addition to sediment discharges. conductivity. Overall. Generally. the concentrations of metals tend to be higher at gas well sites compared to both nearby reference sites and as measured in runoff from local mixed-use watersheds (EMCs were statistically significantly greater for Fe. and differences were statistically significant for all parameters except conductivity. the presence of metals was higher at gas well sites compared to reference sites and EMCs were statistically significantly greater for Fe. . the December 2007 U. hardness. The Summary Document for this report states: Other pollutants in gas well runoff were found in high concentrations: • EMCs of total dissolved solids. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were not detected in any of the samples collected at gas well sites or reference sites.

Given the potential for stormwater impacts to water quality from Oil and Gas exploratory and extraction facilities. Specifically. the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit for Oil and Gas facilities (ESCGP-1) essentially provides these facilities with a waiver from providing stormwater management calculations and data. requires the applicant to answer yes or no to two questions: 1. PCSM BMPs which: use natural measures to eliminate pollution. flat. The approximate original contours of the project site will be maintained or replicated and the disturbed areas will be revegetated or otherwise stabilized with pervious material.• Pad sites also have the potential to produce other contaminants associated with equipment and general site operations. Gas wells do not appear to result in high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in runoff.e. but accidental spills and leaks are still a potential source of impact. However. titled “Site Restoration Plan and Post Construction Stormwater BMPs”. 2. heavily vegetated areas distant from surface waters are usually less of a concern than those areas close to waters that have highly erodible soils. essentially receiving a waiver of the . the Summary Document noted that: The proximity to surface water conveyances is an important consideration for minimizing water impacts. do not require extensive construction efforts.. promote pollution reduction. • Furthermore. i. steeper slopes and little vegetation.2.” the applicant does not need to provide supporting calculations and data. Section D. the requirements for stormwater management and water quality protection should be at least as rigorous as the requirements for other land development and industrial activities. and are capable of controlling the net increase in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from a 2-year/24-hour storm event will be employed and the net increase in the volume of post construction runoff is infiltrated and/or dissipated away from surface waters of the Commonwealth.e of ESCGP-1. If the answer to both of these questions is “yes.

but rather a result of applying engineering coefficients (Cover Complex values) that indicate that the site will be more pervious. For example.. . and which must provide detailed calculations to determine that stormwater BMPs are correctly sized and located. which is shown in Figure 1. soil types. Even if one of these questions is answered as “no” and post construction stormwater calculations and data are required. This is shown in Figure 2. slopes. areas that are to be revegetated are calculated as “brush” that produces less runoff than woods in good condition. that is not an assurance that the calculations and stormwater plan will protect water quality. However. It is shown in Figure 1 that Essentially. A more appropriate runoff coefficient that represents lawn and soils that have been graded would indicate a much greater volume of runoff than is presented. the accompanying stormwater calculations indicate that there will be less stormwater runoff after well pad construction than before.requirements for detailed stormwater management calculations and implementation of adequate stormwater management measures. or be subject to the same level of regulatory review as other construction projects. and therefore. which must design PCSM measures based on factors such as disturbed area. stormwater calculations are required. the “Brush Seed Mixture” that is specified is primarily a grass and groundcover seed mix. Such waivers are not available for other industrial and commercial projects. etc. the permit application for the Davidson 1V Well Pad Site indicates that the site will NOT be returned to the original contours and revegetated with pervious material. However. This is not a result of BMPs. and does not represent established “brush”.

! ! Figure 1. Brush Seed Mixture that is primarily grasses Figure 2: Runoff Curve Number for pre and post-development conditions exhibiting increased runoff after construction .

titled “Special Protection Waters” lists fourteen “cost effective best management practices that will be used to meet the requirements of 25 Pa Code Chapter 93. Rock lined culvert inlets and outlets 13. Permanently stabilized ditches and channels 12. Roads stabilized with crushed rock and/or vegetation 8. Other 6.” These include: 1. the estimates of stormwater runoff rate and volume will be greater than documented within the Plan. Therefore. Minimize earth disturbance 2. However. Alternative site analysis 7. The designs documented in the PostConstruction Stormwater Management Plan for Davidson 1V do not support the engineering calculations and assumptions that have been submitted. The net effect of Section E . presumably since it is paved with a stone bed. Earth moving activities limited during rainstorms and spring thaw 3. Immediate stabilization 9. Stabilized upslope diversion 11. Section E of ESCGP-1. the detail provided for the Davidson 1V Well Pad indicates that the stone is not appropriate for a stormwater bed as described in the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. In addition. pollution and increased runoff. 100 ft riparian buffer None of these measures are sufficient to provide stormwater management and protect water quality for sites that have 5 acres or more of disturbance. Proper vegetative cover techniques 14. which is also not an acceptable technique in the Manual.Similarly. Prompt site restoration 10. Designed temporary and permanent BMPs for surface water diversion 5. and additionally that the bed will be built partially on fill material. and as discussed earlier. measures such as stabilizing roads with gravel can create. the well pad itself is given a very low runoff value. rather than mitigate. No direct discharge to surface water 4.

Oil and gas activities are given an exemption “so long as any existing riparian buffer is undisturbed to the greatest extent possible.2. 2010 stated that: [T]hese wells are subject to state regulations as to their construction and operation…In light of these existing safeguards…this Supplemental Determination does not prohibit any natural gas well project from proceeding if the applicant has obtained a state natural gas well permit for the project on or before the date of issuance set below. 2010 Determination of the Executive Director Concerning Natural Gas Extraction Activities in Shale Formations within the Drainage Area of Special Protection Waters. altered vegetation. . and essentially no safeguards or consideration of factors such as slopes. Oil and Gas facilities are given a further exemption from environmental standards applied to other facilities under Pa 25 Code Chapter 102. “restored” sites will continue to generate increased volumes and rates of stormwater runoff. amount of vegetation and protection of existing vegetation. soil types.and Section D. A review of the regulatory safeguards applied to these wells. and as a result of disturbance.e of ESCGP-1 is to waive stormwater management requirements for these facilities. there are essentially no regulatory processes or safeguards in place to assure that stormwater management measures are adequate. indicates that the safeguards do not guarantee protection of the water quality of Special Protection Waters with regards to Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater Management. which requires a 150 foot riparian buffer in Special Protection Waters.” For Oil and Gas facilities with fewer than five acres of disturbance (and not required to apply for permit coverage with ESCGP-1). specifically the existing Pennsylvania regulations and PaDEP policies. Conclusion The Supplemental Determination of June 14. As such. or approve calculations that are technically incorrect. and soil compaction.14. “Restoration” activities are not required to restore site soils to preconstruction levels of performance. these wells should have been included in the May 19.

The December 2007 EPA report “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize These Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances” specifically recommended that “States or local governments should consider regulating sediment and associated pollutants in stormwater runoff” and suggested as a Recommended Approach to “develop regulations similar to current NDPES requirements for construction sites” for Oil and Gas facilities. it was based upon a mistaken premise of fact. The opinions expressed in this report are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific and professional certainty. ________________________________ . To the extent that the Executive Director’s decision making process relied upon the adequacy of Pennsylvania regulations to protect the water quality of the Basin.

Wayne . located in Manchester Township.L. Teeple 1 1 well. D.Figure 3.

County .

Harvard University Press.REFERENCES 1. Production. “Well Permit” for DL Teeple 1 2H. “Notice of Intent for Coverage Under the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit (ESCGP-1) for Earth Disturbance Associated with Oil and Gas Exploration. Matoushek 1 Well Site Shale Gas Exploration and Development Project Clinton Township. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. Wayne County. Stephanie. Processing or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities”. Luna B. 2008 9. 2010 2. April 23. August 4.. Submitted by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC. Revised December. “Well Permit” For DL Teeple 1 1. League of Women Voters of Indiana “Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction Study 2009-2010 Study Guide V: Regulation and Permitting of Marcellus Shale Drilling”. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Application 5500-PMOG0005. Oil and Gas Accountability Project and Earthworks “The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes”. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. “A View of the River”. 2009 6. “Well Location Plat” For Matoushek 1. March 15. Submitted by Stone Energy Corporation. David "Cabot #2 Well". Harvey Consulting. May 25. Pennsylvania”. Permit Number 37-127-20013. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. E-mail to James Eichstadt. Cambridge. Delaware River Basin Commission “Special Protection Waters. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1994 7. Permit Number 37-127-20018-00. Renee L. Stone Energy Corporation. 2007 5. 2010 .. Permit Number 37-127-20006-00. March 6. 2010 3. Kovach. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. LLC Recommendations for Robson 1 Gas Well Chesapeake Appalachia. October. Chandlerof. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. LLC Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection Permit 37-127-20008-00. Docket No. MA. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. 2009 4. 2010 10. Leopold. Submitted by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC. 2009 8. D-2009-18-1. Kosnik. February.

PA 1712. Pennsylvania”. Prepared for Newfield Appalachia PA LLC. Submitted by Stone Energy Corporation. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program.state. Pennsylvania’s Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking System. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2010 14.dep. 2008. April 29. “Well Permit” For HL Rutledge 1 1. “Well Permit” For Geuther 1. Permit Number 37-12720017-00. Permit Number 37-127-20012-00. “Well Permit” For Woodland MGMT Partners 1 1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/Watershed PortalFiles/2007AnnualTraining/stormwater_permit_presentation2. “Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance Practices for Unpaved Roads: Sediment Reduction Study” Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Commission c/o Senate of Pennsylvania G-05 North Office Building Harrisburg. Final Report for Catalog . FINAL REPORT June 30. 2010 13. 2010 12. 2010 17. August 26. “Preparedness.11. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. April 28. 2010 16. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Pennswood Oil & Gas LLC (272597) Stockport ASSN 1”. May 27. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Pennswood Oil & Gas LLC (272597) Preston 38 LLC OG Well”. PA 16802. Processing or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities Otherwise known as… ESCGP-1”. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection “Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit For Earth Disturbance Associated With Oil & Gas Exploration. Pennsylvania’s Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking System.pdf 15. Wayne County. Dr. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways”. Received from http://files. Wayne County Field. Submitted by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Management Program. Permit Number 37-127-20007-00. Bloser. The Pennsylvania State University. Office of Water (4503F) EPA841-F-95-008d. United States Environmental Protection Agency “Erosion. Tetra Tech NUS Inc. and Steven M. 2008 and Summary Statement 18. Barry E. December 1995 20. Revised August 29. Submitted by Newfield Appalachia PA LLC. May 2010 19. Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies. and Contingency Plan. Scheetz. United States Environmental Protection Agency.pa. Prevention. University Park. August 26.

Ph. Prepared for Hess Corporation. URS Corporation “Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Proposed Davidson 1V Well Site. URS Corporation “Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan.Davidson 1V. Submitted for Hess Corporation. Pennsylvania”. ID No. Kenneth E. Wayne County. CP-83207101-1. Wachal.D. Water Utilities Coordinator 21. Hess Marcellus Shale Site. Banks. Pennsylvania”. 149 Harris Road. Scott Township. Division of Environmental Quality and David J.of Federal Domestic Assistance Grant Number 66. Manager. Wayne County. April 23.S. April 2010 22. Scott Township. M.463 Water Quality Cooperative Agreement for Project Entitled “Demonstrating the Impacts of Oil and Gas Exploration on Water Quality and How to Minimize these Impacts Through Targeted Monitoring Activities and Local Ordinances” and “Summary of the Results of the Investigation Regarding Gas Well Site Surface Water Impacts”. 2010 .

 Ph..D.    Chemical and Biological Hazards Posed by Drilling Exploratory Shale Gas Wells  in Pennsylvania’s Delaware River Basin  Report for the Delaware River Basin Commission Exploratory Well Hearing            to   Delaware Riverkeeper Network   and   Damascus Citizens for Sustainability        November 16. 2010      Ronald E. CHO         s/ Ronald E. Bishop   ______________________________  Ronald E. Bishop. Bishop          1 .

  In spite of the technological advances made to date.Summary:       Over the last decade. and to negatively impact aquatic ecosystems. proceeding with any shale gas projects in the Delaware River Basin by  current practices is highly likely to degrade surface water and groundwater quality.       !"  Some constituents of flowback fluids from shale gas wells are hazardous to human  health at extreme dilutions.e.  For example.  In brief:      !"  The probability that shale gas well projects will impact local groundwater ranges  from 4. i.      Overall. to  harm humans.  “In  some areas. potential exposure effects include tissue poisoning and cancer. this has included bringing drilling and production to regions of the country  2 .      !"  The risks of exposing workers and neighbors to toxic chemicals and harmful  bacteria are exacerbated by certain common practices in Pennsylvania. the  biocide DBNPA is lethal to Chesapeake Bay oysters at parts‐per‐trillion concentrations. operators in the natural gas industry have developed highly  sophisticated methods and materials for the exploration and production of methane from  black shale.      !"  Some chemicals in ubiquitous use for shale gas well drilling constitute human health  and environmental hazards even where they are extremely diluted.      !"  The probability that shale gas wells will degrade local water quality over the long  term (50 years) exceeds 16%. these activities carried out  on any scale pose significant chemical and biological hazards to human health and  ecosystem stability. while the wells are in development.7% over the short term.0 to 5. such as air‐ lubricated drilling and the use of impoundments for flowback fluids. a project scope of as few as ten wells practically guarantees  long‐term groundwater contamination.  below its chemical detection limit.      Background:       Natural gas production from hydrocarbon‐rich shale formations is probably the  most rapidly developing trend in onshore oil and gas exploration and production today. these are not regarded  as best practices from a national perspective.

 these data suggest that natural gas  development in a region degrades groundwater quality at a rate of 1.  New oil and gas developments bring changes  to the environmental and socio‐economic landscape. 1052 of them likely to impact the environment  (7). Inc.157 and 55. new construction  3 .        Data from Colorado indicated that 1549 spill incidents related to natural gas  extraction activities occurred in the period from January 2003 to March 2008.  Compared with totals of 25.  This value. are the use of horizontal drilling and high‐volume hydraulic  fracturing. using data compiled by the New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation (NYS DEC).” (1)       The major features of shale gas development.  While these technologies certainly lead to well projects which are larger than  traditional gas wells by fifty‐fold or more.  Toxics  Targeting.  With these changes have come questions about the nature  of shale gas development. not all producing gas wells pose equal risk. points to a serious incident rate of 4.9 incidents per  100 gas wells.  The New Mexico Oil Conservation Division recorded 705 groundwater‐ contaminating incidents caused between 1990 and 2005 by the oil and gas industry (6).  These were in addition  to incidents which were not reported to the DEC. and the ability of the  current regulatory structure to deal with this development.. compared with a total of  6. such as the “wildcat” operation by which  the U. particularly in those areas where gas  development is a new activity. Gypsum Company of Batavia.that have seen little or no activity in the past.  New Mexico and Pennsylvania. which distinguish it from conventional  gas extraction activity.2 to 1. the  Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation estimated that 20% of these (310) impacted  groundwater (5). 40. brought to light 270 gas drilling‐related contamination incidents  which had occurred in New York State since 1979 (2).631 producing gas wells in Colorado. gas exploration and production have never been free of risk.0%. respectively (3). the potential environmental impacts.716.680 active gas wells (3).   And the Pennsylvania Land Trust reported 1610 DEP violations in the Commonwealth  between January 2008 nd late August 2010. NY contaminated its own water well while drilling for  natural gas on company property (4). and enable energy development companies to  pursue projects in places which historically weren’t commercially viable (such as the  Delaware River Basin).S.  However.

 and determined that concrete shrinkage  which leads to well casing fissures is essentially inevitable in a fifty‐year time frame. and exposure of steel  casings to the hot (140 – 180 °F) brines there accelerated their breakdown. 200. permitting  subterranean gases and other fluids to re‐pressurize the deteriorating wells (10). especially longer than fifty years. the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  estimated that of 1.  Therefore. we may reasonably expect higher  percentages of gas well casings to fail over time.         4 .       Short‐term collateral damage from gas well development is only part of this  industry’s hazard profile. ground water will be contaminated.  Wells in  regions containing mobile geological faults (such as eastern Pennsylvania) are also subject  to casing deformation and shear (11). one of every six abandoned wells is releasing its  contents to the surrounding area.       In view of the risks.  The  probability that a project scope of as few as ten gas wells will impact ground water within a  century approaches 100%.  A Canadian research team  investigated the mechanisms for these failures. for gas wells to engender spills and leaks.554 in Pennsylvania for the period January 2008 through August 2010 –  mostly non‐Marcellus projects) (8). a  discussion of the chemicals involved with these projects is in order.. (18.7% failure rate. the data suggest that we may reasonably anticipate a  violations rate of 8.  Interpreted in the context of new gas (and only  gas) wells.accounts for most spills and other mishaps.000 were leaking  (9).7% (one citation for every 11 – 12 gas wells) and a groundwater  contamination rate of 5.S.  In 1992.  They  found that this cracking was especially severe at maximum depth.2 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the U.7% (one incident for every 17 – 18 wells). including the surface. summarized above.  This represents a 16.

  Two rare exceptions are bentonite and  barium sulfate. polyethylene glycol and mineral oil) pose no significant hazards to  humans or other organisms as utilized in gas extraction processes. guar gum. are shown in Table 1. used solely in post‐fracturing fluids. hemicellulase. 14).Drilling Additives:        Many chemical products are used in the development of a gas well. limonene. acetic acid..  Individual additives are  typically used in multiple stages of the drilling process .        5 .      The majority of chemical products used by the gas industry have not been fully  tested for human or environmental toxicity (13. most hydraulic fracturing additives  are also used in drilling fluids (or “muds”) (12).g.  along with their most common applications. citric acid. a minority (e. which are used almost exclusively in drilling muds and packer slurries. sodium  chloride.  Of those which have.  Even the chemicals used for  post‐production purification may also be used as solvents in drilling muds. potassium carbonate. and  hemicellulase enzyme.  bentonite.  Some examples.

   propylene glycol  Purpose  lubricate drill head.   isopropyl alcohol    Surfactant   2‐butoxyethanol.  diammonium peroxydisulfate and hydrochloric acid. 2‐ ethylene glycol. guar gum.  “gemini quat” amine  Conditioner  ammonium chloride. acetophenone. polymer   microemulsion   Biocide  glutaraldehyde.   fracturing fluids  fracturing fluids   post‐fracturing   fluids  stimulation fluid.   fracturing fluids   drilling fluids. 1‐butanol.   fracturing fluids  drilling muds. including ammonia. and so impose relatively  modest hazards (13).     6 . EDTA. methanol. sodium perborate tetrahydrate.N‐dimethylformamide   Clay Stabilizer  tetramethylammonium  chloride  Gelling Agent  bentonite.  and stagingat  well sites.   citric acid   Corrosion  propargyl alcohol. DBNPA.Table 1:  Additive Functions in Shale Gas Extraction     Additive Type  Examples  Friction Reducer  heavy naphtha.   fracturing fluids   drilling muds.   pre‐fracture fluid   post‐production   processing fluids  propanol.   fracturing fluids   drilling muds. but as  used by the natural gas industry. they end up greatly diluted.  dibromoacetonitrile   Scale Inhibitor  ethylene glycol.   fracturing fluids   drilling muds.   ethoxylated octylphenol  Cross‐Linker   sodium perborate. ethanol.   acetic anhydride   Breaker  hemicellulase.   penetrate fissures    prevent biofilm   formation  prevent scale   buildup  prevent corrosion   of metal parts   prevent clay   swelling   prevent slumping  of solids   adjust pH.   potassium carbonate.   ammonium persulfate. are moderately or acutely toxic to  humans or aquatic organisms when encountered in concentrated forms (15 – 24).   Inhibitor  N. trucking accidents while they are being transported to remote well sites  via rural roads. thioglycolic acid.  More significant issues with these chemicals would be anticipated  from storage sites.   quebracho   Cleaner   hydrochloric acid   Processor         Several other additive chemicals.   adjust additive   solubility   promote fracture  penetration   promote gelling   “breaks” gel to   promote flow‐back   of fluid  dissolve debris  strip impurities   from produced gas  Used In   drilling muds.   fracturing fluids  drilling muds.   fracturing fluids  drilling muds.

 it is lethal to “water fleas”  (Daphnia magna).2‐ dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN).  It is readily inhaled or absorbed through the skin. because they remain dangerous  even at concentrations near or below their chemical detection limits.     DBNPA:     2. a sensitizer in susceptible people. 26).  Chesapeake Bay oysters are killed by  extremely low (parts‐per‐trillion.  It is a sensitizer. it is very toxic  to a wide variety of freshwater. ppt) concentrations of DBNPA. where it induces  developmental defects throughout the life cycle. including in exploratory wells. well below the limit at  which this chemical can be detected.  However.  pose significant hazards to humans or other organisms. and lubricants containing heavy naphtha. rainbow trout and mysid shrimp at low (40 to 50 ppb) concentrations. refers to a  unique identifier assigned to every known substance by the Chemical Abstracts Service  Registry.2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) and 2.  These include the  biocides glutaraldehyde.  (Note:  CAS No.2‐Dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) (CAS No. the surfactant 2‐ butoxyethanol (2‐BE). and is especially corrosive to the eyes (28).  Along with its antimicrobial effects.. it is a potent respiratory toxin  effective at parts‐per‐billion (ppb) concentrations (24).      7 .)     Glutaraldehyde:     Glutaraldehyde (CAS No. 111‐30‐8) is a biocide used widely in drilling and  fracturing fluids.e. the corrosion inhibitor propargyl alcohol. estuarine and marine organisms. 10222‐01‐2) is a biocide  finding increasing use in drilling and fracturing fluids. respiratory and  skin toxin. a substance that may induce or increase the frequency of genetic  mutations) (25. 2. and is  a known mutagen (i.  algae.  In the environment. a few chemical products in widespread use. it  has induced occupational asthma and/or contact dermatitis in workers exposed to it.  and is especially dangerous to Eastern oysters (29). zooplankton and steelhead trout were found to be dramatically harmed by  glutaraldehyde at very low (1 – 5 ppb) concentrations (27).  In the environment.  In particular.

 especially fathead minnows. in humans it is selectively toxic to the liver  and kidneys (31). which Newfield is using to drill  some of the wells grandfathered by the SEDD (34). toluene. it takes much less  of these chemicals to exert toxic effects when they are used together.  Propargyl alcohol is a sensitizer in susceptible individuals. xylene. the aromatic molecules benzene.      Heavy Naphtha:     Heavy naphtha (CAS No. including rare multi‐organ  failure (32).  This chemical causes burns to tissues in  skin.  In combination.  Its human and environmental toxicity profiles are similar to that of DBNPA. 3252‐43‐5) is a biocide often used in  combination with DBNPA. 111‐76‐2). the doses at which these biocides become toxic are  significantly lower than when they are used separately. 107‐19‐7) is a corrosion inhibitor that is very commonly  used in gas well construction and completion. mouth.  which are killed by doses near 1 ppm (33). nose.  It is  8 .  Easily absorbed through the skin. eyes. esophagus and stomach. is a surfactant used in many phases of gas exploration and extraction. the ability of EGBE at extremely low  levels (ppt) to cause endocrine disruption.  In other words. is  emerging in the medical literature (36).  This chemical is only moderately toxic to aquatic  organisms. it causes them to  rupture.DBAN:     Dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN) (CAS No. from which it is a metabolic product (with the release of  cyanide). leading to hemorrhaging (35).4‐trimethylbenzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene.  More recently. who may  experience chronic effects months to years after exposure.     2‐BE:     2‐Butoxyethanol (2‐BE).  DBNPA and DBAN appear to work  synergistically. this  chemical has long been known to be selectively toxic to red blood cells.  It is harmful to a variety of aquatic organisms. with harm to algae and test fish observed with doses over 500 ppm (35).     Propargyl Alcohol:     Propargyl alcohol (CAS No.  1. also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE)  (CAS No. 64741‐68‐0) refers to a mixture of petroleum products  composed of. among other compounds.   It comprises a considerable percentage of Airfoam HD. with effects on ovaries and adrenal glands.  except that DBAN is also carcinogenic (30).2.

     Flowback Fluids:        Irrespective of chemical additives used for drilling. uranium. plants and animals (37). especially in drilling muds.  These components make flowback fluids hazardous without any added chemicals. especially amphibians. radium. barium.  and are often among the analytes most easily measured by potential waste fluid treatment  plant operators (Figure 1). arsenic.        Figure 1:  Wastewater Pollutants (39)   9 . along with high levels of sodium chloride  (38).  several components are toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms.  Several of the mixture’s  components are known to cause or promote cancer.  in which it impedes air transport through the skin.  This material is  hazardous to a host of microbes.used by the gas industry as a lubricant. Marcellus shale contains several  toxic substances which can be mobilized by drilling.  These include lead.  chromium. radon and benzene.  If released to soil or groundwater.

 in these reactions. it could potentially affect any system or organs in the body. which may occur by ingestion.  chromium and benzene:     Barium (Ba):     Barium is a toxic heavy metal commonly found in Marcellus shale well flowback  fluids (39). and its tendency to bio‐ accumulate. several of these flowback  fluid and cuttings components (40) are discussed below. barite is converted to more  soluble (i. more toxic) barium salts. but rather are buried on‐site.  The most sensitive target tissue appears to be skin. but its ability to impair  neurological development in children at very low (1 ppb) concentrations makes it a  toxicant of special concern. lead.  It has also been  associated with high blood pressure (42).Because of their significant toxicity at low (ppb) concentrations.      Arsenic (As):     Arsenic. and by this  mechanism it is selectively toxic to the heart and kidneys (41).  Exposure to soluble salts (not the sulfate). including barium. used as a weighting agent in drilling muds. another component of black shale (38). arsenic.  absorption or inhalation.e. and the kidney. has also been known as a poison for  hundreds if not thousands of years.  forming radioactive scale on metal parts (such as the drill “string”) which then are  subsequently brought to the surface (13). reacts with radium salts in shale.  However.   Further. especially  10 . may induce drops in tissue potassium levels. but  arsenic produces adverse effects in every tissue against which it has been tested. due to  the multiple modes of action of lead in biological systems. barite (barium  sulfate).     Lead (Pb):     The poisonous nature of lead has been known for centuries.  The most sensitive targets for lead toxicity are the developing  nervous system. and the fact that drill  cuttings are often not removed. the blood and cardiovascular systems.

'%)"#'". reproductive. a known shale constituent (38). particularly of potassium dichromate or strontium chromate (the  hexavalent form. lung. at very  low concentrations. the primary hazard from this  compound is due to its proven ability to cause acute non‐lymphocytic leukemia (47). heart.  However. ingestion. as found in shale rock) (46).+. was briefly considered above as a  component of heavy naphtha. no studies have been  published to date with respect to what chemical interactions account for its consistent  presence in flowback fluids.  Exposure to elevated doses by inhalation."012"3%(". and kidney (43).  Arsenic is harmful  below one part per trillion (ppt) in water. also found in Marcellus shale (44)."$/'"97((%$'*+" known.     Chromium (Cr):     Chromium.brain.         11 . one chemical compound was  consistently encountered in flowback fluids from Marcellus gas wells in Pennsylvania and  West Virginia:  4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide (4‐NQO) (48).   This is one of the most potent  carcinogens known.733/('. and is a confirmed carcinogen. the peripheral vascular system. skin or eye contact may lead  to respiratory. well below its levels reported in gas well flowback fluids (48).-+45"67'"'8%"6#/*/2#9-*".     Benzene:     Benzene. may be an essential nutrient required  #$"%&'(%)%*+". particularly for inducing cancer of the mouth (49). gastrointestinal. it is dangerous at parts‐per‐trillion (ppt)  concentrations.  It is not used as a  drilling additive and is not known to occur naturally in black shale.%.      4‐NQO:     In addition to the above shale constituents. developmental and neurological symptoms  (45)./. the major hazard posed by chromium is as a  carcinogen.  Sensitization‐induced asthma and allergy have also been reported.)-**".  However."#.  In ppb concentrations. especially in stomach and lung tissues (45).

 where  they often flourish. and the advent of  air‐lubricated drilling (without biocides) has introduced a risk of contaminatingsurface  (fresh) water zones with bacteria and other microbes from deeper (brine) layers.  There  they produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S). elevated birth defect rates and diminished herd health.  12 .  In fact.  hydrogen sulfate is lethal (53).  in livestock. where  they avidly form living black. and exposure to hydrogen sulfide along  with methane raises significant health concerns –neurological syndromes in humans and.       The now‐common use of air‐lubrication (without biocides) while drilling the top  one‐ to three thousand feet of gas wells (54) risks contaminating fresh water aquifers with  sulfate‐reducing bacteria from the deeper strata. (Figure 2) (51).  Of particular concern are sulfate‐reducing bacteria. an organism that thrives in fresh water where some sulfate  (such as is present in pyrite or hematite) is available (50).Biological Contamination:       Rock strata beneath the earth’s surface are populated by bacteria. characterized by a “rotten eggs” smell.  Rock strata  rich in gas are often also rich in this bacterium. these  bacteria are especially prevalent and aggressive in oil and gas producing regions. sticky films in water wells and other structures (52).  At high concentrations. especially  Desulfovibrio desulfuricans. but there is no clear evidence that this  well‐fouling mechanism is recognized by Pennsylvania DEP regulators.

 reduced appetite and  mental confusion.    13 . including irritated eyes. peripheral neuropathy.     Figure 2:  Biofilm of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans Growing on a Hematite Surface     Cumulative Effects:       Hazards that accompany the above chemicals and microbes have to this point been  considered individually.  It is clear that they don’t occur individually. were also reported in a Texas gas‐field study conducted by Wilma Subra  (56). sore throat.  These disparate observations are supported by a literature review of potential  human health effects from gas drilling activities (57). nausea. who requested any information that might shed  light on a group of symptoms presented by clinical patients in southwestern Pennsylvania  and the state of West Virginia which is tentatively identified as “downwinder’s syndrome”  (55). the author has  been contacted by officials with the National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health.  These symptoms. skin rashes. frequent headaches and  nosebleeds.  However.  Centers for Disease Control (NIOSH/CDC). lethargy.  No investigations of  interactions among these materials have been reported to date.

 Swartz and Ms. workers were observed skimming an “oil sheen” from the pit fluids. fold them into the plastic liner  and bury them in place (60).  From there they  volatilize or aerosolize into the air.  and the odors detected then were typical of “drilling fluids and/or cuttings”.  Results from early (“tophole”) analysis of the pit’s contents (62) indicated the  presence of high levels of barium.3 miles from the Woodland Management Partners 11 exploratory  gas well in Damascus Township. particularly for the health of their 2‐year‐ old son (60).        As a case in point. lead.  Mr. Greg Swartz and Tannis  Kowalchuk. Kowalchuk were concerned. PA (developed by Newfield Appalachia PA. smelled a “chemical sulfuric odor”.  No test  14 .  Partly for this reason. 2010.       Well permit data indicate that 2‐butoxyethanol (2‐BE) was used in the drilling fluids  (61).        The DEP inspection summary indicated that on September 2.  Although most additives  are greatly diluted in the drilling process. who live 0. three days prior to the  sulfur odor complaint. from which they may be inhaled by neighbors and on‐ site industry workers. organic compounds (with the exceptions of  DBNPA and DBAN) tend to be lighter than water. where they concentrate to essentially 100% of the surface. therefore they float to the surface of  holding pits.    The practice in Pennsylvania of using open impoundments for capture of flowback  fluids from gas wells may exacerbate the risk of this syndrome.  LLC). the hydrogen sulfide exposure grew worse for several hours.   On  September 8. the states of Colorado (58) and New Mexico  (59) have prohibited the use of impoundments for flowback fluids.  Neither the fire department chief nor the DEP inspector indicated  concern about the hydrogen sulfide being generated by bacteria living in the pit.  However. the inspector noted that the  sub‐contractor planned to solidify the residual pit contents. Wayne County. arsenic and chromium (discussed above).  They put up with this odor for three days before  the flowback fluids pit (evidently the source of the chemical smell) was pumped out and  the odor subsided.  Finally. because the  pit’s contents were stirred as they were pumped out. at 7:00 AM on September 5.

#1+##$%2$)3'#(-'2'3$. the gastrointestinal tract.       All this was the outcome of just one nearby “exploratory” gas well project where.(.  Therefore. whether or not they identified those odors as nuisances. this family’s exposures to noxious chemicals would have increased.  Further.  Now.       Therefore. this family lives less than  600 yards from a buried repository of toxic solid waste. nothing unusual happened.  This is significant  because lithium is psychoactive in humans at concentrations down to 1 part per billion  (ppb) (63).  As discussed above.   Threshold doses for some of these adverse health effects were realistically achievable. including the  Delaware River Basin. heart and brain. would also have ensued.$ &+%2#))'%(.'(-45 15 . inevitable  environmental damage extends to wherever gas well projects are developed.$-%$./0#$.  When allowed to contaminate groundwater.for 4‐nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide (4‐NQO) was performed. which DEP  reports to be common with gas drilling operations (60). a very high concentration  of lithium (more than 600 times the reporting limit) was present. seepage from a defective plastic liner.  Then they  were exposed to nuisance (and possibly greater) levels of hydrogen sulfide. the neighbors to this gas well were subjected to fumes from drilling  fluids and cuttings.)%(.  A slightly elevated risk of cancer for  these people cannot be ruled out.-#.  They were potentially exposed to chemicals known to cause disorders of  the skin. kidneys. harm to sensitive environmental receptors. such as  amphibians and aquatic organisms.+#$)-. or a tank leak had  occurred.$+#.  from developers’ and regulators’ perspectives.  given the extreme potency of the agents involved. pit overflow. for which no long‐term monitoring  is planned (54). possibly  without their knowledge.   However. eyes. mucous membranes.      !"#$%&'('%()$#*&+#))#.0$3#+-. such  incidents are unavoidable where any gas wells – including exploratory projects – are  developed on a broad scale.$'($-"')$+#&%+-$.       If a spill. the toxins and/or  bacteria discussed above can persist at hazardous levels for years.

 Society of Petroleum Engineers  International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. November 7 – 10. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental  Protection. Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (2010)   http://www.   Private conversation with Sanitarian David Luhipcroft.org/about/colorado         6. Michael S. Cited in:  Our Public Lands:  New Oil and Gas Regulations for Colorado  http://www.S.com     16 . Bruno and John  Barrera (June 2001) Society of Petroleum Engineers: Drilling & Completion      12.htm        9.oilfield.   Marcellus Shale Drillers in Pennsylvania Amass 1614 Violations Since 2008: 1056  Identified as Most Likely to Harm the Environment. Department of Energy Office of Fossil  Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (April 2009)        2.   Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Become Pollution Portals.   2010 Permit and Rig Activity Report.eia. Groundwater  Protection Council and ALL Consulting for the U.htm        4.   Distribution of Oil and Gas Wells By State:  Number of Producing Gas Wells. Schlumberger  Oilfield Glossary (2010) http://www. 8. Pennsylvania Land Trust Association  (October 2010)        8.ourpubliclands. 2009)        5. Malcom N.earthworksaction.org/NM_GW_Contamination. Environmental Health Division (June 12. Roberto Suro. Beijing.   Definitions for Products or Functions in Natural Gas Development. The New York  Times (May 3. 2000      11. Maurice B. Tom  Wilber.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/rig10.   Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing.   Why Oilwells Leak:  Cement Behavior and Long‐Term Consequences. Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation  Report (2007).cfm        7. Maurice B. Binghamtom Press‐Sun (Nov.   Natural Gas Quest: State Files Show 270 Drilling Accidents in Past 30 Years.state. U. Gray and Pawel Nawrocki (2000). Cases. China. Genesee County Health  Department.  www.glossary.slb.dep. Cures.References Cited:  $      1.pa. 1992)      10.   Casing Shear: Causes.  Energy Information Administration: Independent Statistics and Analysis (2010)  http://tonto.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1_a.   Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer.  Cited in: Earthworks’  Groundwater Contamination.  Dusseault.   New Mexico Groundwater Impact Update spreadsheet (2010). 2009)         3.S.doe. Dusseault.

com/msds/englishhtml/p6401.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Sodium Perborate.jtbaker. 2008)   http://www.htm      20.jtbaker.org     References.  2006) http://www.htm      16.   Material Safety Data Sheet for 2‐Propanol.sustainableotsego. Tomoko Takigawa and Yoko  Endo (2006) Journal of Occupational Health 48: 75 – 87     17 .   Material Safety Data Sheet for Mercaptoacetic Acid.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ammonium Persulfate.   Effects of Glutaraldehyde Exposure on Human Health.-'%(.$$ 9!<=>?@5$A#&-#8/#+$B???:$6CD$7E/0'3.sustainableotsego.htm      17.htm      21. Continued:      14.htm      23.com/msds/englishhtml/a0566.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ammonia Solution.com/msds/englishhtml/b5860. Fisher Scientific (March 18.com/msds/englishhtml/m1157.   Cross‐Index of Products and Chemicals Used by New York’s Natural Gas Industry. Bishop. 2008) http://www.6. Normal.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Acetophenone. Mallinckrodt Baker (August 20. Sustainable Otsego (2010) http://www. Sustainable Otsego (2009) http://www.0$!%*'3%0%14$7+%1+.jtbaker.    Material Safety Data Sheet for Methanol. 13.  Ronald E. 2003)  http://fscimage.com/msds/89308.htm      18.htm      19. 2008) http://www.jtbaker. Strong.   Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Glutaraldehyde (CAS NO. Mallinckrodt Baker (September  15. Ronald E.jtbaker. 2008) http://www. Absolute. 2009)  http://www. Mallinckrodt Baker (September 16.htm      22. 2008) http://www.   Beyond MSDS: A Review of Hazardous Materials Used by New York’s Natural Gas  Industry.com/msds/englishhtml/a5472. Mallinckrodt Baker (August 20. Mallinckrodt Baker (April  22. Bishop.jtbaker.  2008) http://www. Mallinckrodt Baker (Februray 22.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Hydrochloric Acid.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/h3880. 33 – 40%.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Ethanol.jtbaker.'#)I-+>?@5"-80     26.htm      24.   Material Safety Data Sheet for Butyl Alcohol. Mallinckrodt Baker (September 8.org      15.jtbaker.htm      25.  2008) http://www. Mallinckrodt Baker  (November 21. 111-30-8) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies.fishersci.-'%($6%5$??=F?G@5$$ "--&HII(-&=)#+J#+5('#")5('"51%JI"-.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.com/msds/englishhtml/s4634.8$96!7:. Mallinckrodt Baker (January  11.com/msds/englishhtml/a6096.%3)IK!=)-E.

2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide  (DBNPA). Sano.   Chronic Toxicity of Glutaraldehyde: Differential Sensitivity of Three Freshwater  Organisms. Kathleen Burns. National Toxicology Program.   Slide courtesy of Devin N.   Material Safety Data Sheet: Heavy Naphtha.   Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet: Propargyl Alcohol.   Material Safety Data Sheet acc. New Jersey Department of  Health and Senior Services (November 2004)      33.S.   EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): 2.   Shale Gas: Focus on the Marcellus. 08‐5886      31. Castendyk. SUNY  Oneonta  18 .2‐dibromo‐3‐nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA). Continued:      27.   2‐Butoxyethanol: A Review of the Current Toxicity Information. National Institutes of Health.  DHHS (February 2008) NTP PR‐544 NIH Publication No. Pesticides and Toxic   Substances (September 1994)  EPA‐738 R‐94‐026      30. Environmental  Protection Agency. 3252‐43‐5) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water  Studies). Larissa L. Lisa Sumi. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (April 2008)      36. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention. Peter F. U. Public Health Service.   NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of  Dibromoacetonitrile (CAS No. Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability  Project (May 2008)      39. Krueger and.  Sciencecorps (2010)       37. Aqua‐Clear. Earth Sciences Department (Hydrology).  (September 1. 2006)      38. 2008)      32.     Propargyl Alcohol. EPA HPV Challenge Program Revised Submission (July 30.S. (July 11. Landrum (2004) Aquatic  Toxicology 71: 283–296      28. American AGIP Company.   Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGBE). U.E. to OSHA and ANSI: Propargyl Alcohol.   R. Unites States  Environmental Protection Agency Office of Prevention.   Material Safety Data Sheet: Airfoam HD. 2005)      35.  2003) Publication 201‐14641A      34.    References. Alfa Aesar  (November 10. Facts: 2. Inc. Ann M.D. Inc. Pesticides and Toxic  Substances  (September 1994)  EPA‐738 F‐94‐023     29.

    19 .

   Hydrogen Sulfide. Oral Oncology 42(7): 655 – 667      50. US DHHS (August 2007)      42. PHS. Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil. DHHS (July 2001)      47. Goldhaber and G. Oil and Gas. Inc. D.References.com (August 16.W. Lana Skrtic. Kanojia and  M.  Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. PHS. DHHS (August 2007)      44. ATSDR.   Baseline Water Quality Testing – Marcellus Shale Development: What Parameters  Should be Tested?.   Table 6‐1. Bryant (September 1987). DHHS (September 2008)      46. Energy and Resources  Group. New York State Department of Environmental  Conservation.   Inter‐Relationship Between Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Associated with  Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion and Other Bacterial Communities in Wells.   Biofilm of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans.S. Brian Oram. 2010)  http://gomarcellusshale.   Toxicological Profile for Benzene. PHS. M. Continued:      40.   Toxicological Profile for Lead. Cullimore  and Johnston (2004). PHS. ATSDR. Geological Survey      45. Droycon Bioconcepts.   Mobility of Metals from Weathered Black Shale: the Role of Salt Efflorescences.M. ATSDR. ATSDR. 2009)      52. ASTDR.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2274639%3ABlogPost%3A38461&c ommentId=2274639%3AComment%3A54421&xg_source=activity      41.B.   Compatibility of Two MEOR Systems with Sulfate‐Reducing Bacteria. Public Health Service. GoMarcellusShale. M.   Draft Toxicological Profile for Chromium. DHHS (August 2007)      48. and People’s Health.   Toxicological Profile for Barium and Barium Compounds. National Institute for Petroleum and Energy  Research.   Toxicological Profile for Strontium. Jonell Douglas  and Rebecca S.   Toxicological Profile for Arsenic. N.      53.   4‐Nitroquinoline‐1‐oxide Induced Experimental Oral Carcinogenesis. Agency for Toxic  Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).S. University of California. Department of Energy      51. DHHS (August 2007)      43. Berkeley (May 2006)         20 . PHS. Pacific Northwest Laboratory’s photostream  (June 25. U. Division of Mineral Resources (September 2009)      49.L. Vaidya (August 2006). Breit (2001) U.  Tuttle.

  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communication (April  21. (August 18. (September 15.   Potential Exposure‐Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: a  Literature Review 2003 – 2007. Nobuyoshi Ishii and Noboru Iwata (2009).   Component of LE SUPERMUL. Chapter 4: Oil and Gas Management Practices. Cincinatti Office.   Air Quality Concerns at Woodland Management Gas Drilling Site. 2001)      55. Daniel Teitelbaum and Lee Newman (August 1.2010)      62. Pandalai. NIOSH / CDC. Texas Residents.  New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission (May 9.   Analytical Report. Denver.      59. R‐12939. 09/30/2007. 2008)     60.   Health Survey Results of Current and Former DISH/Clark.   Lithium Levels in Drinking Water and Risk of Suicide. Practice and Procedure 2 CCR 404‐1. Takeshi  Terao.   Sudha P. Kaylan Stinson. Holly Sackett. Roxana Witter. 2010)      63. University of Colorado. Ippei Shiotsuki. Eff. Appendix E. Gregory Kinney. Colorado  School of Public Health. Wilma  Subra (December 2009). Wayne County PA.References. Oil and Gas Conservation Comission. Inc. Damascus. TestAmerica Laboratories.      56. 2008). private communication      61. Earthworks’ Oil and Gas Accountability Project      57..   Final Rule. Hirochika Ohgami. 2010). 37‐127‐20017‐00 to  Newfield Appalachia PA.  Inc. Steve Moyer. DRBC Well Smp.  Colorado  Department of Natural Resources. 2010). PA. Continued:      54. Bureau of Oil and Gas Management  (October. Stefanie  Putter. Greg  Swartz and Tannis Kowalchuk. LLC (May 27. Tetra Tech NUS. DEP Permit No.   Order No.   Oil and Gas Operators Manual.      58. British Journal of  Psychiatry 194: 464 – 465   21 .

..!!E7$2*++B!&-0!&'!FGBHIJ!0&0*+!/$6!3*%! 6$++!12&D$)0%!2$1&20$.!@JAB!0#$%$!.!'2&.*0*!(/!0#$!'&++&6(/3!0*>+$?!! ! Year  Formation  Inspections  Violations  Enforcements  2008  All  937  1447  662    Marcellus  130  179  122  2009  All  1801  3159  693    Marcellus  314  639  190  2010  All  1193  2193  590    Marcellus  496  970  254  Total  All  3931  6799  1945    Marcellus  940  1788  566    ! "#$%$!2$)&2. CHO    To:    Delaware Riverkeeper Network    And    Damascus Citizens for Sustainability      Responding to Act 15.6*0$2K (.*0*!(/.&)-.>$2%!&'!(/%1$)0(&/%B!>-0!C*2)$++-%!12&D$)0%!0$/.!*!1&&2!%*'$04!2$)&2..-+*0$.  Having obtained the records from that site.D. Violations and  Enforcements related to natural gas extraction from (a) all target formations and (b)  Marcellus shale.*2(=$!0#$!&''()(*+!.-%024!&1$2*0&2%!(/!0#$! 5&.!!M-0!*/&0#$2!6*4B!*112&N(.$. Ph.*0$+4!&/$!&'!$7$24!0$/!/$6!3*%! 6$++!12&D$)0%!(/!M$//%4+7*/(*!#*%!2-/!(/0&!%$2(&-%!02&->+$.!(/!0#(%!1$2(&.!!"#$%$!&''()(*+!.!899:!0&!0#$!12$%$/0. signed into law by Governor Rendell in March.  Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection developed the DEP Oil and Gas  Electronic Reporting website (2).! $/'&2)$. I am  submitting a series of spreadsheets which summarize the Inspections.$/0%!*0!2*0$%!0#*0!(/)2$*%$!6(0#!0#$!1*%%(/3!&'!0(.%!(/.&/6$*+0#!#*7$!*))-.!! ! ! ! . Violations and Enforcements    Exhibits for the Delaware River Basin Commission Exploratory Well Hearing    Ronald E.!%$2(&-%!7(&+*0(&/%!@$/'&2)$.$/0%!%-11&20!*!%0*/)$!0#*0!3*%!(/.()*0$!0#*0!0&0*+!7(&+*0(&/%!*/. Bishop.$/0%A!)&22$+*0$! 6$++!6(0#!0#$!/-.()*0$!*!%$2(&-%!@1&0$/0(*++4!32&-/.1*)0(/3A!7(&+*0(&/%!2*0$!&'!F9L.Record of Pennsylvania Gas Industry Inspections. 2010 (1).!! ! <!%-.!0&!3$/$2*0$!7(&+*0(&/%!*/.

Footnotes:   !    1.!! DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website – Welcome;  #001?OO666;.*2)$++-%2$1&20(/3;%0*0$;1*;-%OEPQRQ$1&20%OC&,-+$%OS$+)&.$OS$+)&.$;*%1N      2.   Oil & Gas Inspections ‐ Violations – Enforcements, Division of Oil and Gas  Management;  #001?OO666;,$1;%0*0$;1*;-%O,$1O,$1-0*0$O.(/2$%O&(+3*%OEP</%1$)0(&/%T(&+*0(&/%OEP</%17(&+;#0.!!    3.    2010 Permit and Rig Activity Report, Division of Oil and Gas Management;  http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/RIG10.htm     Respectfully submitted,  

  Dr. Ronald E. Bishop  

!

"#$%&%'#!()*#'!+%,)-!./00),,)/-!1"(+.2! ./-,/$)3%4#3!530)-),4'%4)*#!6#%')-7!/-! 8'%-39%4:#'#3!;<=$/'%4)/-!>#$$,!
Prepared for:

! !

"#$%&%'#!()*#'?##=#'!@#4&/'?! %-3!! "%0%,AB,!.)4)C#-,!9/'!DB,4%)-%E)$)4F! ! ! !
Prepared by:

Demicco & Associates, LLC

Ground Water Resource Expertise

Peter M, Demicco, RPG U0*0$!&'!M$//%4+7*/(*B!MPK99JVG9KR! ! ! ! W&7$.>$2!FXB!89F9! !

Demicco and Associates, LLC! ! !

1. Executive Summary
! Y$.())&! ]! [%%&)(*0$%B! ^^5! #*%! >$$/! 2$0*(/$,! >4! 0#$! Y$+*6*2$! Q(7$2_$$1$2! W$06&2_! */,! Y*.*%)-%! 5(0(=$/%! '&2! U-%0*(/*>(+(04! 0&! 12&7(,$! $N1$20! 2$7($6! */,! &1(/(&/! &/! 0#$! Y$+*6*2$!Q(7$2!Z*%(/!5&..(%%(&/`%!@YQZ5A!,$)(%(&/!0&!$N)+-,$!FF!M$//%4+7*/(*!%0*0$! 1$2.(00$,!6$++%!'2&.!YQZ5!2$7($6!&'!$N1+&2*0&24!6$++%!-/,$2!(0%!a-/$!F8B!89F9!*/,!a-+4! 8JB! 89F9! U-11+$.$/0*+! Y$0$2.(/*0(&/%;! ! "#$! ,$)(%(&/! 0&! $N)+-,$! 0#$! FF! 6$++%! #*%! 2$%-+0$,!(/!0#$!5&/%&+(,*0$,![,.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!&/!*)0(&/%!&'!0#$!YQZ5!2$+*0(7$!0&! $N1+&2*0(&/! 6$++%! >$(/3! ,2(++$,! (/0&! 0#$! C*2)$++-%! U#*+$;! ! U1$)('()*++4! 0#$! \$*2(/3! 6(++! *,,2$%%!YQZ5!,$)(%(&/%!0&?! !  Q$3-+*0$! %&K)*++$,! b$N1+&2*0&24! 6$++%c! */,! %->D$)0! 0#$.! 0&! YQZ5`%! 0$.1&2*24! .&2*0&2(-.! @)#*++$/3$! >2&-3#0! >4! W&20#$2/! S*4/$! 5&-/04! M2&1$204! E6/$2%`! [++(*/)$B!D&(/$,!>4!W$6'($+,!*/,!\$%%!5&21&2*0(&/!*%!(/0$2$%0$,!1*20($%A! 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

YQZ5!5&/%&+(,*0$,![,.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!!

8!&'!FH!

W&7$.>$2B!89F9!

!

-)0(&/.!6*0$2!2$%&-2)$%!)*/!&))-2!0#2&-3#!>&0#!/$3*0(7$!(.!d-*+(04.!!![(2!2&0*24!.! ! Y2(++(/3!&'!$N1+&2*0&24!#&+$%!)*/B!6(0#!+*)_!&'!2$3-+*0&24!&7$2%(3#0B!)*-%$!*%!.! .!!^$*_*3$!*+&/3!0#$!32&-0!6*++!)*/!12&.>$2B!89F9! ! .-)#!('!/&0! .$2&-%! '2*)0-2$%! *2$! $/)&-/0$2$.! P2&-0! %$*+%! *2$! 0#$! %(/3+$! .*4!$N)$$.2(++(/3.!6(0#(/!0#(%!2$1&20.! 2$%-+0(/3! 12&>+$.!0#$!F99B999!3*++&/%!1$2!.2(++(/3!0$)#/(d-$%!0&!(/)2$*%$!%1$$.(++(&/!3*++&/!1$2!.$! &'! C*2)$++-%! %#*+$! '&2! 3*%! 12&.!(/%0*++$.!.%!6(0#!$N1+&2*0&24!.2(++(/3!-%$%!3$/$2*++4!-%$%!$(0#$2!/*0-2*++4! &))-22(/3! 32&-/.%! 6(0#! *)#($7(/3! *! 12&1$2! 32&-0! %$*+.<=$/'%4/'F!"')$$)-7!K0=%A4.(/*/)$!&'!*(2!2&0*24!.! 0#$! >&2$#&+$.$/0! 0&! 12&0$)0(/3!32&-/.(*0$+4! -1&/!)&.(%%(&/$.$.1*)0%!&/!d-*/0(04! */.*4! @31.! 6*0$2! *112&*)#(/3! F999! 31./-A$B.! .(0(&/*+!#&2(=&/0*+!6$++.! ./-A$B.$)2$*%$!0#$!)&%0!&'!.Demicco and Associates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d-('$2%!(%! )2(0()*+!0&!12&0$)0!0#$! 6*0$2!2$%&-2)$%.2(++(/3! *2$!0#$!*11*2$/0!.1&20*/0! $+$.-2(/3! *(2! 2&0*24! .! 32*. LLC! M[!.$/0!&'! +&6! d-*+(04! 6*0$2! ('! &7$2! 12$%%-2$! '2&.&/0#!+&/3!12&)$%%!&'!.!!!"#$!.)/-!L!J!>%4#'!(#.! RN0$/%(7$! '2*)0-2(/3! 6(++! *+%&! )*-%$! 12&>+$.(/*0(&/!*%!12$%$/0$.2(++(/3.!'&2!*/!*++&)*0(&/!1$2.)/-!I!J!..(0!('!/-.!*/.$d-*0$! */.!.&/0#!@.&2$!#*2.!0#$!*7$2*3$!0#()_/$%%!&'!0#$!%#*+$!-/(0!0#2&-3#&-0!.2(++!>(0.$$1$2! =&/$%! (/! 0#$! 6$++! )2$*0$%! */! -16*2.! .!/&/02*.2(++(/3B! +*23$! 7&+-.! )&.$)&.!6*0$2!2$%&-2)$%!'2&.&%0! (..F!.! ! .AB!J.!)&/0*.

! 2-/&''! '2&.! .$$1$2! 1&20(&/%! &'! 0#$! *d-('$2! 6&-+.! 6$++%B! ('! .(/$.(2$)0(&/*+(04B! 6(++! 1&0$/0(*++4! .(*.+4! 7*24(/3! 2&)_! 041$%!$/)&-/0$2$.$.1*)0! &/! 0#$! d-*/0(04! %-.&-/0!&'!2*(/'*++!0#*0!6&-+.!(/!M$//%4+7*/(*!6(++!)2$*0$!*/!-/$7$/!>&2$#&+$!6(0#!*!6(.2('0! &''! 7$20()*+.%! >*%$.&.!0#$!%#*++&6!*d-('$2!=&/$%.$d-*)($%!&'!0#$! )-22$/0! 2$3-+*0&24! 12&)$.! ! ! "#(%! 2$%-+0%! (/! */! -/.$%)2(>$.>$2B!89F9! ! .! %02$*.&)-.'*0#$2(/3!&'! 0#$%$!%&K)*++$.! ! ! Q$3-+*0&24! )#*/3$%!*2$!)-22$/0+4!>$(/3!12&1&%$.%.! ! "#$! (/)2$*%$.!b$N1+&2*0&24c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d-(2$%!&/+4!*!F!(/)#!32&-0!.&7$!'2$%#!6*0$2!'2&.!!!S#$/!'&2.Demicco and Associates.$2! >*%$! '+&6! >4! .(.$32$$!&'!%)($/0('()!)$20*(/04B!0#*0!0#$!32*/.! ! <0! (%! .A. LLC! /$3*0(7$! 6*0$2! d-*+(04! (.! %(0$! )&/%02-)0(&/! */.! .![.$2! >*%$! '+&6! 0&! #$*.!&1$/$.$/0%! &>0*(/$.%.()*0(/3!0#$!(/*.&7$..$)2$*%(/3! 0#$! *.! ! \&6$7$2B! 7$20()*+!.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! H!&'!FH! W&7$..$0#&.!*/.B! 2$d-(2$%! *! 06&! (/)#! .! d-()_+46(0#&-0! .6*0$2! %02$*.1*)0%! &/! >&0#! 6*0$2! 2$%&-2)$! 6$++%! */.! ! "#$! 2*1(.! %*/.!*!1-2$+4!7$20()*+!>&2$A!*/.*(/0*(/(/3! .!*(2!2&0*24!.2(++$.! ! [(2! 2&0*24! .*++4!2$*)#!0#$!32&-/.! )&/%02-)0(&/! 6(++! *+%&! #*7$! *! /$3*0(7$! (.$7(*0(&/%!'2&.!/&2.!.*0(&/!12$%%-2$!$N)$$..-2$%.!3*%B!('!12$%$/0!(/!0#$!'&2.$10#!6#$2$!'&2.!(/!M$//%4+7*/(*!(/.!!! ! "#$! '&-2! (%%-$%! .$0$2B!6#$2$*%! 0#$! U0*0$! &'! W$6! a$2%$4B! 6#$2$! 3*%! 6$++%! *2$! /&0! >$(/3! .!*!/*22&6$2!>&2$#&+$!6#$/!1*%%(/3!0#2&-3#!#*2.!!"#$!2$%-+0!(%!$7$/!32$*0$2!%02*(/! &/! 0#$! >&2$#&+$! (/)2$*%(/3! 0#$! (.*0(&/! $/0$2!(/0&!0#$!>&2$#&+$!*/.!>$!/&0$..!$N1+&2*0&24!6$++%!(%!/&0!12&0$)0(7$!&'!0#$!U1$)(*+!M2&0$)0(&/!S*0$2%!&'!0#$! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.0#!6(++!#*7$!/$3*0(7$!(.

$23&(/3! . LLC! Y$+*6*2$!Q(7$2! Z*%(/! .!3$&+&3()!=&/$.![.! ! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.2(++(/3! 2$3-+*0(&/%! 0#*0! *2$! )-22$/0+4! -/.>$2B!89F9! ! .('()*0(&/B! */.$7$+&1.! */.*0$.-$!0&!+*)_!&'!2$3-+*0&24! 2$7($6!>4!YQZ5B!2$+(*/)$!&/!&-0.$/0! &'! 32&-0! %$*+%! 6(0#! 0#$! -%$! &'! *(2! 2&0*24! $N1+&2*0(&/! .! (/*.&.*0$.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! X!&'!FH! W&7$.! -/)$20*(/04! (/! 12&1$2! .Demicco and Associates..2(++(/3!(/0&!*/!&7$2K12$%%-2(=$.$d-*0$! .

2(++(/3.!)*%(/3!.!!"#$%$!(.(/*0(&/! 6#()#! )*/! &))-2! .2(++(/3! )&/.$.!0&!0#(%!2$1&20!@RN#(>(0!FA.! >4! 2&)_! %#$*2(/3! */.! .$! *! .$10#.*0$2(*+%!$/)&-/0$2$.$/0! (/)+-..&6/!&'!0#$!32&-0! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.2(++(/3!&1$2*0(&/%.(%)-%%(&/! &'! .$/0!0&!0#$! W$6! a$2%$4! S$++! Y2(++$2%! ^()$/%(/3! Z&*2.$%! &'! 6*0$2! /$$.! *++&)*0(&/! 1$2.1*)0%!2*/3$!'2&.!(.(/3! 6*0$2! 6$++! .$%(3/B! 6*0$2! 2$%&-2)$! */.!7(0*!(%!*00*)#$.*0(&/!0&!>2$*_.! 6*0$2! 2$%&-2)$! )&/0*.!*+&/3!6(0#!>&2$#&+$!%0*>(+(04!(%%-$%.())&!(%!0#$!*-0#&2!&'!0#(%!2$1&20!*/. Introduction ! "#$!12(.$%! &'! 6*0$2! 12&.(00(/3B! 32&-/.! 6*0$2! 2$)#*23$! 6$++%B! */.12&1$2! 32&-0(/3.>$2B!89F9! ! .1*)0%!0#*0!)*/!&))-2!('!)*%(/3!&2!32&-0! '*(+-2$! &))-2%! '2&.!!C2.(/3! >*)_32&-/.$10#!&'!.(0(&/B! *(2! 2&0*24! .Demicco and Associates.*24!0&1()!&'!0#(%!$N1$20!2$1&20!'&)-%$%!&/!6*0$2!2$%&-2)$!(%%-$%B!%1$)('()*++4! 1&%%(>+$! 6*0$2! -%*3$! */.(0(&/%! &2! (.2(++(/3! 0$)#/(d-$%! (/)+-.! )&/.! *(2! 2&0*24! .!M$0$2!Y$.! ! ! </! *.-2(/3! $N1+&2*0&24!.!!M*20!&'!#(%!$N1$2($/)$!(/)+-.$%!(/)2$*%(/3!6(0#!.!0&1()!(%!0#$!1&0$/0(*+!+&/3!0$2.-2(/3! .! T&+-.! P2&-0! */.!#*%! &7$2! 8:! 4$*2%! (/! 32&-/.(/*/0%!*/.!!!! ! 2.! 7*24! >*%$.*0$.!!\(%!)-22()-+-.! &/! ..!2*.$'&2.!6(0#!/*0-2*++4! &))-22(/3!)&/0*.$/0*+!M2&0$)0(&/.! */.1 Discussion of Drilling Techniques ! "#$! '(2%0! 0&1()! &'! 0#$! 12$%$/0*0(&/! 6(++! (/)+-.-)0(&/!6#$/!'2*)0-2$!=&/$%!*2$!$/)&-/0$2$.! 6*0$2! 2$%&-2)$! .$$1! 3$&0#$2.$%!%$7$2*+!4$*2%!&'!*11&(/0.![.! .! 12$%%-2$! )#*/3$%! (/! 0#$! '&2.! ! 2.2(++(/3.*+!6$++%.!3$&+&3(%0!(/!0#$!U0*0$!E'! M$//%4+7*/(*.! .(&/-)+(.! )*%(/3! '*(+-2$! *2$! D&(/0+4! )*-%$.2 Discussion of Well Grouting ! "#$!%$)&/.())&!(%!*+%&!*!2$3(%0$2$.$7$+&1.! $N1$2($/)$! (/! >&0#! .(0(&/%! $/)&-/0$2$.2(++(/3! )*/! 2$%-+0! (/! +*23$! 7&+-.*0(&/.!! "#$!d-*+(04!&'!0#(%!6*0$2!6(++!7*24!6(0#!.! '&2! 0#$! W$6! a$2%$4! Y$1*20.2(++(/3! 0$)#/(d-$%! */.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! V!&'!FH! W&7$.$/0! &'! R/7(2&/.!Y$.! -/$N1$)0$.!!C2. LLC! 2.-.

(0(&/! 6&-+.!P*%!Q$3-+*0(&/%!(/!0#$! M*!Z-++$0(/!@a-+4!F9B!89F9A! YQZ5`%!C*4!FGB!899G!RN$)-0(7$!Y(2$)0&2!Y$0$2.! >*%$! '+&6.$?!F:!5eQ!M*20!HF9! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.&%0! /&0*>+4! 142(0$.![.!#(3#!(2&/!*/.(/*0(&/!@RYYA! YQZ5`%! a-/$! FHB! 89F9! U-11+$.!!U$7$2*+! >*)_32&-/.! ! "#$! .! ! [2%$/()! )&/0*.&%0!)&.! 7$20()*+! .! '&2! 0#(%! &1(/(&/.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! I!&'!FH! W&7$.(32*0(&/! &'! 6*0$2! $7$/! 6(0#(/! 1&0*>+$! *d-('$2!=&/$%!)*/!#*7$!/$3*0(7$!)&/%$d-$/)$%. LLC! %$*+B!>&0#!&'0$/!&))-2!0&3$0#$2.$/0! &'! /*0-2*++4! &))-22(/3! /&/K1&0*>+$! 6*0$2! (/0&! 1&0*>+$! =&/$%! */.(%%&+-0(&/!&'!142(0$!6(++!2$%-+0!(/!6*0$2!6(0#!+&6!1\!*/.! %-+'*0$! &2! %-+'(.!0&!0#(%!2$1&20.$/0!(/!(2&/!142(0$.&7$.&)-.!P*%!S$++!Q$3-+*0(&/%! M*YRM`%!12&1&%$.!$(0#$2!$+$7*0$.!*..! ! </! *.(/$2*+%B! .$/0%! .! .$/..!!"#$!.$!0#$!'&++&6(/3%?! !       ! M*YRM`%!$N(%0(/3!5#*10$2!I:!E(+!*/..(/*0(&/! )*/! &))-2! *%! *2%$/()! (%! _/&6/!0&!>$!*!%$)&/.(32*0(&/! &'! 6*0$2! '2&.&%0!3$2.! &/$! *d-('$2! =&/$! 0&! */&0#$2B! 7$20()*+! -16*2.! &N43$/! (/0&! */! */&N()! =&/$! )&/0*(/(/3! %1$)('()! .$/.*0$.$/0! 0&! U-11+$.&6/!&'!0#$!32&-0!%$*+!1&0$/0(*++4!+$*.! ! S(0#! 0#$! (/02&.-)0(&/! &'! &N43$/! (/0&! %-)#! =&/$%B! .>$2B!89F9! ! .(32*0(&/! &'! 6*0$2! 6(0#! .!'&2!0#(%!2$1&20!(/)+-..!.!!"#$!>2$*_.(.$/0%!*+%&!2$7($6$.$/0! &'! *d-('$2! 6*0$2! (/0&! *! /&/K1&0*>+$! =&/$.! ! C-+0(1+$! 2$1&20%! */.$! )&/)$/02*0(&/%.1+$!&'!0#(%!(%! .*/$!0&!0#(%!2$1&20!*2$!12$%$/0$.(/*0(&/! @URYYA! YQZ5`%! a-+4! 8JB89F9! [.&/!$N*.(/(%#$.$/0*+! RN$)-0(7$! Y(2$)0&2! Y$0$2.! 1&0$/0(*++4! #*7$! *! /$3*0(7$! $''$)0! &/! %02$*.! 1&0$/0(*++4! 2$%-+0! (/! .&7$.!*%!$N#(>(0%!*00*)#$.&)-..(/*0(&/! YQZ5`%!Y$+*6*2$!Q(7$2!Z*%(/!5&.$/0%!0&!5#*10$2!I:!E(+!*/.&6/6*2.! 1->+()*0(&/%! 6$2$! 2$7($6$.%!0&!! .! ! "#$! +*00$2! )&/.! .$/0*+! RN$)-0(7$! Y(2$)0&2! Y$0$2.! *d-('$2! 2$%&-2)$%! */.Demicco and Associates.(0(&/B! .*24!$+$.(%%&+7$.

! "#$! 5*0%_(++! P2&-1! )*/! 2*/3$! (/! 0#()_/$%%! '2&.$/0%.2(++$.$.!.*2(/$!-/(0%!*2$!.!!P$/$2*++4B!0#$!g11$2!Y$7&/(*/!2&)_%!&'!0#$!5*0%_(++!5&/0(/$/0*+!P2&-1!*2$!0#$! .*2(/$!-/(0%! )&/0*(/! 041()*++4! )&*2%$/(/3! -16*2.! ! "#$%$! 2&)_! -/(0%! 6$2$! +*23$+4! .!(/!0#(%!*2$*!>4!0#$!"2(.>$2B!89F9! ! .*/! /$$.*0(&/.*/B!FGXIA.! ! U&'0! %#*+$!'2&.!2$7($6!&'!0#$!%02*0(32*1#4!&'!/&20#$*%0$2/!M$//%4+7*/(*!'2&.![.&.! S.! '2&.! (/! '+-7(*+! @(.$1&%(0%.! 12(/0(/3B! FGXIA.*/.!e2*/_! e+$0)#$2.1&20*/0!6*0$2!>$*2(/3!-/(0! (/! S*4/$! 5&-/04! */.! FB:99! '$$0! 0#()_! (/! U-%d-$#*//*!5&-/04!(/!0#$!/&20#!0&!&7$2!VB999!'$$0!(/!5*2>&/!5&-/04!@%$$!^&#.*23(/*+!.Demicco and Associates.2&)_! -/(0! >$+&6! */4! 3+*)(*+! .! ^&#.0 Background Geology ! [!)-2%&24!&7$27($6!&'!0#$!3$&+&34!&'!S*4/$!5&-/04!(%!/$$.!!"#$%$!.*0$.! ..&.&.! 6*0$2! (/! W&20#$*%0$2/! M$//%4+7*/(*c! >4! U.!(/0&!0#$!5*0%_(++!P2&-1!12&.%!@^&#.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! :!&'!FH! W&7$.! bP2&-/.$2%!Q&)_!e&2.!%&.$1&%(0%.$1&%(0$.(.$2*0$%! )#*//$+! .!/$*2!0#$!0&1!&'!0#$! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.$2*0$! -/(0%.$1&%(0%! &'! &''! %#&2$! .!! ! Z$/$*0#!0#$!5*0%_(++!P2&-1!/&/K.$1&%(0%!*0! 0#$!>*%$!6(0#! '(/$2! 32*(/$.$$1!6*0$2!$/7(2&/.!!! ! S$++%!.$%0()! */.!!"#(%!3$&+&3()!32&-1!(%!0#$!.(/*0$.! &0#$2! #-.! 2(7$2(/$A! $/7(2&/.2(++(/3.!%$d-$/)$!%0*20%! 6(0#! )&*2%$!%*/.! )&/3+&.-)$%!*>-/.$+0*()! .%0&/$%!*/.$.!!"#$%$!)4)+$%!2$1$*0! 0#2&-3#&-0!.%!&-0! (/0&!0#$!%#*++&6!%$*%B!)&*2%$2!*/.! ! "#$! 2&)_%! $N#(>(0! 0#$! '(/(/3! -16*2.! ! "#$! %*/.! 0#$! +*23$%0! 6*0$2! >$*2(/3! 32&-1! &'! %$.%0&/$%!*2$!..*2(/$! %*/.&%0!(.%0&/$%! '&2.%!0#$!>*%*+!-/(0%!*/.!)+$*/$2!%*/.!)#*2*)0$2(%0()%!&'!0#$!)+*%%()!'+-7(*+!%$d-$/)$.&. LLC! 3.$1&%(0(&/.%B! >-0! 12&7(.$!)&/3+&.! "#$! >*)_32&-/.*/0!6*0$2!'&2!/$*2+4!*++!.! ! "#$! 5*0%_(++! P2&-1! )&/%(%0%! &'! 7*2(&-%! /&/K.!2(7$2!&7$2>*/_!%(+0%0&/$!*/.$/0%!'&2.&%0!&'!0#$!%$d-$/)$!&'!-/(0.!!"#$!'(/(/3!-16*2.! @FGJIf! 8/.*/B! FGXIA.$%!*!+*23$!1*20!&'! 0#$!>*%$!'+&6!0&! +&)*+! %-2'*)$! 6*0$2%!*+&/3!6(0#! '+&6%!'2&.!%#*+$!*0!0#$!0&1!&'!0#$!%$d-$/)$.$%0()! /$$.$1&%(0$.$%! /&0! &/+4! .(/*/0! >$.$/0%.*0$.! &7$27($6! &'! 0#$! 3$&+&34! #*%! >$$/! &>0*(/$.$+0*!>-(+.! %-2'()(*+! 3+*)(*+! .B!*%!0#$!.! RN#(>(0! 8! 12$%$/0%!*/!-1.*2(/$!-/(0%!&'!0#$!M&20*3$! P2&-1!.!(/!0#$!)&/0$N0!&'!.! 12&7(.%0&/$B! %#*+$! */.

!!! ! "#$! E/&/.>$2B!89F9! ! .*3*! e&2.!!"#$!\*.$2+($%! 0#$! C*2)$++-%! U#*+$! (/! 0#$! /&20#$*%0$2/! 1&20(&/! &'! M$//%4+7*/(*.*0(&/B! >$.!"#$!C*2)$++-%!U#*+$!(%!*!32*4!0&!>+*)_!%#*+$!6(0#!%&.(+0&/! e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e&2.(+0&/! P2&-1B! 6#()#! (/)+-.! */! *d-('$2! (/! S*4/$! 5&-/04! .!!"#$!-/(0!(%!2&-3#+4!FBX99!'$$0! 0#()_!(/!0#$!$*%0$2/!1*20!&'!/&20#$*%0!M$//%4+7*/(*!0#()_$/(/3!0&!JB999!'$$0!6$%06*2.!+&6$2!C*2)$++-%!U#*+$B!-/.*2_! 32$4! %*/.! ! "#(%! '&2.$10#B! 12&>*>+$! %*+0! */.(+0&/!e&2.$1&%(0(&/*+! $/7(2&/.*0(&/! @%$$! ^&#.*/B!FGXIA.! %*/..! )&d-(/(0$! )*/! >$! '&-/.-$! 0&! .! ! "#$! *.(/3!&/!+&)*0(&/!&'!0#$!6$++.*0(&/! #*%! >$$/! +(%0$.(0(&/%.!!"#$!0#()_/$%%!&'!0#$!C*2)$++-%!U#*+$!(%!&/!0#$!&2.!(/!+&)*0(&/%! */.! 6(++! 7*24! 0#$! .(/3! S*4/$! 5&-/04A! .$%! 0#$! -11$2! \*.! "#(%! -/(0! (%! &/! 0#$! &2.!!! ! ! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.$/0!0#*0!2$%-+0$.! #4.!0#2&-3#!0#(%!#(3#+4!7*2(*>+$! 3$&+&3()! )&+-.&-/0! &'! 0#$! 5*0%_(++! P2&-1! 1$/$02*0$.$2$.$!'(/$!%*/.+4!7*24(/3!.$/0! &'! 0#$! C*2)$++-%! U#*+$.*0(&/B! *! )#$204! +(. LLC! %$d-$/)$.! *%! 0#$! 0*23$0! '&2./.$2+($%! 0#$!M&20*3$!P2&-1.()*0(7$!&'!0#$!*/&N()!$/7(2&/.! ! "#(%! P2&-1B! *%! 6(0#! 0#$! 5*0%_(++! P2&-1!6(++!$N#(>(0!2*1(.*0(&/!>4!%&.4! %#*+$! */.2(++$.$2! &'! FBF99! 0&! FBV99! '$$0! 0#()_! @%$$! ^&#.&%0! .(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! G!&'!FH! W&7$.*/B! FGXIA.! ! ! </! 0#$! \*.*0$.Demicco and Associates.*/B!FGXIA.%! &'! )*+)*2$&-%! %#*+$! 0&! )&2*+! +(.%! &'! '&%%(+('$2&-%! &+(7$K32*4! 0&! .$)2$*%(/3! 0&! H99! '$$0! (/! 0#$! 6$%0$2/! )&-/0($%! &'! /&20#$*%0$2/! M$//%4+7*/(*! @%$$! ^&#.$%0&/$! */.!(/!0#$!'&2.

1&20*/0!32&-0(/3!.!.2(++(/3.$2>*+*/)$.!6(0#!*(2!2&0*24!.$0#&.!>2(/$!32&-/.-2(/3! 0#(%! 041$! &'! .!%-2'*)$!.! */! $N1+&2*0&24!#&+$!0&!*!12&.%.-.$.!!\&6$7$2B!0#$!1$2.! 0#$! #&+$B! */.2(++(/3! %#&-+.!-%(/3!*!J!1$2)$/0!1&0*%%(-.$0$2(&2*0(&/!*/.!*%!0#$!>&2$#&+$!(%!*..3$! FFf! */.$!%&+-0(&/.1+$0$+4!%(+$/0!&/!0#$!*)0-*+!.! >4! 0#$! *(2! )&.$0#&.2(++(/3!.$/0%!6$2$!2$7($6$.!! ! "#$!U0&/$!R/$234!5&21&2*0(&/B!C*0&-%#$_!F!6$++!6*%!2$1&20$.$0#&.!g%-*++4!'&*.! 32$*0$2! 0#*/! *0.2(++$.2(++(/3!>(0%!*/.!2$+*0$.+*/..!RN#(>(0! VB!TR!52-.(0%!6$2$!)&.$.*.2(++(/3!(%!.!3*%!(/!0#$! '&2.$2!.$0*(+%! &/! 0#$! *)0-*+! .!0#$/!0#$! C*2)$++-%!U#*+$!6*%!)&2$.(0%!*/.(/3!0#$!CUYU!%#$$0%!'&2!.*0$2(*+!0&!>$!>2&-3#0! &/K%(0$B! 0#$! bM2$1*2$.! YK899GKF:KF!&/!0#$!U0&/$!R/$234!5&21&2*0(&/!C*0&-%#$_!F!S$++!@RN#(>(0!JA.()*+%!*2$!-%$.(''$2$/0!0#*/!.*0$2(*+%! */.!*%!0#$! '+-(.*3$!0&! 0#$!.! 0&! )&&+! 0#$! .!(/!0#(%!12&)$%%B!(/!&0#$2!6&2.! >$! %(3/('()*/0+4! '*%0$2! 0#*/! .-.2(++(/3!(/!0#*0!*(2!*/.!!<0!(%!(.$0*(+%.2(++! )&+-.-)0(&/!6$++.!![(2!2&0*24! .*0(&/! %#&-+.$10#! &'! 0#$! &7$212$%%-2$! *2$*A! =&/$%! *2$! $/)&-/0$2$.! %&.%B!6$++! )&/%02-)0(&/!.![.! 32&-0(/3! 0$)#/(d-$%! 6(++! /&0! 7*24! 32$*0+4! '2&.%!*/.&)-.>$2B!89F9! ! .! #*.1&20*/0!0&! /&0$! 0#*0! 0#$! .2(++(/3! >(0B! +('0! 0#$! )-00(/3%! '2&.!(/)+-.! 5&/0(/3$/)4! M+*/B! S*4/$! 5&-/04! e($+.!!"#$!>&2$#&+$!%#&-+.!>4!*(2!2&0*24!.! FFA.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! F9!&'!FH! W&7$.! %(0$! )&/%02-)0(&/! .!6(0#!+$%%!.$! .!-1!0&!0#$!32&-/.*0$.%!0#$!12$%%-2$!&'!6*0$2!*/.$0#&.$0*(+%! &/! %1$)('()!*%1$)0%!&'!0#$!.! >$! 32$*0$2! 0#*/! 0#$! 12$%%-2$! )2$*0$.Demicco and Associates.!@(.! */4! .!2&0*24!.0 Well Permits ! U$7$2*+!6$++!1$2.!!E/+4! 0#(%! Y&)_$0! 12&7(.!)#+&2(.B! S*4/$! 5&-/04B! M$//%4+7*/(*c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

$! &'! .!! "#$! )&.-2(/3! .2(++(/3!12&)$%%.!>$!.Demicco and Associates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a$2%$4! P$&+&3()*+!U-27$4B!899XA.(%)#*23$! 0&! 0#$! T*++$4! a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d-$!0#*0!6(++!>$!-%$.(/3!1+*/$! &'!0#$!2&)_.-2(/3! .2(++(/3!.![.

! */.2(++(/3i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d-('$2!=&/$%!*>&7$.![.%!6(0#!0#$!7$20()*+(04!*/.(''()-+0($%.! ! "#(%! *%%-.! &/! 0#$! 1$2.4! &1(/(&/B! 0#$%$! .*0$.2(++(/3! >$'&2$! *++&6(/3! 0#$%$! FF! b32*/.(32*0(&/! &'! 3*%! */.&6/! %(3/('()*/0+4..*4!+($!-1!*3*(/%0!&/$!%(.!!! ! M2&>+$.2(++(/3! .B! 0#$! #&+$! (%! 02-+4! 7$20()*+! */.! .2(++! >(0! .! ! "#(%! (%! *+%&! *! )&/)$2/! 6#$/! 2&)_%! &'! 7$24! .!!5$/02*+(=$2%!.!)&/.!)&/%02-)0(&/!*2$!*>%$/0!(/!0#$!1$2.!#*7$!*!>$00$2! (/7$/0&24! &'! )#$.! ! \&6$7$2B! YQZ5! #*%! /&0! 2$d-(2$.()*+%! %0&2$.-)0(&/! &))-2%! .-)0&2! )*%(/3%! *++&6(/3! '-20#$2! -16*2.&)-.$%! 0#*0! 0#$! )*%(/3! (%! )$/0$2$.2(++(/3!2(%_%!*0!0#$!FF!%(0$%!*/.*%%.*0(&/! &/! */4! &'! 0#$! FF! $N1+&2*0&24!6$++!%(0$%!0&!_/&6!1&0$/0(*+!.$! &'! 0#$! )*%(/3.!.! )&/.! *0! 0#$%$! %(0$%! 0&! )&/.!7*2(*>(+(04!&'!0#$!>&2$#&+$!6(++!1&0$/0(*++4!2$%-+0!(/! 32&-0(/3!.c! 6$++%! 0&! 12&)$$.! ! "#$! 1&0$/0(*++4! 2*1(.*0*! *2$! /$)$%%*24!0&!$7*+-*0$!1&0$/0(*+!(.!'2*)0-2$.(*.>$2B!89F9! ! .! /&0! >$$/! 6&2/! .! ! </! .(0!1*1$2%B!#&6!(%!0#$!(%%-$!&'!0#$! )*%(/3! 32&-0! 3&(/3! 0&! >$! 2$7($6$.$0*(+%! &/! 6$++!.! '+-(.2(++(/3! 0#$! :K(/)#! >&2$#&+$! #*.!.-.! .! 2&0*24! .! '+-(..!![0!0#$!%#*++&6$2!.-)0! .!2$*)#!-1!0&!0#$!%-2'*)$!*/.! ! P2&-0(/3!*0!0#$!.%0&/$.&! /&0! *11$*2! 0&! 2$d-(2$! .!!!<'!32&-0!'*(+-2$!&))-2%!*0!0#(%!(/0$27*+B!#(3#!12$%%-2$!3*%!*/.$0$2! &'! 32&-0! 6#$2$*%! W$6! a$2%$4! 2$d-(2$%! 8! (/)#$%! &'! 32&-0.Demicco and Associates.$10#%B!0#$!#(3#$2!12$%%-2$%!)&-+.$!&'!0#$!>&2$#&+$.-)0&2!)*%(/3%!7(*!0#$!-/32&-0$.-2(/3! .$0#&.! $7$/! 0#$! )*%(/3! @Y-%%$*-+0B!$0!*+B!899FA.*. LLC! 7$20()*+A! '2*)0-2$%! (/! 0#$! 2&)_! .(0(&/B!M$//%4+7*/(*!2$d-(2$%!&/+4!F!(/)#! .(''$2$/0! )#*2*)0$2(%0()%!*2$! *.(%)+&%-2$! &'! .$/0$.!!h-$%0(&/%!&/!0#$!(/0$32(04!&'!0#$!32&-0!%$*+!*2(%$!6#$/!0#$!)*%(/3! 0&!>$!32&-0$.(0! *11+()*0(&/.*4! %#$*2! 0#$! 32&-0! */.2(++(/3!*/.-)0(&/!)*%(/3!&))-2%!6(0#!&/+4!Fj!(/)#!&'!32&-0!&/! $(0#$2! %(.

!0#*0!#*%!>$$/!0#$!)*-%$!&'! 6$++! >+&6&-0%..! 2&0*24! .!)&/.! *0! 0#$%$! %(0$%! 0&! )&/.(%)+&%-2$!&'!.%! (/0&! 0#$!*2$*!&'!0#$!%-2'*)$!*/.4!&1(/(&/B!0#$%$!..1(/3! )#*2*)0$2(%0()%.!!RN1$2($/)$!$7$/!(/!0#$!6*0$2!(/.c!6$++%!0&!12&)$$.1*)0%!0&!0#$!6*0$2!2$%&-2)$%!&'!0#$!>*%(/.!$/7(2&/.-)0! .-2$%! */.2(++(/3! 2(%_%! *0! 0#$! FF! %(0$%! */.*0*! *2$!/$)$%%*24!0&!$7*+-*0$!1&0$/0(*+!(.*24B! (/! .! .!&/!0#$! 1$2.!!!! ! !"#$!&1(/(&/%!$N12$%%$.!0&!*!2$*%&/*>+$!.!!! ! "#$!M*YRM!2$3-+*0(&/%!.(32*0(&/! &'! 3*%! */.!!Y2(++(/3!*/.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! FJ!&'!FH! W&7$.12&7$! 1-.! 12&'$%%(&/*+!)$20*(/04..!! [3*(/B! 0#$! 2$%-+0! (%! 7$20()*+! -16*2.!!</!.! )*%(/3%.&!/&0!*11$*2!0&!2$d-(2$!.!12(&2! 0&!*/4!.!>4! 0#$! YQZ5B! 0#$2$! (%! /&! 2$7($6! &'! 0#$%$! 1+*/%! */.1(/3!&/!0#$!32&-0!%$*+!.!0#(%!(/'&2.! &/! 0#$! 32&-0! %$*+%! */.*0(&/!&/!*/4!&'!0#$! FF! $N1+&2*0&24! 6$++! %(0$%! 0&! _/&6! 1&0$/0(*+! .>$2B!89F9! ! .(N0-2$%! 0#*0! #*7$! $N)$%%! 6*0$2! 0&! (.!!\&6$7$2B!YQZ5!#*%!/&0!2$d-(2$.()*+%! %0&2$.(%*%02&-%! (/! #(3#! */.$7$+&1$.! ! </! %-.! 12&7$! .!(/!0#(%!2$1&20!*2$!%0*0$.![.! &7$212$%%-2$.!$7$/0-*++4!(/0&!0#$!*d-('$2%!*>&7$.-)0&2!)*%(/3%!*/.*4!>$!*/!(/$7(0*>+$!12&>+$.4! &1(/(&/B! 6*0$2! -%$! */.Demicco and Associates.2(++(/3! >$'&2$!*++&6(/3!0#$%$!FF!b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

!12(/0(/3B! JF8!1*3$%.B!899FB!5*%(/3!%#$*2f!)*%-$%B!)*%$%B! )-2$%?!UMR!Y2(++(/3!*/.!5&.>$2B!8999.! ! \$2.!)&/%$d-$/)$%?!UMR!</0$2/*0(&/*+!E(+!*/.$/0! >$#*7(&2!*/.B!FGXIB!P2&-/.! RN#(>(0(&/f!Z$D(/3B!5#(/*B!W&7$.!Z.! ! ! ! ! YQZ5!5&/%&+(.!0#$!8F%0!5$/0-24B! 88/.!U.(0&2B!W$6*2_!Z*%(/!k!T($6!'2&.*0$.B!899XB!a&(/0%!*/.!W*62&)_(B!M.![.B!P2*4B!C.!R.B!Z2-/&B!C.!IXKFFV.!5.![//-*+!C$$0(/3!&'!0#$!P$&+&3()*+![%%&)(*0(&/!&'!W$6!a$2%$4B!5&++$3$!&'!W$6! a$2%$4B!R6(/3B!W$6!a$2%$4B!1.!7$(/%!(/!0#$!W$6*2_!>*%(/B!W$6!a$2%$4B!(/!2$3(&/*+! 0$)0&/()!1$2%1$)0(7$?!(/!P*0$%B![. References ! ! Y-%%$*-+0B!C.!P*%!5&/'$2$/)$!*/.. LLC! 5.*/B!U.>$2B!89F9! ! .!Z.! ! ^&#.!S.!+&/3K0$2.B!$.B!*/.!! ! Y-%%$*-+0B!C.!Z*22$2*B!a&#/.B!*/.(/(%02*0(7$!\$*2(/3%!!!! FH!&'!FH! W&7$.!6*0$2!(/!/&20#$*%0$2/!M$//%4+7*/(*?!M$//%4+7*/(*! "&1&32*1#()!*/.Demicco and Associates.![.B!!8999B!S#4!&(+!6$++%!+$*_?!5$.*/B!P.!P$&+&3()!U-27$4!Z-++$0(/!S!HB!\*22(%>-23B!M$//%4+7*/(*B!8/.!W.1+$0(&/B!C*2)#B!899FB!1*3$%!G:!k!F9I.

Harvey Susan L.$/4H$$ C arvey H onsulting. Oil & Gas. Harvey. LLC. Inc. 2010 $! $! . Regulatory Compliance. $! $! $! $! $! $! $! 7+#&. Owner November 15. Environmental.+#.$! $! Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Consolidated Administrative Hearing on Grandfathered Exploration Wells $! $! $! <#&%+-$-%H$$ Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens for Sustainability. and Training $! Susan L.

0-".-'%($Y#00[$55555555555555555555555555$B@! N%$T*&0%+.#.)$Y#00$<#1E0.'-'%().$N<OLV)$.(.E)-+4$/#)-$ &+.$P#00)$5555555555555555555555555555555555555$F@! c+.$-%$-"#$<')Q)$S))%3'.$-%$8%)-$%2$-"#$1+.$ +')Q$-%$P.(.$).(.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$%2$-"#$N#0.$555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$M?! 7SNT7$.8.3-)$.-'%()$.#2'3'#(-$555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$MU! X+.(.$'($7SNT7V)$S&&+%J.P.-'%($Y#00)$7%)#$.+#$(%-$P#00$E(.2.$N.E3-'%($55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$U! N<OLV)$L%(-#)-#.$P#00= 2%E(.&&04$aA&#3'.$C(35$$ 7.-8#(-$%&#+.$-%$/#$3%()-+E3-#.#3')'%($-%$1+.00$/#3.-"#+#.b$+#\E'+'(1$.0$7#+8'-$L%(.)-#$3.$P#00)$.(.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.4$1.2#-4$ &+%-#3-'%()$'($&0.$K%P#+$<')Q$!".$P'-"$-"#$1+.E)#$7SNT7$".(.+4$5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$F! C(-+%.(.$X.3-'3#)$2%+$)".('.)$)E22'3'#(-$"E8.[$5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$MU! N5]5B$! N5]5M5! N5]5F! N5]5>5! N5]5]5! N5]5U5! N5]5_5! N5]5G! 7SNT7V)$L".($7+%.+8$'2$(%-$&+%&#+04$8.+#$&0.1#.0#$1.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.+#$(%-$+#\E'+#.1#$M$%2$>>$ $ .2.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.1#8#(-$70.$Y.-'%()$.(.-#.-"#+#.)#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.2.-"#+$BB$P#00)$3+#.0$-%$ Z'-'1.-#.(.-#+$\E.0$2%+$'(3+#.($'8&.()$.#.-#$-"#$&%-#(-'.)$P#00)$3.E3-'%($Y#00)[$555555555555555555555555555555555$B>! N'.3#.$1.$(%-$.$555555$FB! 5 A-+.(.$P#00)$')$ )8.$P.5$5555555555555555555555555555$>B! N<OL$D#.00%P$P#00)$-%$/#$&0.-#$.-#.+#$<'J#+$O.$<#)&%(.$J#+4$30%)#$-%$P.-#+$ +#)%E+3#)$55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$>B! S'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.#.+'00'(1$&+%^#3-)$'($7#(()40J.$2%+$-"#$OdT$P#005$55555555555555555555555555$FB! N+'00'(1$P.2.+#$Q(%P($-%$/#$ .(.'(.$%+$8'-'1.3-E+#$-+#.-#+$ )E&&0'#)$5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$FU! 7SNT7V)$P#00$)'-'(1$3+'-#+'.($"#.$KKL$ M $ $ $ Contents $ S5! O5! L5! N5! T*#3E-'J#$AE88.0'-4$.(.$P'-"$%'0$.)$P#00)$'($7#(()40J./'0'-4.-'%($.))%3'.$7+%-#3-'%()$C(30E.$.(.$-%$'(.-'%($.#+)-%%.0$".2.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.0$.$N#3')'%()$.'.(.)$N<OLV)$.($+#)E0-$'($#(J'+%(8#(-.($T*&0%+.('.)$8'1+.$P'-"$.-"#+#.((#.-#.3#$2%+$#*&0%+.(.(.3-$P.))%3'.)'([$55555555555555555555555555$BU! S+#$!"#+#$AE22'3'#(-$70.))E8&-'%($-".$-%$'($-"')$<#&%+-$55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$?! N5B$! N5M!! N5F$! N5>!! N5]$! N%$-"#$X+.-"#+#.$L"+%(%0%14$5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555$U! WE#)-'%()$<#)&%(.-#+$ Z.$Y#00)$Z##-$-"#$N#2'('-'%($%2$T*&0%+.-$-"#$+')Q$.&-#+$_G$`'0$.$#(J'+%(8#(-.-'%($Y#00[$5555555555555555555555$B?! Y.P.

-'%($P#00$30.-#+'.-E)5$N<OL$.&&#.0$.+#$)#&.$E(.$2%+$84$+#J'#P$-%$)"%P$-".#+$'-)$eE(#$B>.2.$P#00$/0%P%E-$%+$P#00$3%(-+%0$)'-E.2.'(1$(#P$"4.+04$ .$.0$%2$.$.$.$P#00)$'($Y.+/%($-+.#&.$#*30E)'J#04$2%+$#*&0%+.'(.#)$84$%&'('%($'($+#)&%()#$-%$2'J#$9]:$\E#)-'%()5$T.#2'(#..$'($-"')$+#&%+-$.$.#0'(#.$ )%0#04$2%+$#*&0%+.E3-'%($P#00).+.)%(.$.-#$.-$)&#3'.R.E3-'%($.#2'('-'%($%2$.)#.(.((#.#1+##$%2$ )3'#(-'2'3$.-#.-'%($P.%(8#(-5$ $ (2) Do exploration wells pose lower risk than production wells? C-$')$84$%&'('%($-".3-'J'-'#)./'0'-4V)$9NLA:$+#\E#)-$-%$&+%J'.&&+%J.$)#J#+.$ P"#-"#+$-"#$P#00$P.-$.$/#3.+/%($)%E+3#)5$f#+4$)8.$-%$.$ .$ /#0%PH$$ $ (1) Do the wells listed by DRBC as grandfathered wells meet DRBC’s definition of an exploration well eligible for grandfathered status? C-$')$84$%&'('%($-".$M@B@$AE&&0#8#(-.-%+4$&E+&%)#)$.$2+%8$&+#3#.+'00'(1.$.-"#+#./'0'-4.$.-$-"#$BB$P#00)$0')-#..2.$+#.&$-"#%+'#)5$!"#$&.-'%($P#00)$E(.+'00'(1$"./0#5$6%(#$ %2$-"#$1+.-.$M@B@$AE&&0#8#(-.-'%($%33E++'(1$')$"'1"#+$.+$-%$".#.I%+$.5$6%(#$%2$-"#$1+. Executive Summary $ !"')$+#&%+-$+#)&%(.$%&'('%($%($-"#$N#0.$#*"'/'-)5$!"#$%&'('%()$)-.($&+%.(.3"$+#)&%()#$')$&+%J'.$ .(.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.-"#+#.$%($-"#$8.$-#)-$P#00$%(04.4$ 3%8/'(#$#*&0%+.#)-'(#.$eE04$MF.('#)$8.)$1+.$M@B@$..$/4$N<OL$.)$&0.$.$'(30E.(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+QV)$9N<6:$.#)'1('(1$.$#*&0%+.$.-"#+#.$P"#-"#+$'-$P.#3')'%($-%$#*30E.E)#$./0#$.(.$Y#00.'3.)$2E(.-#$-"#$(.E3-'%($P#00$.'(-45$ $ !"')$+#&%+-$&+%J'.$-%$/#$.)$.(.-'%($P#00)$3.('#)$".0$.($&+%.'0.-"#+#.+-8#(-)5$T*&0%+.--.$)#3E+'-4.$3%()-+E3-'(1$.')-'(3-$2+%8$&+%.('.))'2'3.3#$')$)0%P#+$-".$N.0$3#+-.-#.$2E(.+-8#(-)$-".$eE04$MF.(.3"$\E#)-'%($')$+#)&%(.J#$)E/8'--#.(.$.P.8.(.(.-$#*&0%+.$.0'R#$'($2'(.$.-%+$-%$70E1$.($#*&0%+.J#$"'1"#+$0#J#0)$%2$.-'%().E3-'%($.$0%3.-.$"#+#$.+%3.(.0)$-%$-#)-$"4.)#.#)-'(#.V)$ P#00).)$.&&#.$P#00$.$(%+$P#+#$-"#$F@$.-'%($P#00)$.J%'.$.$P#00)$.#.$P#00).+4$%2$#.-"#+#.E3-'%(5$S&&+%J.-'%(5$$ $ Z%)-$3%8&.+#$'(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$#*&0%+.3"$P#00$P'00$30#.(.#()'-4$.+'00#.()$2%+$-"#)#$P#00).$2%+$ &+%.(.$)-.J.&'.#.(.+-8#(-)$-4&'3.+.#$#*&#+-$+#J'#P$.)$)"%P($'($-"#$.-'%($.-E+#$%2$-"#$P#00$.)$&+%J'.+%3.(.'(1)$3%(-.$P#00$'(-#(.#&.')&%)'-'%($%2$-"#$P#00).'3.+4= "%0#)$'($+.-%+)$%2$P#00$-4&#5$!+E#$#*&0%+.2.4(#$L%E(-4$2+%8$ N<OL$+#J'#P$%2$#*&0%+.0-#+(.(.'(1$#*&0%+.05$$ $ Y#00$.%3E8#(-)$3%(2'+8$ .(#(-04$&0E11#.-'%($P#00$.3"#.$P'-"%E-$2E-E+#$E)#$2%+$&+%.%(#..J#$#*&0%+.#3')'%($-%$2%+#1%$ N<OL$D#.2.3'(1$'(-#+J.3#$.(.+#$)-+%(1$'(.($#*&0%+.-#.$#*&0%+.'22'3E0-4$'($.004$".(.$M@B@$ .$ NLA.+#$<'J#+$O.(.(.-%+4$ /E.-'%($.2.8.$1+.($/#$E)#.#()'-4$.$&+%2#))'%(.(.$#)&#3'.-'%($P#00$ #0'1'/0#$2%+$1+.+#$/.$-%$8%+#$ 2E004$'($A#3-'%()$NB$-"+%E1"$N]$%2$-"')$+#&%+-5$S($#*#3E-'J#$)E88.(.)'($ L%88'))'%(V)$9N<OL:$.%3E8#(-)$2%+$#.-$-"#$ 1+.(.+#$+')Q'#+$-".$2%+$&0E11'(1$.-"#+#.%$(%-$8##-$N<OLV)$.-%+4$ .$P#00)$P#+#$.+'00'(1$)#J#+.)#.+'00'(1$&.0$N#-#+8'(.'(#.$P'00$/#$&#+8.'(.+#$)-.P.$/4$N<6$.+'00#.#$BB$7#(()40J.2.+#$.$)-.(.(.$"%P#J#+.00$3%8&.$L#+-'2'3.3#$%2$)%8#$%2$-"#$1+.-'%($P#00$.$6%-'3#$%2$C(-#(-$/4$Y#00$`&#+.$ .$%($E(Q(%P($./.$&.-'J#$&0.$%(#$-".-"#+#.-.'(1$.$P#00).$-%$.)$.#+$'-)$e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

$/4$7SNT7$-%$&+%-#3-$-"#$P.E3-'%($P#00.$.$'(-#(-$'($-"#)#$1+.0$ '8&.($/#$3%8&0#-#04$+E0#./.00%P'(1$P#00)$-%$/#$.-#+$'($-"#$N#0.$#(J'+%(8#(-.-'%()g$-"#+#2%+#.-.-'%()g$.3"$#*&0%+.$.$9#J#($'2$)E33#))2E0:.0$)'-#=)&#3'2'3$8'-'1.P.#.-#+'.$0.#-.(.&&#.(.E)#$-"#4$.$P#00).+'00#.P.$".$+')Q$P.(.$'2$`&#+.$/4$.($#*&0%+.$/4H$$ ! (%-$)-'&E0.$'($-"#$ ).+#.0$.#.-'(1$.$".-'%($P#00$`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g$$ (%-$+#\E'+'(1$.#2'('-'%($%2$.-$-"#$).$P#00).'+.+#$&+#)#(-$'($ 3%88#+3'.+#$.-"#+#.$.#$)-.0'-4$.-#04$_$P#00)$'($#J#+4$B@@@$.+%3.2.+'00#.3Q)$2+%8$)#()'-'J#$0%3.(.$1.$/#3.-'%($.P..$'8&.E)-+4$&+.+%3.+#$<'J#+$O.($-".$#.-"#+#.'(.+#$<'J#+$O.-#.$ 1.E3#$#(J'+%(8#(-.+#$2%E(.(.$'(3+#.Q#$.3-)$%2$.5$$ $ N<OL$D#.$'($#(J'+%(8#(-.(.+'00#.)$+#\E'+#.%(#.$&+%..)5$C-$')$'8&%+-.$.+#$ <'J#+$O.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.4$-.+'00#.-'%($8#.-'%($P#00$ /0%P%E-$')$.)$P'-"'($-"#$N#0.E3-'%($P#00$')$+#=.+#.)#.-'%($P#00)b$.(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.'.-'%($P#00..$%E-5$$ $ $ (3) Did DRBC’s decision to grandfather 11 wells create the potential for increased risk to water quality and water resources of the Delaware River Basin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g$$ .-'%($P#00).$P"#($.-$.4$ #()E+#.$-"#$ N<OL$)"%E0.$-+E#$#*&0%+.)'(5$C()-#.E+'(1$#*&0%+.0$P'-"$#'-"#+$.$.($#*&0%+.+/%($ 2%+8.3-$ 8#-"%.8#$%+$ .$&+%.(-'-'#)$%2$"4.$3%E0.-$N<OLV)$.)$')$-"#$)-.)'($P'-"%E-$.$'($ '(3+#.2.+#$.E&0'3.-#5$$ ! ! ! !"#$N<OLV)$.-'%($P#00$.$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.0$'8&.$/#3.$-"#+#/4$a0%P#+$+')Q.$.#3')'%($-%$2%+#1%$+#1E0.$E)'(1$-"#$0%P#)-$'8&.+%3.+'00'(1$`&#+.+1#-$1.(.-#.$.(.)$.-'%($P"#+#/4$.($#*&0%+.-#+)$%2$-"#$ N#0.$P#00)$'2$-"#4$..$.5$N<OLV)$.$0.#2'('-'%(.)$-.0$&+%J'.J#$+#J'#P#.0$-%$#(3%E(-#+$%'0$#(+%E-#$-%$-"#$1.+1#-5$C($ .$)'-#..$.-#.0$2'(.)$&+%&#+04$)'-#.(..-$%2$.+/%()$ .(.$3%88#+3'.-'%($P#005$!"#$+')Q$%2$.(.-#+$.$P.-'%($.+'00'(1$3.)5$!"#$1+..'0$.)$ 8E3"$.$-"#($'88#.($#*&0%+.(-'-'#)$.0+#.-$-"#$+')Q$%2$./'0'-4.(-$-%$&+%&#+04$)'-#$.)$.+#$a#*&0%+.$N.E)#$.(.)$ 3+#.(.$-"#($0.+#$<'J#+$O.-#+$\E.+'00'(1$.(.$&+%.$N<OL$P%E0.#&-"$%2$/E+'.E3-'%($P#00$'($-"#$2'#0.&&+%*'8./%J#$-"#$8'('8E8$)-.-'(1$.b$')$ '(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$-"#$Q(%P($"'1"#+$+')Q$&+%2'0#$2%+$.3-'3#$ -%$3%(J#+-$)E33#))2E0$#*&0%+.(.

#3')'%(5$!"')$.$P.5$$ $ N<OL$1+.$C(35$$ 7.($+.%#)$(%-$8##-$7SNT7V)$+#\E'+#8#(-)g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b$P#00)$ %+$-".$-%$.-#$-..0$2E#0$.8'(.()$977L:$&+%J'.$..$(%-$.$3%(-.J#$/##($.-#+$.(.2.$.(.$%-"#+$.+.3-'3)$.$.-$P#+#$(%-$ &+%&#+04$)'-#.+#.-'%($P#005$!"#+#$')$ '()E22'3'#(-$#J'.(1#$2+%8$]@@..-#+$%($ -"#$)E+2./0#$ #3%(%8'3$%+$+')Q$.E+'(1$.-'%()$2%+$#.)#.(.+'00'(1$.004$)%E(.$/%(.$&+%J'.%$%33E+.#(-'24$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-.(4$%-"#+$ 8.)-+%&"'3$+')Q$%2$-"%)#$0')-#.)'($')$0%P5$ $ (4) Are there sufficient plans and protections included in PADEP’s approval to mitigate and respond to the risks associated with exploration wells? C-$')$84$%&'('%($-".-"#+#.3-$)".+#$<'J#+$O.-%+5$6#'-"#+$.$/#$&+%-#3-#.(.$N.-#+$)E&&0'#)$%+$P.$(%-$'(30E.+'00#.(.$2%+$84$+#J'#P$.#$)E22'3'#(-$&0.$-"#$ &+%3#))$%2$.$.+4$3"#8'3.($#*&0%+.$'($ 7#(()40J.$P'-"$#*&0%+.%$(%-$ '(30E.($-+.-"#+#.-%+4$.$3"#8'3.$.-$-"#$&#+8'-$ .(.$#*&0%+.#.8$.-#+'.8.$%2$hM].V)$77L$0')-)$'()E22'3'#(-$%()'-#$+#)%E+3#)$-%$+#)&%(.$P"#($&0.-"#+#.P.+'00'(1$%&#+.0$)&'00).-#+'.(.-'%($P#00$%&#+.+#$.(.00%()$%2$P.2.#0E1#$-"#$+'1.$ N<OL$D#.(.(.(.$2E#0).'+.-#$-"#$(#.-'%($%+$#J'.$%+$3%()-+E3-#.-'%()$2'0#.@@@$2%+$.4)./04$2%+#)##.$P'-"$(%$&E/0'304$.E+'(1$#*&0%+.V)$77L$2%+$-"#$&+%&%)#.-$.-'%($ P#00)5$$ $ !"#+#$.$'(30E.(.$E)'(1$-#3"('3.@@@$1.-#+$+#\E'+#8#(-)$3.-#$.+#$#\E'&&#.$P.)$a#*&0%+.+'00'(1.8'(#$-"#$1+.$P#00)$3%(2'+8$-".)'(5$!"#+#$')$(%$#J'.(.'(1$.00$P#00)$.')&%).$%($#3%(%8'3$.-#+$-%$.+$.$ +#\E'+'(1$0.#-#+8'(#$'2$-"#4$P#+#$ &+%&#+04$)'-#.($%(=0.$.$.#.+)$-%$3%(20'3-$P'-"$N<OLV)$ 8'))'%($-%$&+%-#3-$P.-#$.-"#+#.)-#$.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.-'%()5$!"#$8%)-$)'1('2'3.$.(.+.('.(.$/#$&0E11#.-#+$E)#.(.-$".(.(.$7+#&.8%E(-$P%E0.(.$2%+$ +#J'#P5$T*&0%+.3-'3#)5$Y#00)$-".$+')Q$3%()'.()$.-'%()$+#\E'+#$2E#0$-%$%&#+.+#.-"#+#.($E(3%(-+%00#.-"#+#.#3')'%($.$30#.-$-"#$+')Q$%2$-"#)#$P#00)$-%$-"#$N#0.$-%$-"#$+')Q)$.$')$.(.$P#00)V$77L)$')$(%-$Q(%P(.(.$/4$.-$-"#$1+.-#+$&#+$.004$3.)$-%$3%(-+%0.0)%$E)#$2%.0)5$6#P2'#0.$3"#8'3.$P#00)$.1#$-.)#.%(#.$P##Q).(4$#*&0.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.-"#+#.45$Y#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$ .$)'(10#$`&#+.I%+$%'0$P#00$/0%P%E-5$Y#00$&#+8'-$.$P.$3%8&0#-#.$/0%P%E-$-%P.$)"%E0.-#.$%(04$+#\E'+#)$.0$)&'00)$'-$0')-)5$$ $ !"#$77L$70.2.E)#$-"#4$P#+#$(%-$&+%J'.$1+.$-"#4$.)%(.2.$(E8/#+$%2$+')Q)$&%)#.()$&+%J'.$%2$hM.$0.()&%+-$%'0.$.0.#(3#$%2$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-'%($%+$3%(-+%0$3.('.+#$<'J#+$O.

(..$-%$/#$3%()-+E3-#.+#.$%(=)'-#$.))E8&-'%($-".$P'-"$-"#$1+..$%&'('%($%($-"#$N#0.+'00'(1$&+%^#3-)$'($7#(()40J.#+)-%%.)'($ L%88'))'%(V)$9N<OLV):$.-'%($.)$ .(.'(-45$ C.-E+.)-#$3.(.'(.1#$3.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.-#.)$8'1+.#+$'-)$eE(#$B>.$M@@?.-#$-"#$.-#.3-'%($&+%^#3-)$0%3.-"#+#.-#.'+#3-'(1$(.)$)E22'3'#(-$"E8.0$".($'8&.g$$ 7SNT7$.$+#.)$#*-+.$M@B@$AE&&0#8#(-.()&%+-#.$%+$ 8'-'1.2.-#+$Z.-"#+#. environmental and safety protections in place for exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania well-founded? $ C-$')$84$%&'('%($-".-#.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.(.E)#.-#.(.$.$KKL$ U $ .-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.#$BB$7#(()40J.#2'3'#(-g$ X+.#3')'%($-%$#*30E.+#$(%-$ &+%&#+04$3%()-+E3-#.+#$(%-$+#\E'+#./'0'-4V)$9NLA:$+#\E#)-$-%$&+%J'.(.$(%-$.'-'%().8.+1#$2E#0$)&'00$2+%8$.+#$)-.-#+$+#)%E+3#)g$.$ %2$A&#3'.'(.$#(J'+%(8#(-.$%&#+.8.(.4$/##($/E+'#.$Y.($ #*&0%+.1#$U$%2$>>$ $ .((#.(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+QV)$9N<6:$.+#$(%-$P#00$E(.0$7#+8'-$L%(.-'%($P#00)$E(.4(#$L%E(-4$ 2+%8$N<OL$+#J'#P$%2$#*&0%+./0#$.&&+%J.00%P)$P#00)$-%$/#$&0.$-"#$N<OL$'))E#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$)-.8.$N.(.-#.$1.$2%+$-"#$2%00%P'(1$+#.g$$ 7SNT7V)$P#00$)'-'(1$3+'-#+'. DRBC’s Contested Decisions and Chronology `($Z.2.(.$"#+#$.-8#(-$%&#+.$2%+$-"#$OdT$P#00g$$ N+'00'(1$P.$.$P'-"$%'0$.)$ P#00)$'($7#(()40J.$/4$.$P#00)$.P.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$ AE)-.(.(.))%3'.-#+)b$ 9Exhibit 1:.(.)%(.$-%$.0#$2%+8.'($N<OL$.+.-#+$+#)%E+3#).2#-4$&+%-#3-'%()$'($&0.0$X.0$)&'00$%+$0.$(%-$-+.(.00$ /#3.(.-'%()$.0$2%+H$$ $ N<OL$D#.-#$&#+8'--#.$P#00)$'($Y.1#$.I%+$+#8#.)$ T*-+.3-)$-%$P.(.$aN#-#+8'(.3-).3-'3#)$2%+$)".-#+$)E&&0'#).('.&&04$aA&#3'.'(.1#8#(-$70.0-".-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$.$.$-%$8%)-$ %2$-"#$1+.-'%()5$!"#$%&'('%()$)-.$X.)$P#00)$3.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$-%$'(.+#$<'J#+$O.-#+)$-%$%/-.5$$ $ $ B.3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".'.$).4$B?.$3"#8'3.-$-"#$+')Q)$.0#$1.E)-+4$/#)-$&+.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.0$1.)$Y#00$<#1E0.-$ N<OLV)$.0$ 3#+-.$..+8$'2$(%-$&+%&#+04$8.'(1$'8&./'0'-4.-'%($P#00$%&#+.$P#00$/0%P%E-.$%2$A&#3'.$P#00)g$$ c+.)$-%$-"#$N#0.-'%($.$P#00)$')$)8. Introduction !"')$+#&%+-$+#)&%(.(.('.$3%++#)&%(.E)#$7SNT7$".#.))%3'.-'%(5$$ $ (5) Was DRBC’s assumption the risk of the grandfathered wells was small because PADEP has sufficient human health.b$+#\E'+'(1$.($+#)E0-$'($#(J'+%(8#(-.'(.$'($)".P.$M@B@$.3-$P.(.-#.4$1.'.$%E-$%2$-"#$O.#$#*&#+-$+#J'#P$.0$.$C(35$$ 7.-"#+#.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.('.($"#.)'(g$$ A-+.+#$Q(%P($-%$/#$.$.&-#+$_G$`'0$.3#.2.$&+%2#))'%(.)%()H$$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 7SNT7V)$#*')-'(1$L".-E+.)-#$".$.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$L%(3#+('(1$6.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.3-E+#$-+#.0+#.#1+##$%2$)3'#(-'2'3$.P.$)%8#$P.$$ $ S'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.0#$c%+8.$'2$P#00)$.$J#+4$30%)#$-%$P.+#$&0.(.$N.1#.$.$eE04$MF.(.3#$2%+$ #*&0%+.-'%()$.0$ N#-#+8'(.1#$S+#.$')$(%-$P#00$2%E(.

('.'(.)$T*-+.4$].$.-'%($ P'-". but they continue to require Commission approval before they can be fractured or otherwise modified for natural gas production5b$ $ C($%-"#+$P%+..+-8#(-$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$ 7+%-#3-'%($Y.4$B?.-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.&&+%J#.-$.$M@B@.&&+%J.-#$(.-#$-".0.$.-H$ $ $“[i]n contrast to the thousands of wells projected to be installed in the Basin over the next several years.#-#+8'(.)"##-.#.1#$_$%2$>>$ $ .$P#00).$/4$7SNT7$&+'%+$-%$eE(#$B>.$%2$A&#3'.-E+.0$7+%-#3-'%($97SNT7:5$!"#$(E8/#+$.$'($-"#$N<OL$.#$#*&0%+.)"##-$P.-"#+b$)-.-'%($.-$.#-#+8'(. all appurtenant facilities and activities related thereto and all locations of water withdrawals used or to be used to supply water to the project5b$$ $ !"#$Z.-$N<OL$-"%E1"-$\E.2.)$(%-$ +#\E'+#.-'%($P#00)5$!"#$N<OL$P.'(.(-#.#+'(1$ &+%^#3-$.$)%0#04$2%+$#*&0%+.1#$.0$1.-E)5$S33%+.+#$ (%-$&#+-'(#(-$-%$-"#$'))E#$%2$1+.#-#+8'(#.#3')'%($-%$2'(.)$P#00$ &#+8'-$%($%+$/#2%+#$eE(#$B>.-'%($P#00$3+'-#+'.-$%/-.Q#$S&&.-#$ N#&.-%E)"#Q$kB$ `X$Y#00.$8#.-$-"+##$9F:$P#00)$%2$-"#)#$BF$P#00)$.#3')'%(.$ (.3-'%($&+%^#3-)$0%3.0$X.$.'(./'0'-4.'(1$-%$ -"#$N<OL$)&+#.&#.+#..$M@@?$.#)'1(#.$P#+#$(%-$0')-#.$aAE&&0#8#(-.$KKL$ _ $ $aithe drilling pad upon which a well intended for eventual production is located.$M@B@.$N#&.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$M@B@.(4$N<OLV)$)&+#.$)-.-'%($P#00$-".$7S$KKL$P.+#P$-"#$Z.2. there are countervailing considerations that favor allowing these projects to move ahead5b$$ $ !"#$N<OL$.$-".&&+%J.$-".)$+#1E0.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.-'%()$/#2%+#$3%()'.#3'.$-"#$N<OL$'))E#.'+#3-'(1$all$(.-E+.$6#P2'#0.3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".)$ &+%J'.#-#+8'(#.$-".33%8&.0#$2%+8.0$L%()#+J.$-"#$N<OL$.1#$S+#.$M@B@$1+.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$ L%(3#+('(1$6.$a0'8'-#.0'R#$(.$'($)".2.+'00#.$.$KKL:$.-"#+#.(.$.$-%$+#8%J#H$$ $ $aiany regulatory incentive for project sponsors to classify their wells as exploratory wells and install them without Commission review before the Commission’s natural gas regulations are in place5b$$ $ D%P#J#+.#.(.-#.$.'(#.(.5$$$ $ S33%+.+-8#(-$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.-'%()$ P'-"'($-"#$.5$!"')$0#2-$B@$P#00)$)E/^#3-$-%$-"#$eE(#$B>.2.('(1$N<OL$+#J'#P$.-#+)$-%$%/-.$%2$A&#3'.$9Z.$/4$-"#$7#(()40J.'($N<OL$.$/E-$-"#+#$P#+#$.3"'.3"'.$aP#00)$'(-#(.E)#$-P%$P#00)$P#+#$.$BF$P#00)$P#+#$.0.$-"#$N<OL$'))E#.0$P.$2%+$a1+.-"#+#.$-"#+#$P#+#$(%$&#+8'-)$'))E#.$"%+'R%(-.$-"#$NK$ !##&0#$kB=MD$`X$Y#00.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.)$%2$eE(#$B>.(.0$P#00$.05$!"')$.$M@B@$.-H$ $ $aiwhere entities have invested in exploration well projects in reliance on [the] May 2009 Determination and information from staff.b$(E8/#+$%2$ &#+8'-)$'))E#.(.#3')'%($-%$#*30E.$.(.(.-%+4$&E+&%)#)5b `($Z.$)&+#.$C(35$$ 7.(.0$1.0#$c%+8.$/4$N<OL$0')-'(1$-"#$P#00)$-".$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&$.-"#+$&+%J')'%(5$ N<OL$D#.0$N#-#+8'(.-E+.+. Not only are these wells subject to state regulation as to their construction and operation.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$L"#).-#+$.)$1+.4$.(.(4$#*&0%+.$-"#$N<OL$.$/4$-"#$6#P$j%+Q$A-.0'2'#.$<%/)%($UM_]MG$kB$`X$Y#00.&&+%J.4$B?. the risk to Basin waters posed by only the wells approved by PADEP since May are comparatively small.$M@B@$9Exhibit 4 and 4A:5$ $ !"#$(%-#)$-".+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.-E+.0+#.$.$S&&..'(1$-%$-"#$N<OLV)$eE(#$B>..(.)"##-$9Exhibit 4:$)-.)$#*-+.0)$9Exhibit 2:5 `($eE(#$B>.#.$M@@?$.-'%($#*#8&-#.%#)$(%-$ 8##-$-"#$#*&0%+.8#$%2$-"#$7SNT7$&#+8'-)$'))E#..$/#3.0$1.)$.8.).-#+)b$9Exhibit 3:.)$.$N.P.#3')'%(5$K.$M@B@$P.

$T+%)'%($.$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&.$7S$KKL.('.$7S$KKL.#3')'%($-".$ BM5 D.$Z57.$eE04$MM.$7S$KKL.$S&&.$/4$N..-E+.$A#.$Z18-$7.$7#(()40J..$S&&.$M@B@.$6#P2'#0.$M@B@..$S&+'0$MF.$S&&.$%/-.$M@B@.)$KKL.'(1$/4$-"#$N.=`3-%/#+$M@B@.'($.$L'J'0$S3-'%($6%5$B@=Lf=BU@>$%($SE1E)-$?.$2+%8$-"#$-P%$#*&0%+.8.$M@B@$.+'00#.$/E-$".3"'./%-$P#00$&#+8'-$9Exhibit 6:.$$ B@5 OdT$Y#00$kB$`X$Y#00g$A3"+.$T+%)'%($.$7S$KKL.J'.$P#00)$".-"#+#.E)#$-"#)#$P#00)$P#+#$'($-"#$2'(.$'))E#.$-".3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".$M@B@.$M@@?.88%(.8.0$7#+8'-).$M@B@5$ N<OL$D#.-'%($P#00)$-%$/#$.$KKL.$9aTeepleb:g$ U5 A-%3Q&%+-$S))($Bg$7#(()P%%.$S+/%+$`&#+.('.$eE04$M@.$9aCrumb:g$ F5 TZ$A3"P#'1"%2#+$kB=B$`X$Y#00./%-$kM$`X$Y#00.$P#00)$-".$9aHammondb:5$ `($`3-%/#+$B>.$M@B@.$7SNT7$&#+8'-).$-%-.-$ ".$0#.(.0$3%E+-$&+%3##.3"'.$'))E#.$&#+8'-$.$Z.0.'(.$%2$ A&#3'.4$M_.2.(-$-%$.$9aRutledgeb:g$ M5 fT$L+E8$kB=B$`X$Y#00.8#(-$-%$AE&&0#8#(-.$S&+'0$M?.$ 9aWoodlandb:g$ ]5 NK$!##&0#$kB=B$`X$Y#00.0$7SNT7$&#+8'-$ .4$_.+'(15$$$ $ S33%+.3"'.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.$.+'00#.0$1.0#$c%+8.$.1#$kB=B$`X$P#00.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'-'%(.$ )E/&%#(.$eE04$MM..P.$S&+'0$MG.$S&&.0$7#+8'-)$9TALX7=B:5$D#))$.0$N#-#+8'(.$'($.$/4$-"#$N<OL$eE(#$B>.$'($'-)$.-'%(.0$J5$6#P2'#0.$ S&&.'(1H$$ BB5 N.$/#3.-$(%(#$%2$-"#$%-"#+$1+.E)#$-"#$P#00$&.)3E)$!%P()"'&$ &E+)E.'8#(-$L%(-+%0$X#(#+.1#$S+#.$KKL$d$N.'(.$7S$KKL.1#$G$%2$>>$ B $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .0.$/4$N<OL.)3E)$!%P()"'&.$M@@?.3"'.&&+%J.$-"#$N<OL$'))E#.$7S$KKL.2.-"#+#.-'%($P#00)$-%$&0.9aPrestonb:g$ G5 X#E-"#+$kB$`X$Y#00.'(1$-%$N<OLV)$+#3%+.$eE04$BF.(.$6#P2'#0.P.(-$-%$..$2#.8.-'(1..)3E)$!%P()"'&.-$P#+#$1+.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.)$2#00$/#0%P$ -"#$2'J#=.$6#P2'#0.$0#J#0$%2$'(J#)-8#(-$#\E'J.2.$&+%.(.-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.(.$Bf$Y#00g$D#))$L%+&%+.)$#*&0%+.0$X.0.0.$9aStockportb:g$ _5 7+#)-%($FG$KKL$`X$Y#00g$7#(()P%%.).+-(#+)$kB=B$`X$Y#00.3"'.0$%2$BM$P#00)$P#+#$1+./'0'-4.-'%(.$N.0$J5$6#P2'#0.)$KKL.(.-$/#3.)$%2$8'.'(1$/4$-"#$N.$#-$.00%P'(1$-P%$.$S&&.5.0.$A#.$M@@?.0.#3')'%(5$N<OL$/.$2#.8.0$&+%3#)).$9aDavidsonb:g$.$.#+.$KKL$ G $ B5 DK$<E-0#.$7#(()40J.E3#.)$T*-+.)%($Bf$Y#00g$D#))$L%+&%+.$9aCabotb:g$.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$ N'+#3-%+$L%(3#+('(1$6.$9aB&Eb:5$ `($eE04$MF.$M@B@.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.)'(5$N<OL$(%-#.0.$9aGeutherb:g$ ?5 L..-#+)b$9Exhibit 5:.$/4$N.$6#P2'#0.-%+4$ P#00)$-"..$6#P2'#0.$S&&.3"'.(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.+-(#+)$kB=B$`X$Y#00.)#.$Z18-$7.(.-E+.2.$M@B@5$$ M $Y%%.$'-)$.$S&+'0$BF.$#-$.$S+/%+$`&#+.$L'J'0$S3-'%($6%5$B@=Lf=BU@>$%($SE1E)-$?.5..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.0.$-"#$P#00)$+#&+#)#(-#.'(.'($)3'#(-'2'3$.'8#(-$L%(-+%0$ X#(#+.$(%-$4#-$+#3#'J#.$&+%.$.(.3"'.8./'0'-4.0.$`'0$d$X.-'(1.0$3%E+-$&+%3##.2.%3E8#(-).$Z57.+#P$'-)$L.0.+#$<'J#+$O.$6#P2'#0.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$S&+'0$F@.$ 9aSchweighoferb:g$ >5 Y%%.%3E8#(-).$S&&.E3#.$M@B@.-"#+#.$Z.(.#+.$7S$KKL.$KKL$P'-".#+$l#J'($T.J#$/##($ .(.$P#00$9Exhibit 8 and 8A:Mg$$$$ F5 !##&0#$P#00$9Exhibit 9 and 9A:Fg$$$$ $fT$L+E8k$B=B$`X$Y#00.$M@B@.$M@B@.J'(1$BB$ 1+.$'(30E.-.'(.5$!"#+#2%+#.$-"+##$9F:$%2$-"#$BB$1+.(.$)E/&%#(.0.$.-"#+#.-"#+#.$`'0$d$X.0.$mANL.3"'.$-"#$(##.$M@@G.($aS8#(.$'($.$KKL$d$ N.$M@B@.8.$-%$%/-.0$D#))$L%+&%+.($2E-E+#$P#00)$'($-"#$ N#0.0#(-$-%$-"#$(.'(#.3"'.$-".(.$ %/-.$C(35$$ 7.(.+3"$].$6#P2'#0./'0'-4.-$+#8.3+#$-"+#)"%0.+1E#.$&#+8'-$.$S&&..)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$P#00)$"..#3')'%($%($ #3%(%8'3)$.8.$mANL.$Z.H$$ B5 L+E8$P#00$9Exhibit 7 and 7A:Bg$$$ M5 Y%%.'(#.)3E)$!%P()"'&$&E+)E.-$'))E#$'($-"#$D#.(.

'(1$N<OL$&+%..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.0.$C(35$$ 7.$KKL.-'%($ %($-"#)#$P#00)$)"%P)$-".$&+%J'.$S&&.0.#.3"'.)$3%88#(3#.$'))E#.$Z18-$7.$N<OL$+#&%+-)$-".0$3%E+-$&+%3##.+3"$B>.$7S$KKL.'(1$/4$-"#$N.#+P.$6#P2'#0.$6#P2'#0.)3E)$!%P()"'&$&E+)E.8.$.$Z57.#$2%+$-#8&%+.$-".#.-'%($P.&$%2$-"#$P#00$0%3.$P#00$9Exhibit 17:BB$n$)'-#$&+#&.$&+'%+$-%$-"#$1+.$&+%J'.-$-"#$Z.$&#+8'-$.$<%/)%($P#00)$P#+#$.%3E8#(-).$&#+8'-$.$/4$N.4g$.&#.$'($.$&+%J'.$KKL$d$ N.+.$M@B@5$$$ G $X#E-"#+$k$B$`X$Y#00.J'.$ .%3E8#(-).0.3"'.$&#+8'-$.-'%($P#005$$ ! NK$!##&0#$kB=MD$`X$Y#00.P.(.88%(.$Z.2.#+P.$S&&.$M@B@5$$$ _ $7SNT7$#c.-#+'.(.-'%(5$$ ? $OdT$Y#00)$kB$`X$Y#00g$A3"+.$7S$KKL.4$M]. Questions Responded to in this Report !"')$+#&%+-$&+%J'.$S&&..$M@B@5$ ] $TZ$A3"P#'1"%2#+$kB=B$$`X$Y#00.-$%(04$TdA$&#+8'-)$".%3E8#(-).$$ <%/)%($kB$`X$Y#00.$2%+$-"')$P#005$ BM $Z.:5$Z.#.1#)$ %2$-"#$7SNT7$P#00$&#+8'-$.$2#.-'%($%($7+#)-%($FG$KKL$`X$Y#00.-$-"#$NK$!##&0#$kB=MD$`X$P#00$.#.$&+%.$')$&#(.$Z.$ M@B@5$ > $DK$<E-0#.)$.$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$M@.)%($Bf$Y#00$A'-#5$$ BB $Exhibit 17$')$.$ 9aTeeple 2Hb:5$ D./'0'-4.%3E8#(-).%(8#(-:$.$8.-"#+#.)$(%-#.$-%$/#$.$7S$KKL.$+#-+'#J#.8.&#.8.%3E8#(-)./'0'-4.$/#0%PH$ >5 <E-0#.$M@B@5$ BF $<%/)%($UM_]MG$B$`X$Y#00.#3')'%(5$N<OLV)$'(2%+8.$%($)%8#$P#00).$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$M@.#)$84$#*&#+-$%&'('%($%($2'J#$9]:$\E#)-'%()H$$ $ $Y%%.b$9&+#)E8.(.$M@@G.$N.b$9&0E11#.$1+.(.1#$P#00$9Exhibit 10 and 10A:>$n$&.$c#/+E.E3-'%($P#00$+#J'#Pg$-"#+#2%+#.$-"#$<%/)%($P#00$P.3"'.(.$/##($ %/-.$/E-$ P%+Q$".8.-%E)"#Q$kB$`X$Y#00.$M@B@.$#*&0%+.$6#P2'#0.$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&.-'%($%($A-%3Q&%+-$S))(kB$P#00.$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$MF./.)$a!S#.$7S$KKL.$9Exhibit 19:.0.$L'J'0$S3-'%($6%5$B@=Lf=BU@>$%($SE1E)-$?.$&+%J'.)%($P#00$9Exhibit 16:B@$n$)'-#$&+#&.+.$-"..1#$kB=B$$`X$P#00.$M@@?.3-)$C(2%+8.$#-$.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-..-'%($%(045$S)$%2$`3-%/#+$MF.$2%+$ +#J'#P$%($/%-"$-"#H$$ ! ! Z.0.(-$-%$.#-#+8'(#.2.$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&.$&#+8'-$.#.-%E)"#Q$P#00$P.2.$S&&.3-)$C(2%+8.)3E)$!%P()"'&.3"'.$.&$%2$N.5.(.$9Exhibit 20:$BF.$&+%.(.$`3-%/#+$MF.$L"#).$&#+8'-$.$M@B@5$ U $7SNT7$#c.+'00#.$&+%J'.0$J5$6#P2'#0.-%E)"#Q$./.%3E8#(-).0)$P#+#$&+%J'.J#$(%-$/##($.-'%($E(.J'.$&#+8'-$.0.$M@B@$N<6$3%(2'+8#.-$#'1"-$9G:$%2$-"#$BB$1+.)$a7S#.(.$.=`3-%/#+.$%(04$'(30E.$&+%J'.$L"#).-%E)"#Q$kB$`X$Y#00.+4$ .#+.$M@B@.$M@B@5$ B@ $Z.$S&&.'(#.%(#.45$$ !"#$Z.&&0'3.$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$MF.'(.$`3-%/#+$MF.E3#.&&0'3.$P#00)$"..+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$9aRobsonb:5$ N<6$#*&0.0.#.-'%($E(.(.$ BB5 D.$ )E/&%#(.3"'./04$-"#$3%.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1..+4$MU.+'00#.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.g$$$ ]5 A3"P#'1"%2#+$P#00$9Exhibit 11$and 11A:]g$$$ U5 A-%3Q&%+-$P#00$9Exhibit 12:Ug$$$ _5 7+#)-%($P#00$9Exhibit 13:_g$$ G5 X#E-"#+$P#00$9Exhibit 14:Gg$$ ?5 OdT$P#00$9Exhibit 15:?g$$$ B@5 N.#+$l#J'($T.'(1$-P%$&.$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&.#.+-(#+)$kB=B$`X$Y#00.$6#P2'#0.'(.Q#$S&&.$9Exhibit 18 and 18A:BM$ 9aMatoushekb:g$.Q#$S&&.3"'.-"#+'(1$.$+#-+'#J#.E3-'%($P#00.$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$MF.1#$?$%2$>>$ F $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .(.$KKL.3"'.0.(.$3%()-+E3-'%($3%8&0#-#.$'-$')$(%-$.'(#.(.-"#+#.%3E8#(-).$mANL.(.$KKL$ ? $ S)$%2$8'.$&#+8'-$.$M@B@5$ N<OL$D#.$/4$N<6$%($`3-%/#+$M@.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.

E3-'%(5b$N<OL$ 30.5L%.E3-'%($P#00)5$!"#$ 7#(()40J.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$%2$-"#$N#0.)$)E22'3'#(-$"E8.P.P.-#$-"#$&%-#(-'.-'%($P#00$.#3')'%($-%$1+.-$-"#$+')Q$.2.(.-'%($P#00b$'($'-)$+#1E0.($#*&0%+.()$.-"#+#.#$_G5B$N#2'('-'%()$ N<OL$D#.$.0'-4$.)-#+($7#(()40J.-#.-%+4$ P#00b$'($'-)$.$P#00)$8##-$N<OLV)$.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.+'2'#.-"#+$BB$P#00)$3+#.(.#3')'%()$-%$8.$SE1E)-$>.('.#2'('-'%($%2$.Q#$.$&+%.3#$2%+$ #*&0%+.-#+$7+%-#3-#.$P'-"$#*&0%+./%-$kM$P#00$2E+-"#+$ .+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$9Exhibit 25:5$ B_ $M]$7.(.$/E-$.+.0#$c%+8.(.-'(1.($"#.))E8&-'%($-".$P'-"$-"#$1+.$#(J'+%(8#(-.$aN<OL$T0'8'(.$N<OLV)$.)'([$ $ N5>$$ S+#$-"#+#$)E22'3'#(-$&0.$L%.$-"#$N<OL$P+%-#$S+/%+$`&#+.3-'%($7+%^#3-)$'($A".#$_G5BB$7#+8'-$<#\E'+#8#(-)$ BG $M]$7.-#+).0#$Y#00$.))%3'.$ L%.2.1#$B@$%2$>>$ $ .&&0'3.$L%.-#+$ \E.('.+'00'(1$-"#$P#00$a)%0#04b$2%+$ #*&0%+.($&+%.$a3.)$1+.))%3'.”$B]$ $ K.$M@@?.%#)$(%-$.$&0E1$&0.$.-'%()$'($ N#0.$<#1E0.4$B?.$2%+$a&+%.$Z.Q#$.-'%(5B_$!"#$7#(()40J.#$+#\E'+#)$.E3-'%($P#00)[$$ $ N5F$ N'.$-"#$+#\E'+#8#(-$2%+$.$/4$N<OL$.-'%($P#00)[ $ N5]$$ Y.5L%.(.22'+8'(1$-".P.$ -%$-"#$+')Q$.+#V)$O.-'(1$KKL.-#+$'($SE1E)-$M@@?.)$2%+$X.$&+%.-$)-.-%+$-%$%/-.(.$Z.$P#00)$E)#.('.)$T*-+.($`&#+.#2'(#$.[$ D.4$B?.$P#00.#2'('-'%($'(30E.$'($7SNT7V)$.8./'0'-4.$S+#.$Y.#.)H$$ $ “A well that when drilled or altered produces gas or is anticipated to produce gas from the Marcellus Shale geologic formation5b$BG$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ B> B] $c%+$#*.$+')Q$-%$P.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.00$/#3.$.B>$$/E-$E)#)$-"#$-#+8$a#*&0%+.(.)#.-'%($..1 Do the Grandfathered Wells Meet the Definition of Exploration Well? !"#$N<OL$.-E)[$$ $ N5M$ N%$#*&0%+.#.-"#+#.$M@@?$(#P)$+#0#.-$.(.&$.0$-%$8'-'1.(.(5b$$ $ “As Arbor has stated that they propose to develop the well if a viable quantity of natural gas is discovered.$9Exhibit 26:5$$ BU $N<OL$0#--#+$-%$S+/%+$`&#+.)$N<OLV)$.%#)$(%-$8.+'00'(1$&+%^#3-)$'($7#(()40J.E3-'%($P#00$2%+$&E+&%)#)$%2$-".$M@@?$7+#))$<#0#.0-".)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.(.('.')-'(3-'%($/#-P##($#*&0%+.E)#$ 7SNT7$".-#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.#.$B???5$ $N<OL$Z.($#*&0%+.(.-"#+#.')-'(3-'%($ /#-P##($.-'%($P#00)$&%)#$0%P#+$+')Q$-". The well may not be covered under the determination if a cap and plug plan is submitted to the Commission and it is affirmed that the well will be properly abandoned upon completion and collection of necessary exploratory data [emphasis added].H$$ $ “Wells intended solely for exploratory purposes are not covered by this determination.-'%($&E+&%)#)$.-'%($.'(1$'-)$L.”16 $ !"#$7#(()40J.$P.#2'('-'%($%2$.$P#00)$')$)8. An exploratory well is one that the project sponsor intends to plug and cap at the conclusion of exploratory activities without use for production or fracking [emphasis added].0$2%+$'(3+#.-'%().$.$N<OL.-#)$<#J'#P$!"+#)"%0.2#-4$&+%-#3-'%()$'($&0.2.+#$<'J#+$O. the well is not therefore being drilled solely for exploratory purposes and is again covered under the Executive Director’s Determination.-'%()$2%+$A%E-"#.-$'-)$#*&0%+.$X+%E(.$'-)$.$P#00$2%E(.%#)$(%-$8.$+#)&%(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.8&0#.Q#$.-'%(b$.+3#00E)$A".)#$-".#$.-'%($ P#00$#0'1'/0#$2%+$1+.$C(35$$ 7.('.(.)#.$KKL$ B@ $ N5B$$ N%$-"#$P#00)$0')-#.$).$&+%-#3-'%()$'(30E.'($.%#)$.$)-.-#$.$N.#$.2.(.($#*&0%+.-#.&&+%J.$-"#$+#\E'+#8#(-$-%$/#$.-'%($P#00$.)'(V)$A&#3'.$&#+8'-$2%+$.0$.')-'(3-'%($/#-P##($a#*&0%+.'(.$KKL$+#1.-'%($P#00$'($.#2'(#$-"#$-#+8$a#*&0%+.(.

(.')30%)#$-"#$(E8/#+$%2$(#-$&+%.$`'0$.$&+%.(.0$+#&%+-'(1$&E+&%)#)5$ $ !"#+#2%+#.-$.-E).+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$(%$S&&0'3.)$+#)#+J#$+#&%+-'(1$'($-"#$mA5$!"#$ ATL$.#2'('-'%($.(.)H$$ $ aAn exploratory well is a well drilled to find a new field or to find a new reservoir in a field previously found to be productive of oil or gas in another reservoir.+04$.(.(. an extension well.$ #*&#(.(./.)$%+$ L%8&0#-'%($<#&%+-)MM$&+%J'.3-'J#$Y#00$A-.$3.+-)$MB@5>=B@9.-'%($P#00)$ .(.0)%$+#\E'+#)$`&#+.$&0E1$.&&#.$N./.:9BF:g$9Exhibit 24:$ $B_$Lc<$7.(5$$$ $ c%+$-"#$-"+##$9F:$P#00)$.0'24$.4$.)$#*')-$-"#4$)"%E0.('.(.-'%($P#00$8.+$-%$/#$.$9L+E8.-"#+#.$3..(.)$3%+'(1$.#+.5MB$!"#+#2%+#$-"#$`&#+.-$3%00#3-$1#%0%1'3$.-'%(b$.)$S3-5$ $ !"#$mA$A#3E+'-'#)$.+$-%$/#$ .3"$%2$-"#$BB$P#00)$0')-#.#2'('-'%($.$E(.%$(%-$.5$ $ C2$N<OLV)$.$/%-"$-"#$N<OL$.&&#.20 !"#$ATL$..)$-+E#$a#*&0%+.(./'0'-4.(.-%+4$P#00$.&"'3$-#)-$P#00)$.')&%)'-'%(.(.$8E)-$/#$&0E11#.:9F@:g$9Exhibit 24:$ MB $B_$Lc<$7.%(8#(-$&0.P.$/4$N<OL$.0.$)E3"$.($#*&0%+.&&#.$\E.&&#.$1.(4$&0E1$.2.1#$BB$%2$>>$ $ .($#*&0%+.-'%($%+$ &+%.$&+%J'.#(-'24$-"#$-4&#$%2$P#00$-". geologically directed.-'%($P#00)b$/#3.($#*&0%+.0+#.$ -"#)#$P#00)$.#.&&0'#.$P#00).$a)%0#04$2%+$#*&0%+.#+$-"#$7#(()40J./0#$#*&0%+.-'%($"%0#).$ )-.(.$C(35$$ 7.-'%($P#00$.E3-'J#$.$X.#. or a stratigraphic test well as those items are defined in this section [emphasis added].+-)$MB@5>=B@9. to obtain information pertaining to a specific geologic condition.+4$#*&0%+.+'00#.(.)$#*&0%+.$2%+$84$+#J'#P$-%$)"%P$-"#$2'(.+$-".$.$.)'(.+'00#.+#$<'J#+$O.$-"#+#$P#+#$(%$Y#00$<#3%+.Q#)$'-)$#*&0%+.$T*3".#2'(#)$.+-$MM?5BM@]g$9Exhibit 25:$ MM $7SNT7$c%+8$]]@@=cZ=@X@@@B$ MF $7SNT7$c%+8$]]@@=cZ=@X@@]U5$ M> $7SNT7$c%+8$]]@@=cZ=`X@@@]$%+$]]@@=cZ=`X@@@]S$ M] $7SNT7$c%+8$]]@@=cZ=@X@@@U5$$ N<OL$D#.”19 !"#$ATL$.#2'('-'%($%2$. a service well.-'1+.(.+'04$'(30E.$Y%%.-%+$8E)-$'.J#$.+'00#.$/E-$-"')$.E3-'%($2%+$2#.-%+4$P#00$.(.-E).)$S3-$.#+$1+.$(%$L#+-'2'3.$.$`'0$.(.$ATL$.$2%+$ "4.8.-'(1$-".5$$ O#3. The classification also includes tests identified as core tests and all types of expendable holes related to hydrocarbon exploration.Q#$'-$J#+4$30#.#$P#00)$/#'(1$.-%+)$-%$..'(#.-$.('.E)#$(%(#$.$.-'%($P#00$')$(%-$.&$&0.%(#.$.#2'('-'%($%(#$)-#&$2E+-"#+$ /4$30#.+-'3E0.-#$%2$Y#00$ 70E11'(15M]$C2$-"%)#$+#3%+.-'%($P#00$')$.E)#$-"#+#$.$2%+$+#J'#P5$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ B? M@ $B_$Lc<$7.(.+$-%$".$.#2'('-'%($%2$#*&0%+.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.E3-'%($P#005$!"#$N<OL$-.(.(.$(%(#$%2$-"#)#$P#00)$P%E0.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.M>$.-'(1$P#00b$.-'%($2%+$ C(.+'00#.(.0$P#00$.(.$!##&0#$kB:.$/#$%/-.-"#+#.2. Generally.+%3.MF$(%$6%-'3#$%2$C(-#(-$/4$Y#00$`&#+..P.($a%&#+.+'00#.-.-"#+#. Stratigraphic tests are classified as ‘‘exploratory type’’ if not drilled in a known area or ‘‘development type’’ if drilled in a known area.#2'(#)$.$KKL$ BB $ $ !"#$7#(()40J.2.$X.)$-"%)#$P#00)$-".(1#$L%88'))'%($9ATL:$1%J#+()$%'0$.$-%$#.$(%(#$.E3-'%(H$$ “Stratigraphic test well is a drilling effort.$.)$ 1+.+#$a%&#+.$'($-"#$N#0.$.)$. an exploratory well is any well that is not a development well.%#)$(%-$3E)-%8.+/%($&+%.()$97dS:$2%+$-"#$1+.+'00#. Such wells customarily are drilled without the intent of being completed for hydrocarbon production.'(..-$')$/#'(1$.#2'(#)$)-+.-'(1$P#00)b$E(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(4$P#00$(%-$&0E11#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.($ #*&0%+.-%+$-%$70E1$.$Y#00.

$)E&&%+-'(1$8.$Z.#+$#*&0%+.$P'-"$.$OdT.-"#+#.3"'.$S&&.$X#E-"#+.8'(#.-'%(.0)$ &+%J'.-'%($.-'%()$)E&&%+-)$.$M@B@$0#--#+)$2+%8$6#P2'#0.0$%2$&+%.88%(.$P'-"$. A core is to be taken from several formations throughout the drilling process of this well and additional scientific study is to be performed on multiple formations including.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.(.-'%()5$ 6#P2'#0.$KKL.2. micro-seismic studies and fluid sampling.+.8#$0.'(1$N5K5$!##&0#$Y#00$kB=B.-$-"#$!##&0#$kB$.0.$KKL$')$-"#$`&#+.#.$A3"P#'1"%2#+.(#)).+.-#+'.-#)H$ $ “Newfield Appalachia PA.)$#*')-$-"#4$)"%E0.$L%(-'(1#(34$977L:$70.$)E/8'--#.0)%$'(30E.%$(%-$2.4(#$L%E(-45$ j#-.$N.$-"#$0'(#$/#-P##($ #*&0%+.$-"#$. this well is not to be complete for production.$7+#J#(-'%($.')-'(3-$.$&+%.-'%()$.$0#--#+$-%$7SNT7.E3-'%($P#005$!"#+#2%+#. Operations will involve natural gas exploration of the Marcellus Shale formation.P. drilling and well development and production activities [emphasis added].$'($Exhibit 95$$ M? $6#P2'#0.$/#$.(.$S&&.-'%($8.$S&+'0$B.$-%$7SNT7$#*&0.$A3"P#'1"%2#+$P#00)$.-'%($P#00)$'(-%$&+%.-'%()$.3-'J'-'#)5$7+%.-'%(5$!"#$8.')30%)#. this wellbore will either be plugged and abandoned per PADEP regulations.3"'.E3-'%($P#00)5$m(0#))$6#P2'#0.8.$-"#$P#00$.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$6%-'3#)$%2$C(-#(-$-%$&0E1$ -"#$1+.E3-'%($ %&#+.-%+$-%$70E1$ .$P#00)5$6#P2'#0.2.V)$P#00)$.+.$KKL. or reconfigured and converted to a production well.$P#00)5$$ MG $6#P2'#0.#$2.3"'.$'($Exhibit 115$$ N<OL$D#./'0'-4.:.$.00$E(.($#*&0%+.(.$".$7+#J#(-'%($.$ 7+#)-%(.$KKL$ BM $ c%+$-"#$+#8.^%+'-4$%2$-"#$1+.(.$.$".5$ $ S/)#(-$.)$(%-$8#-$N<OLV)$.$L%(-'(1#(34$977L:$70.'(.4$M@B@.V)$0#--#+)$)-.$&+%.-'%($P#005$$ $ MU M_ $7SNT7$c%+8$]]@@=cZ=`X@@@]$%+$]]@@=cZ=`X@@@]S$ $6#P2'#0.$C(35$$ 7.)%(.($)-.+#. not to be hydraulically fractured and is not to produce gas.(.$Y#005MU$C2$-"#)#$+#3%+.$/#3. but not limited to.$KKL.&&+%J.$7S. Pennsylvania.3-%$.$!##&0#$kBMG$. conversion to inactive status or reconfiguration and conversion to production.(.)$'($-"#$Z.(.3"'.&&+%J.-'(1$-".8#$0%3.V)$7+#&.$S&+'0$B. In the future.$4#-$0#.$ A3"P#'1"%2#+5M?$!"#$).” $ O%-"$%2$6#P2'#0.(.-'%($P#00)5$$ $ S&+'0$B.$-"#+#$')$(%$6%-'3#$%2$C(-#(-$/4$Y#00$`&#+.+#$'(-#(.))E8&-'%($-".V)$ &#+8'-$.$N.$M@B@$+#1.$+#.)$/0E++#.$8.+3#00E)$A".$S&&.+-$%22$/4$)-.%3E8#(-.(.$7S.0.-'%($&E+&%)#).1#.00$'-)$ 1+.)$E)#.'(#.” M_ T*&0%+.((#+$'($P"'3"$6#P2'#0.0#$'($Y.J#$(%-$4#-$/##($.$S&&.$9<E-0#.-'%($%&#+.$%(04$ 2%+$#*&0%+. Prior to either plugging and abandonment.(1E.'('(1$#'1"-$9G:$P#00)$-".E)#$6#P2'#0.&&0'3.(.-#$.-$".+'00#.$&%))'/'0'-4$-%$3%(J#+-$ #. LLC (Newfield) is a natural gas exploration company with operations planned for Wayne County.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$M@B@$+#1.-'%()$.0.#.&&0'3.-"#+#.$7+#&.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.3"$P#00$-%$.$%2$#*&0%+.%$(%-$8##-$N<OLV)$.#2'('-'%($%2$#*&0%+.$)E/8'--#.-'%($)"%P'(1$'(-#(-$-%$&0E1$-"#$P#00.0. we acknowledge that additional permitting will be necessary with approvals from the PADEP and other regulatory bodies with jurisdiction [emphasis added].-'%($%2$-"#$P#00)$%&#(. converted to inactive status and utilized as a monitoring well. geophysical logs.-#+'.'(1$TZ$A3"P#'1"%2#+$Y#00$kB=B./0#$.&&0'3.(#)). Teeple Well #1-1] is to develop a well which is intended solely for exploration purposes.0$%2$-"#)#$P#00)$')$.(.-'%($.E3-'%($%&#+. which will include site preparation.+#$-P%$)#&.J#$-"#$2E-E+#$E-'0'R.-%+$2%+$.$A-%3Q&%+-.#+$-"#$E8/+#00.$7+%.+#.(.0$1.$7S.$.(.1#$P.$'($/%-"$0#--#+)H$$ $ “This permit [D.$6#P2'#0.$P#00).$-"#$&E+&%)#$%2$-P%$P#00).-E+.J'.1#$BM$%2$>>$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .#2'('-'%($%2$.$7S.-'%($.$D.-$-"#'+$'(-#(-$')$-%$3%(J#+-$ )E33#))2E0$#*&0%+.$2%+$84$+#J'#P$P#+#$#*. As permitted and configured.E3-'%($9Td7:$%&#+.E3-'%($P#00)$ '($-"#$).$0#--#+$-%$7SNT7.(.2.-"#+#.L.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.0)$&+%&%)#$-%$#*&0%+#$2%+$(.3-'J'-'#)$E(.#)$P#00$production$.$2%+$`&#+.)%(.-%+$'(-#(-5$$ $ 6#P2'#0.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

BF

$
O.)#,$%($-"#$,.-.$&+%J',#,$2%+$84$+#J'#P;$'-$')$E(30#.+$"%P$N<OL$,#3',#,$-%$'(30E,#$-"#$BB$P#00)$'($'-)$ )&+#.,)"##-$.)$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$9Exhibit 4:;$#)&#3'.004$P"#($-"#)#$P#00)$,%$(%-$8##-$ N<OLV)$%P($,#2'('-'%($2%+$.($#*&0%+.-'%($P#005$$ $ C-$')$.0)%$E(30#.+$P"4$N<OL$'(30E,#,$-"#$A-%3Q&%+-$.(,$7+#)-%($P#00)$'($-"#$0')-$%2$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00);$ /#3.E)#$-"#$+#(#P.0$.&&0'3.-'%()$2%+$-"#$A-%3Q&%+-$.(,$7+#)-%($P#00)$P#+#$(%-$)E/8'--#,$E(-'0$.2-#+$eE(#$ B>;$M@B@;$.(,$-"#$+#(#P.0$&#+8'-)$P#+#$(%-$.&&+%J#,$E(-'0$eE04$M@;$M@B@5F@$C($%-"#+$P%+,);$-"#$3E++#(-04$ .&&+%J#,$&#+8'-)$P#+#$.&&+%J#,$/4$7SNT7$.2-#+$-"#$eE(#$B>;$M@B@$N<OL$3E-=%22$,.-#$2%+$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$ P#00)5$ $ !"#$8.'($,'22#+#(3#$/#-P##($.($#*&0%+.-'%($P#00$.(,$.$&+%,E3-'%($P#00$')$-".-$#*&0%+.-%+4$,+'00'(1;$/4$ ,#2'('-'%(;$)##Q)$-%$0%3.-#$E(Q(%P($)E/)E+2.3#$"4,+%3.+/%()$-%$,#-#+8'(#$'2$-"#4$#*')-$.(,$3.($/#$ &+%,E3#,$'($3%88#+3'.0$\E.(-'-'#)5$Z%)-$3%8&.('#)$".J#$#*&0%+.-'%($,#&.+-8#(-)$-".-$.+#$)#&.+.-#$.(,$ ,')-'(3-$2+%8$&+%,E3-'%($,+'00'(1$,#&.+-8#(-)5$T*&0%+.-'%($,#&.+-8#(-)$-4&'3.004$".J#$"'1"#+$0#J#0)$%2$ ,.-.$)#3E+'-4;$,#)'1(.-#,$#*&0%+.-%+4$/E,1#-);$.(,$,#,'3.-#,$)-.22$-".-$)&#3'.0'R#$'($2'(,'(1$(#P$ "4,+%3.+/%($)%E+3#)5$f#+4$)8.00$3%8&.('#)$8.4$3%8/'(#$#*&0%+.-'%($.(,$&+%,E3-'%($,+'00'(1$)-.22;$ "%P#J#+;$2E(,'(1$,%3E8#(-)$2%+$#.3"$P#00$P'00$30#.+04$,#0'(#.-#$-"#$(.-E+#$%2$-"#$P#00$.(,$P"#-"#+$'-$P.)$ 2E(,#,$.(,$0%3.-#,$.)$.$-+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#005$S,,'-'%(.004;$.)$#*&0.'(#,$./%J#;$-"#$`&#+.-%+$.0)%$".)$-%$ ,#)'1(.-#$-"#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00$-4&#$.(,$-+.3Q$2'(,'(1)$'($'-)$ATL$+#&%+-'(15$!"#$%+1.('R.-'%(.0$)-+E3-E+#$%2$ #.3"$3%8&.(4;$2E(,'(1$,%3E8#(-)$2%+$#.3"$P#00;$.(,$.(4$ATL$+#&%+-'(1$,.-.$-".-$".)$/##($,#J#0%&#,$ P#+#$(%-$.J.'0./0#$2%+$+#J'#P5$$$ $ T*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$.+#$-4&'3.004$,+'00#,$%($0%P$,#()'-4$)&.3'(1$-%$3%J#+$0.+1#$.+#.);$#)&#3'.004$P"#($,+'00#,$ /4$.$)'(10#$`&#+.-%+5$!+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$-#)-$1#%0%1'3$"4,+%3.+/%($-+.&$-"#%+'#);$.--#8&-'(1$-%$0%3.-#$ "4,+%3.+/%()$-".-$".J#$/##($-+.&&#,$'($3%88#+3'.0$\E.(-'-'#)5$!4&'3.004$.$-#.8$%2$1#%0%1')-);$ 1#%&"4)'3')-)$.(,$+#)#+J%'+$#(1'(##+)$)#0#3-$.($#*&0%+.-'%($P#00$0%3.-'%($/.)#,$%($)#')8'3$,.-.;$1#%0%1'3$ '(2%+8.-'%($'($-"#$+#1'%(;$%22)#-$P#00$,.-.$.(,$%-"#+$'(2%+8.-'%($-".-$8.4$/#$.J.'0./0#5$c'(.(3'.004$'-$')$ -%%$+')Q4$2%+$.$)'(10#$`&#+.-%+$-%$,+'00$8E0-'&0#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$'($+.&',$)E33#))'%($'($.$)8.00$.+#.;$ -#)-'(1$-"#$).8#$"4,+%3.+/%($-+.&$-"#%+45$!4&'3.004;$.$)'(10#$`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`&#+.-%+$-%$/#$,+'00'(1$#*&0%+.-%+4$P#00)$'($+.&',$)E33#))'%(;$P'-"$0'--0#$%+$(%$%&&%+-E('-4$-%$'(2%+8$ 2E-E+#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00$0%3.-'%()$9Exhibit 29$&+%J',#)$.$8.&$)"%P'(1$-"#$P#00$,#()'-4:5$!"#$&.3#$%2$ 6#P2'#0,V)$,+'00'(1$&+%1+.8$)-+%(104$'(,'3.-#)$-".-$)#J#+.0$%2$-"#)#$P#00)$.+#$.Q'($-%$&+%,E3-'%($P#00);$ +.-"#+$-".($-+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)5$$

$!"#$%+'1'(.0$&#+8'-)$#*&'+#,$'($eE04$M@B@5$!"#$eE04$M@;$M@B@$&#+8'-$+#(#P.0$&%)-=,.-#)$-"#$eE(#$B>;$M@B@$1+.(,2.-"#+$3E-=%22$ ,.-#$9Exhibits 12 and 13:5$!"#$%+'1'(.0$A-%3Q&%+-$.(,$7+#)-%($P#00$.&&0'3.-'%()$P#+#$.&&+%J#,$/4$7SNT7$&+'%+$-%$eE(#$B>;$M@B@$ /E-$-"#$`&#+.-%+$7#(()P%%,$`'0$d$X.)$KKL$,',$(%-$.3-$%($#'-"#+$P#005$$

F@

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$
N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$ 7.1#$BF$%2$>>$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

B>

$
$ $ Findings: o$ N<OL$,#2'(#,$.$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00$.)$.$P#00$'(-#(,#,$)%0#04$2%+$#*&0%+.-%+4$ &E+&%)#)$.(,$%(#$-".-$')$&0E11#,$.(,$3.&&#,$.-$-"#$3%(30E)'%($%2$#*&0%+.-%+4$.3-'J'-'#)$ P'-"%E-$2E-E+#$E)#$2%+$&+%,E3-'%(5$ 6%$'(2%+8.-'%($P.)$&+%J',#,$2%+$84$+#J'#P$-%$)"%P$-".-$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$P'00$/#$ &#+8.(#(-04$&0E11#,$.(,$./.(,%(#,$.2-#+$-"#$P#00)$.+#$,+'00#,5$ !"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00$&#+8'-)$,%$(%-$)&#3'24$-"#$3%8&0#-'%($8#-"%,;$.(,$-"#$F@$,.4$ 3%8&0#-'%($+#&%+-)$)"%P'(1$-"#$2'(.0$,')&%)'-'%($%2$#.3"$P#00$P#+#$(%-$.J.'0./0#$2%+$+#J'#P5$$$ S$6%-'3#$%2$C(-#(-$/4$Y#00$`&#+.-%+$-%$70E1$.$Y#00$.(,I%+$.$L#+-'2'3.-#$%2$Y#00$70E11'(1$,%$ (%-$.&&#.+$-%$".J#$/##($)E/8'--#,$2%+$.(4$%2$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)5$$ S/)#(-$.(4$(#P$,.-.$)"%P'(1$-".-$-"#$`&#+.-%+)$%2$-"#$a1+.(,2.-"#+#,b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eE04$M@;$M@B@;$.2-#+$-"#$3E-=%22$,.-#$2%+$ 1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)5$$$ Y#00$,#()'-4$.(,$,+'00'(1$&.3#$.+#$)-+%(1$'(,'3.-%+)$%2$P#00$-4&#5$!"#$,#()'-4$.(,$&.3#$%2$ )%8#$%2$-"#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00);$#)&#3'.004$6#P2'#0,V)$P#00);$.+#$'(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$#*&0%+.-'%($ P#00$30.))'2'3.-'%(5$$ cE(,'(1$,%3E8#(-)$2%+$#.3"$P#00$P'00$30#.+04$,#0'(#.-#$-"#$(.-E+#$%2$-"#$P#00$.(,$P"#-"#+$'-$ P.)$2E(,#,$.(,$0%3.-#,$.)$.$-+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#005$cE(,'(1$,%3E8#(-)$".J#$(%-$/##($ .J.'0./0#$2%+$+#J'#P5$

o$ o$ o$ o$

o$ o$

o$ o$

o$

$

D.2

Do Exploration Wells Pose a Lower Risk Than Production Wells?

$ T*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$.+#$+')Q'#+$-".($&+%,E3-'%($P#00)$/#3.E)#$2.3-%+)$)E3"$.)$&+#))E+#);$-#8&#+.-E+#)$.(,$ ,+'00'(1$".R.+,)$.+#$(%-$Q(%P($%+$.+#$E(3#+-.'(5$`($.J#+.1#$_$%E-$%2$#J#+4$B@@@$%()"%+#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$ P'00$+#)E0-$'($.$/0%P%E-5$FB;FM$O0%P%E-)$3.($#^#3-$,+'00'(1$8E,;$1.);$%'0$.(,I%+$2%+8.-'%($P.-#+$2+%8$-"#$ P#00$.(,$%(-%$P.-#+)$.(,$0.(,)$.,^.3#(-$-%$-"#$P#00;$P'-"'($-"#$+.,'E)$%2$-"#$/0%P%E-$&0E8#5$N#&#(,'(1$ %($-"#$+#)#+J%'+$&+#))E+#;$/0%P%E-$3'+3E8)-.(3#);$.(,$P'(,$)&##,$-"#)#$&%00E-.(-)$3.($/#$,')-+'/E-#,$ "E(,+#,)$-%$-"%E).(,)$%2$2##-$.P.4$2+%8$-"#$P#005FF$7%00E-.(-)$-".-$+#.3"$.$P.-#+$)4)-#8)$3.($/#$3.++'#,$
FB

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$<.(.;$A5;$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$<')Q)=$`'0$.(,$X.)$`&#+.-'%()$<#,E3'(1$L%8&0'.(3#$L%)-$m)'(1$A8.+-#+$!#3"(%0%1'#);$A%3'#-4$%2$ 7#-+%0#E8$T(1'(##+'(1$7.&#+$BMB]?]=ZA;$S)'.$7.3'2'3$D#.0-";$A.2#-4;$A#3E+'-4$.(,$T(J'+%(8#(-$L%(2#+#(3#;$>=U$SE1E)-$M@@?;$ e.Q.+-.;$C(,%(#)'.;$M@@?5$ FM $<.(.;$A5;$c.3-)$.(,$N.-.$%($T(J'+%(8#(-.0$<')Q)=$`'0$.(,$X.)$N+'00'(1$`&#+.-'%();$A%3'#-4$%2$7#-+%0#E8$T(1'(##+'(1$7.&#+$ BB>??F;$`3-%/#+$M@@G5$$ FF $A5K5$<%))$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$<#)#.+3"$K'8'-#,;$`'0$N#&%)'-'%($Z%,#0'(1$c%+$AE+2.3#$`'0$Y#00$O0%P%E-);$B??G5$ N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$ 7.1#$B>$%2$>>$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

B]

$
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“The uncontrolled eruption of a well is one of the most critical accidents that can occur both during exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon fields. Significant HSE [health, safety and environmental] issues are associated to this event that introduces safety risks for the field operators, potential health injury for the population living in the area and impacts, mainly associated to the hydrocarbon contamination, on the environment.”34 $ O#3.E)#$-+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00);$/4$,#2'('-'%(;$.+#$#*&0%+'(1$'(-%$&+#J'%E)04$E(Q(%P($.(,$E(8.&&#,$ "4,+%3.+/%($2%+8.-'%();$.($#*&0%+.-'%($`&#+.-%+$8E)-$/#$&+#&.+#,$-%$#(3%E(-#+$/%-"$%'0$.(,$1.)5$Y"'0#$ .($#*&0%+.-'%($`&#+.-%+$8.4$)##Q$1.);$.)$')$-"#$)-.-#,$'(-#(-$'($-"#)#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00);$'-$3.((%-$+E0#$ %E-$-"#$&%-#(-'.0$-%$#(3%E(-#+$%'0$#(+%E-#$-%$-"#$1.)$-.+1#-;$%+$'()-#.,$%2$"'--'(1$.$1.)$-.+1#-5$$T*&0%+.-'%($'($ %-"#+$.+#.)$%2$7#(()40J.('.$".)$+#)E0-#,$'($2'(,)$%2$/%-"$%'0$.(,$1.);$-"#+#2%+#$-"')$')$.$+#.)%(./0#$ .))E8&-'%(;$E(0#))$-"#$`&#+.-%+$".)$'(2%+8.-'%($-%$&+%J#$-".-$(%$%'0$#*')-)$2+%8$%22)#-$P#00$,.-.5$C($-".-$ 3.)#;$'2$-"#+#$')$)E22'3'#(-$'(2%+8.-'%($-%$+E0#$%E-$-"#$&+#)#(3#$%2$%'0;$-"#+#$')$0'Q#04$)E22'3'#(-$'(2%+8.-'%($ -%$8.Q#$-"#$3.)#$-".-$-"#$P#00$')$(%-$.$-+E#$#*&0%+.-'%($P#005$ $ C($/%-"$7#(()40J.('.F]$.(,$6#P$j%+QFU%'0$".)$/##($2%E(,$'($-"#$m&&#+$N#J%('.($c%+8.-'%()$./%J#$-"#$ Z.+3#00E)$A".0#$!"#+#2%+#;$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$#*&0%+.-'%($P#00)$)"%E0,$".J#$/##($#\E'&&#,$P'-"$,#-.'0#,$ &0.()$-%$&+#J#(-$.(,$+#)&%(,$-%$.$1.)$.(,I%+$%'0$P#00$/0%P%E-5$ $ “Oil deposition in the area surrounding a blowout is one of the most visible consequences of the loss of control over well flow. Less visible, but equally serious, are the short- to medium-term effects of oil coverage on the environment… Apart from the direct damage to capital goods, crops, and water basins and the cost of subsequent cleanup operations, there are medium- to long-term effects, such as reduced tree growth over a period of many years following the incident…Hence, oil fallout, in the case of loss of well control, is a factor to be taken into account in decisions on well locations, emergency procedures, contingency planning, etc. This requires an estimate of the area around the well likely to be affected by oil fallout, given the geomorphology of the terrain, prevailing winds, and expected outflow conditions [emphasis added].”37 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$O0%--%;$75;$T6C=$T*&0%+.-'%($d$7+%,E3-'%(;$N#J#0%&8#(-$%2$.($C(-#1+.-#,$S&&+%.3"$-%$-"#$<')Q$S(.04)')$%2$.$O0%P=%E-$ S33',#(-;$A%3'#-4$%2$7#-+%0#E8$T(1'(##+)$7.&#+$GU_@>=ZA;$A7T$C(-#+(.-'%(.0$L%(2#+#(3#$%($D#.0-";$A.2#-4;$.(,$T(J'+%(8#(-$'($ `'0$.(,$X.)$T*&0%+.-'%($.(,$7+%,E3-'%(;$M?=FB$Z.+3"$M@@>;$L.01.+4;$S0/#+-.;$L.(.,.;$M@@>5$$ F] $7#(()40J.('.$N#&.+-8#(-$%2$L%()#+J.-'%($.(,$6.-E+.0$<#)%E+3#);$7#(()40J.('.$X#%0%14;$f%0$M?;$6%5B;$A&+'(1$B??G5$ FU $6#P$j%+Q$A-.-#;$N+.2-$AE&&0#8#(-.0$X#(#+'3$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$C8&.3-$A-.-#8#(-$$9NAXTCA:$%($-"#$`'0;$X.)$d$A%0E-'%($Z'('(1$ <#1E0.-%+4$7+%1+.8$Y#00$7#+8'-$C))E.(3#$2%+$D%+'R%(-.0$N+'00'(1$.(,$D'1"=f%0E8#$D4,+.E0'3$c+.3-E+'(1$-%$N#J#0%&$-"#$ Z.+3#00E)$A".0#$.(,$`-"#+$K%P=7#+8#./'0'-4$X.)$<#)#+J%'+);$A#&-#8/#+$M@@?;$c'1E+#$>5M5$ F_ $`E,#8.(;$75;$A"#00$C(-#+(.-'%(.0$Td7;$`'0$c.00%E-$'($-"#$f'3'('-4$%2$S($`()"%+#$O0%P%E-H$`/)#+J.-'%()$%($S$c'#0,$L.)#;$ A%3'#-4$%2$7#-+%0#E8$T(1'(##+);$c.3'0'-'#)$d$L%()-+E3-'%($e%E+(.0;$f%0E8#$B;$6E8/#+$>;$N#3#8/#+$M@@U5$$ N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$ 7.1#$B]$%2$>>$
F>

$

'(1$P.#(-)$.-'%(.$"--&HIIPPP5)-.3#$0%3.0E.$.&&+%*'8.$&E/0'3$'(J%0J#8#(-b$9Exhibit 22:5FG$$ $ A".-$')$1#(#+.'(1$/%-"$ &%'(-$.$P#00$/.-#04$-P%$8'0#)$2+%8$-"#$<'J#+5$$!"#$0%3.E#$-%$-"#$'(3+#.$P.+#.$Z.PQ#(I<.$%-"#+$+%E-'(#$E)#)5$$ FG F? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $N<OL$f')'%($A-.E)#$.$J#+4$(#.-#.$ )-#P.-#+$-".0#$1.$.#)'1(.^.-'%($%2$-"#)#$ P#00)$'($)E3"$)#()'-'J#$.+8)$-".+#$a0%P#+$ +')Qb$')$'(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$-"#$Q(%P($"'1"#+$+')Q$&+%2'0#$2%+$.$(%(&%'(-$)%E+3#)$%2$&%00E-'%(g$1+%E(.-"#+#.+4$+#)&%()'/'0'-4$')$-%$&+%-#3-$P.$#J#($'2$2+.+$.(.3-'(1$.(1#+#.$2%+$ -"')$+#J'#P$-%$)"%P$-".0'-4.P.-#+$.0'-4$-+'/E-.3 Did DRBC’s decision to grandfather 11 wells create the potential for increased risk to water quality and water resources of the Delaware River Basin? $ N<OLV)$&+'8.#8.#.$!##&0#$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.(.)#.($".-'%($%2$-"#)#$#*&0%+.)$.#3')'%($-%$2%+#1%$+#1E0.E&0'3.-'%($-%$&+#J#(-$.#+.$.$/0%P%E-$%33E+5$ C()-#.$2%+$8'*'(1$3#8#(-.Q#$T(#+14. regardless of water use or waste amounts.(.0#$1.(.+'00'(1$ %&#+.($#*&0%+.(..+.#)'1('(1$.)#.-$'-)$8'))'%($')$%(#$%2H$a&+%J'.E3-'%($P#00).Q#$T(#+14$+#&%+-)$-".(.-$N<OL$)E&&%+-#.-'%().)$(%$.)$.#&-"$%2$-"#$P#00.+%E1"-$8.P.(..)$T*&0%+..R.00$0%3.&#.004$&+%-#3-#.+#$+')Q'#+$-".-'%($%2$-"#)#$#*&0%+.-#+$.8$20%P$8..-'%($P#00)$/#3.$3%()-+E3-'(1$.$)##Q'(1$'(3+#.)$.-#8#(-.)-#$ -".)$%($-"#$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($-#3"('\E#$E)#.-'%()$E)#$P.E)#$-"#4$.$-"#$.+04$P'-"$+#)&#3-$-%H$)E+2.$ 8'0#$2+%8$-"#$N#0.P.$ '(=)-+#.P.-#$P.$')$0#))$-".0$P'-"$.+2$Y#.'(1$P'-"$.3#(-$-%$ A"#".-#04$@5_$8'0#$.+#$(%-$&0.$P#00$3%(-+%0$'(3'.$.+#$E(Q(%P(5$ !"#$+')Q$%2$.E)#$DRBC determined that all shale gas wells. are subject to DRBC review5$D%P#J#+.3#$P.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$'($-"#$N#0.0#$X.$/#3.+/3IJ')'%(5"-8.--0#)(.$%($E(Q(%P($.5$ !"')$P.-.^.$')$.+#$.$P.3#(-$-%$D%00')-#+$L+##Q$.+'00'(1$%&#+.$'($0#))$)#()'-'J#$0%3.$L+E8$P#00)$.$P#00$/0%P%E-$%+$P#00$3%(-+%0$)'-E.$.5$ N<OLV)$.$)E+2.$N.1#8#(-g$.(.$-%$.+#2E0$ #J.$KKL$ BU $ !"#$Y%%.-#+$m)#$'($Z.$.$.#.00%3.$P#00.3-%+)5$$ $ !"')$+#&%+-$.(.$.I%+$%'0$ P#00$/0%P%E-5$$$ o$ o$ $ D.$.$M@B@5$ $L"#).-#+$P'-".(.$P"'0#$.02$.(.-#+$E)#$%+$P.-#+$3%()#+J.3-E+'(1$%&#+.J#$/##($#\E'&&#.)$ P#00$3..+'#)$%2$-"#$ N#0.$3+#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$#(.-#5(^5E)I.$.$`3-%/#+$M>.-#.(.8&0#.(.$2%+8.)'(V)$P.-#+5$!"#$.(.$.+'00$.(.-$8'1"-$20%P$2+%8$-"#)#$+')Q)$)"%E0.-'%($P#005$!"#+#$P.'22'3E0-4$'($.%3E8#(-5$$ $ Findings: o$ T*&0%+.$P+'--#($-#3"('3.P.)'(5$N<OL$+#&%+-)$ -%$-"#$&E/0'3$-".$ P.)$P#00$.00%()F?$%2$P.$2#.0$.-'%($%2$ #22%+-)$.$%-"#+$2.E)#$-"#4$.).8%E(-)$%2$P.$C(35$$ $ .$&+%J'..-'%()$ #(3%E(-#+#.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.-'%($.+3#00E)$A".(-'-4.&&+%*'8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.2.+.($&+%.+-'3E0..(.3-$.+#$<'J#+$O.-'%($P#00)$/#3.'(.(.-'%($P#005$$ !"#$1+.$".+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.-.8'(#$-"#$#*.$8.-#+$\E.3#$P.$'(30E.1#8#(-g$&+%8%-'(1$#22#3-'J#$'(-#+=./%J#$.)-#P.-$./'0'-4.+.+'00'(1$".$Z.E)-$3%(-+%0$.)#)$-"#$".%#)$(%-$#*.0#$1.((#.$ 3%0%(4$%2$NP.+'00'(1$8E.+3#00E)$N##&$A".($#*&0%+.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$&..+#$<'J#+5$$c%+$#*.@@@$1.(.)g$.-'%(.$P.&#.$&+%-#3-#.$ .0.(.$#*&0%+.1#8#(-g$.Q#$L+##Q.-$')$E)#.($+#\E'+#$B@@.$D'1"$WE.+'00'(1.$+#-+'#J#.(('(15$$ $ N<OLV)$.$L"#).$'(30E.(.$1.$Y.-'%($2%+$-"#)#$P#00)$)"%E0.$')$.+#.8%E(-$%2$P.-'%($P#00)$.+#$<'J#+$'-)#025$$D%00')-#+$L+##Q$20%P)$'(-%$-"#$<'J#+$.$-"#$)E+2..(.)$'(3+#.-#+)"#.-#+$.$'-)$0%P#+$+')Q$2'(.-'%($P#00)$)"%E0.1#$ZE))#0).$".$)".+3"$M@B@$9Exhibit 31:5$ 7.#&#(.J#$/##($)'-#.-'%()$P'-"$3.-#.-'%($%33E++'(1$')$"'1"#+$.(.+#$a0%P#+$+')Qb$')$ '(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$-"#$Q(%P($"'1"#+$+')Q$&+%2'0#$2%+$.$-"#$Y%%.$P#00.-'%($/#3.#3')'%($-%$2%+#1%$+#1E0.$&0.-#+$\E.(.1#$BU$%2$>>$ N<OL$D#.-#.-#+$')$E)#.-#+$-%$.$)&#3'#)5$$!##&0#$')$0%3.0).)$.)-#$2+%8$.'(1$3%8&+#"#()'J#$P..8.'(.$%2$-"#$O.1#(34$3%%+.-'%()$.0.)#.

-#+).'(.$.-'%(.#2'('-'%($%2$.#(-$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ZE)R4()Q'.$ 1.33%8&.$9&#+$-"#$Z.$.(4$P+'--#($#3%(%8'3$.18 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (RPP) by directing all sponsors of natural gas extraction projects in shale formations within the drainage area of Special Protection Waters to obtain Commission approval before commencing such projects.$Z.$.-#+$<#)%E+3#)$Z.+$-%$/#$.0$X.-'%($.+#$-4&'3.+8$'2$-"#$&+%^#3-)$P#+#$.-$)-.-#$.(.00#.0#$1.&&#.$'($-"#$O.8%E(-).-#.-E+.$N<OLV)$ .(4$P.004$3%(J#+-#.$e.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.-#+$-"+#)"%0.-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.$A#3-'%($M5F5]5O5U5 $ >M $N<OLV)$Y.(.(.$.)-#$. I exercised the authority conferred on the Executive Director by section 2.-#+$%+$P.$ P#00$`&#+.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.-"#+#.+#.))#))8#(-$-%$)E&&%+-$-"#$30.($ aexplorationb$P#005$ $ T*&0%+.0$"4.+'00'(1$'8&.+.-'%()5$ !"#+#$.(.$.-"#+#.1.$ .$)8.$C(35$$ 7.$Y5e5./0#$&+#3#.'8$-".+#$'()-./.E3-'%($ P#00)$%2$.(.#3')'%($-%$#0'8'(.)#:.%#)$(%-$.P.$'88#.'8$-".3-)$'($)#()'-'J#$P.0$".$P#00)$3%()-'-E-#.(.3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".+$-%$/#$.0$'(.'($N<OL$+#J'#P5$$$ $ In my Determination of May 2009.(.(-#.(.1#$S+#.#$A#3-'%($F5>@5$ >F $N<OL.$.($#*&0%+.)$P#00).2.)-#P.E3-'%($2.$N<OL$T(1.$-%$/#$'()-.-'J#04$ )8.$%2$A&#3'.(4'(1$&+#))$ +#0#.00$)".(E.$+#1.$M@B@5$$ >B $N<OLV)$<E0#)$%2$7+.1#$B_$%2$>>$ >@ $ .-.0$N#-#+8'(.-"#+#.$AE&&0#8#(-.004$7SNT7$".+$-%$/#$.0$X.$)E22#+$#3%(%8'3$".$7+%3#.$-"#$+')Q$P.)$P#00$.0$%+$)3'#(-'2'3$)E&&%+-$2%+$#*#8&-'(1$+#J'#P$%2$-"#$1+.$3%88#+3'.0#))$%2$P.-$-"#$+')Q$%2$.$'(-%$-"#$2'+)-$&+%.#-#+8'(#.)$P#00).-#$. notwithstanding that the thresholds for review established by the RPP were not exceeded [emphasis added].+#$)E/^#3-$-%$N<OL$+#J'#P5$!"#$N<OL$'))E#.00$+')Q$3%8&.-#+)b$9Exhibit 3:.-%+)$P%E0.$N<OL$.J%+.+%3.+'00'(1$-"#$ 1+.4#.('#)$P%E0.2.%#)$(%-$.)$(%$+#\E'+#8#(-$-%$&0E1$.$N#J#0%&8#(-.-'%($P#00)$-".$e.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$L%(3#+('(1$6.(.+'00'(1$%&#+.+#.(..H$$ $ Natural gas well activities (NGWA) [are] covered regardless of DRBC thresholds in RPP41 and Water Code [emphasis added].'-'%(.4$3%8&.'.'(.#2'('-'%($2%+$.$N<OL$3%(30E. N<OLV)$.8.$2%+$N<OL$+#J'#P$%2$)".)$%2$P#00)$&+%^#3-#.-$-"#$(E8/#+$%2$1+.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.#J#0%&8#(-.(.0#$1.$)E22#+$#3%(%8'3$".$#0'8'(.E)-+4$&+.'(1.$-".+/%($+#)#+J%'+$.(E.$N.&&#.$3%88#+3'.+3#00E)$A".$'($.&&+%J.)$P#00)$-%$%/-.$aAE&&0#8#(-.$M@B@5$ N<OL$D#.00#.0#$1.-"#+#.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.1#+$Y.$-"#+#$.2.-$)".)$a3%8&.(4$P+'--#($+')Q$.-"#+'(1$.-#04$&0E11#.$(%-$&+%J'.3-'3#$%+$)-.(.(.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$P#00)$P.+'00'(1$P.(4$+#J'#P$-"+#)"%0.3-'3#$.%#)$(%-$+#20#3-$-4&'3.(4$-#3"('3.-E+.3.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$.(.0#$ 1.0#$c%+8.+)5$$$ $ !"#+#$.(.-#+$E)#$%+$P.+.&&#.1#8#(-$'($6.%($)E33#))2E0$#*&0%+.-$-"#$BB$ P#00)$0')-#..(4$#J'.$#*3#&-$-%$ ).(.-$.$KKL$ B_ $ $ `($eE(#$B>.-E+.#0.+4$B?.$-%$-"#$ -"%E).++.4$M@@?$TNN$.+8$.($E(2.(.0#$ c%+8.3#$&+%.1#8#(-$O+.#.$+#\E'+'(1$.$N<OL$+#J'#Pg$'-$.-'%($P#00.$M@B@.3-'%($&+%^#3-).'.-#+)"#.0$ 7+%-#3-'%($Y.-"#+#.-#.-#+$L%.)$)#-)$.$2+%8$-"#$&+%&%)#.-'%($.3'0'-'#)$.E+#$9<77:.1#$S+#.#$ .-'%($9Exhibit 21:>@$-".2.)$ T*&0%+.)$#*-+.+%3.$)".$2%+$#*&0%+.$'($N<OLV)$)&+#.)'($%J#+$-"#$(#*-$)#J#+.$P.$%(3#$)E+2.$eE(#$B>./.0#$Z##-'(1.5 B.$.#3')'%($-%$.(.005b>F$N<OL$+#.#(3#$-%$)"%P$-".5$ S.'(..42 C($-"')$2'(.))#))8#(-$)E&&%+-'(1$-"#$30.)$T*-+.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$ L%(3#+('(1$6.+8$%+$P#'1"'(1$-"#$#3%(%8'3$".$.0#$1.$P"'3"$+#\E'+#)$-"#$P#00$-%$/#$)%0#04$E)#.00$)".0$&+%3#))#)5$cE+-"#+8%+#.0$"4.$7+#)#(-..(3".)%(#.-$2'(.$N<OL$Z.)$T*-+.+4$B?.$.%(#.+/%()$.)"##-$%2$a1+.$-".0$X.-#+)"#.00%P$E(+#1E0.+8$-%$ -"#$P..%#)$(%-$.$%2$A&#3'.$-".$M@B@$N<OL$ 7+#)#(-.2.$.)$)8.$.$P#00)b$9Exhibit 4:$8##-$N<OLV)$.-$-"#$1+.3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".'()-$-"#$&%-#(-'.005$K'Q#P')#.(.0$N#-#+8'(./'0'-4.0$4#.-'%($P#00)5$ $ N<OLV)$.-'(1$.-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.)$+#3%(2'+8#.

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indings: o$ N<OL$1+.-#$)#-/.$9#J#($'2$)E33#))2E0:.E)#$ '-$')$'(.-'%()5$$$ !"#+#$.$P'-"$&+%.-'%($.$.8.&&+%.-'%()g$.-'%(b$P#00)5$ N<OLV)$.$-%$/#$.-'%()$%($-"#$N#0.$#*&0%+.-#04$.$+')Q$3%()'.-'(1$.3-)$%2$-"#$#*&0%+.#(3#$-%$)"%P$-".%$(%-$)&#3'24$-"#$ 3%8&0#-'%($8#-"%.$&+%.)#)$-"#$P#00$')$'88#.E3-'%($P#00$'($-"#$2'#0.-%+)$ &+%J'.$'-$')$3.-$-"#$).(.3-'3#).$'88#.-'%($P#00$')$'($#))#(3#$-"#$2'+)-$&+%.P..$#*&0%+.(.(.%(#.$&+%.)'(5$!"')$ .-%+$-%$.(.$#(J'+%(8#(-.)'(g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`&#+.-$.(.0$'8&.E3-'%($P#00.E3-'%($P#00)$#()E+#)$ -"#$P#00$')$&0.$&0E11#.-#)$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-.(-'-'#)$%2$"4.(3#)$&+#J#(-'(1$-"')$2+%8$ %33E++'(15$C-$')$(%-$#3%(%8'3.$&+%.+'00#.$/4H$.+'00'(1$'8&.(.-#)$'(3+#..(.$P#00$'(-%$-"#$)..))#))8#(-)$-%$)E&&%+-$-"')$.$)%0#04$-%$ 3%00#3-$././.)$8E3"$.+#$.(.')&%)'-'%($%2$-"#$P#00)$.-'%($P#00$8E)-$/#$.$N.E)-+4$&+.P.00%P'(1$P#00)$-%$/#$.$P#00)$/.+$-%$/#$.$'($-"#)#$3.)$3+#.+#.4$P#00$3%8&0#-'%($+#&%+-)$ P#+#$(%-$.2.-"#+#.$3%8&0#-#.$&+%.%#)$(%-$.-#+$".$P'-"%E-$-"#$`&#+.$-P'3#5$$ $ o$ o$ o$ o$ $ N<OL$D#.#$-"#$%&&%+-E('-4$2%+$ N<OL$-%$8'-'1.#+.'.$ P#00$0%1).$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.-#+$.#2'('-'%($%2$.-$-"#)#$3%()'.0$'8&.$/4$+#&#.3-).$.(.+#$&+%&#+04$ )'-#.+'00'(1$'8&.+#$)'-#.$-#)-#.-'%($%2$-"#$1+.$.-"#+#.$.E3-'%($P#00)5$ S$)E33#))2E0$#*&0%+.-'%($P#005$ $ !"#$8%+#$&+E.+1#-$-P'3#5$c%+$-"#)#$+#.-"#+#.$3.$F@$.'0.E&0'3..-#.5$$ N<OLV)$.0#$1.)$a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`&#+.004$)#()'-'J#$.E3-'%($ -E/'(1$.J.

$/4$+#1E0.(.$P#00$/0%P%E-$3.#&.$/%(.P.$'($7#(()40J.(4$%'0$%+$1.J%+$#22#3-'J#04$-%$&+#J#(-$/0%P%E-).0$ .-#+$E)#.0.$P#00)$ )"%E0.5>U$ $ !%$3%8&%E(.+-8#(-.$O.(..+'00#.$1.$'()&#3-'%($%2$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-#+).$'(30E.$P#00$/0%P%E-$+#)&%()#$&0.$P"#($&0.$-"#$7#(()40J.$.$D#.$%2$hM.'E)$')$E(.-'%($%2$-"#$.$.$3"#8'3.$8.+#$.-'%()$2'0#.$.0$)&'00).$#*&0%)'%()$.3-5$!"')$')$'($)".)&#3-)$%2$.+.$1.$3E++#(-04$+#\E'+#)$.(.2.$P#00$3%(-+%0$&0.-%+$-%$E)#$).(4$&+%&%)#.1#(3'#).(.+4$2%+$.)$S3-$.-#+.$)-+.-'%(.((#+$.$/0%P%E-5$$ $ S($E(3%(-+%00#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.0$2'(.0)$./'0'-45$ $ !"#$7#(()40J.#0'(#)$2%+$ `()"%+#$`'0$.0$P'-"$.#$2%3E)#)$%($-"#$-#)-'(1$.(.)-$ -%$%-"#+$)-.2#-4$.(.+'00'(1$')$.$N.$.&&0'3.(.#-.$&%-#(-'.1#$B?$%2$>>$ $ .('.(QV)$T(J'+%(8#(-.('.('.$P"'3"$.0$.)-+%&"'3$+')Q)$&%)#.(.1#.)$P#00$.$.$%+$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$%($3%(-+.]@@$ &#+$P#00.$#*&0%+.+&$3%(-+.-$0#.($-%$/#$ )E/8'--#.#\E.$P'-"$-"#$7SNT7$ 2%+$-"#)#$1+.+'00'(1$.$P.$`'0$d$X.($#*&0%+.+-$%2$.$P.$-"#$ M]$7S$L%.$.$D#.2#-4$XE'.004$3.$A.).)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.-%+5$6#'-"#+$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ >> $A#3-'%($U@B5M@?$+#\E'+#)H$aS(4$&#+)%($#(1.2#-4$XE'.)$N#J#0%&8#(-.(.(.#$.-$p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hM].$-"#$&+%/0#8.(.$&#+)%((#05$!"#$7S$ L%.#+...$3..0.$P+'--#($P#00$3%(-+%0$ /.')&%).+'00'(1$8E.'-'%(.#.'(1$..004$+#\E'+#$.J#$+#J'#P#.$C(35$$ 7.3#$0%3.4$/#$(#3#)).$-"#$Y%+0.$)E33#))2E0$#*&0%+.(.00$E)#$#J#+4$#22%+-$.0$.4 Are There Sufficient Plans and Protections Included in PADEP’s Approval to Mitigate and Respond to the Risks Associated with an Exploration Well? $ !"#+#$.$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$'2$`&#+.'+.(4$#*&0.-'%($P#005$!"#$1+.+4$'($.)$N#J#0%&8#(-$+#3%88#(.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.(.+'00$20%%+5$D%P#J#+.(.(-'.$2#.3-)$P#+#$8'-'1.$2'+#)5b$ >] $7SNT7V)$7LL$XE'.-'%($+#\E'+#)$ `&#+.)$S3-$.(.$/4$.)-#5$Y#00$&#+8'-$.#+#.J#$.$#\E'&8#(-$.('.$.-'%(5$$ C-$')$'8&%+-.#.(QV)$T(J'+%(8#(-.1#$-%$-"#$)E++%E(.#J'3#).004$3%(-+%0$.#(3#$%2$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-'%($%+$3%(-+%0$ 3.-'%()5$`(#$%2$-"#$8%)-$)'1('2'3.5$$ $ o$ $ $ D.($+#0#.)$-%$3%(-+%0$.#8%()-+.#0'(1$-%$#()E+#$.Q#$..$".-$&0.$)'(10#$`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`'0$d$X.$%+$.%#)$(%-$)&#3'2'3.#0'(#)$2%+$`()"%+#$`'0$.)$P#00$)".$0.#J'3#)>>$.$(#'-"#+$7#(()40J.8.(3#$N%3E8#(-$>@@=MM@=@@B5$ >U $Y%+0.(.$.5$C($-"')$P.#$p$_G5_M$+#\E'+#)$-"#$E)#$%2$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-'%($#\E'&8#(-$.)$')$(#3#)).-#+$P'-".-#$2%+$+#)&%()#$-%$./'0'-4.-'%(.-#.8.0-".+'00'(1$%&#+.-#$0.#+)-%%.$.(.$/4$#*&0%+.'+.(3#>]$9Exhibit 27:$.8.(.$0.-'%($%+$#J'.$.+'00'(1$`&#+.()$-%$.$.+1#$J%0E8#)$%2$P.#.$(E8/#+$%2$+')Q)$&%)#.'(.$-+.)$&%)'-'%(#.)'(1)$%2$)E22'3'#(-$ )-+#(1-"$.$2%+8..3-E.$#\E'&8#(-$ .$#.(.P$(%+$+#1E0.(-$#(J'+%(8#(-.)$/0%P%E-$8%.(-$ P.0$P'-"$.-$p$U@B5M@?$+#\E'+#)$.$8'('8'R#$#(J'+%(8#(-.$KKL$ B? $ $ o$ N<OL$)"%E0.-%+)$-%$.(.$%-"#+$ .$P'-"$)E3"$%-"#+$).$P#00$/0%P%E-).-'%($P#00$')$'($ #))#(3#$-"#$2'+)-$&+%.$/0.$X.$/0%P%E-$8E)-$/#$3%()'..@@@$2%+$.)$&+%&#+04$)'-#.J#$/##($#\E'&&#.-'%($P#00$'($.'('(1$.$.($')$'(.(.

(.1#$3.($-%$.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$S&&.3#.$'($7#(()40J.#H$.2%+.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.V)$/0%P%E-$3%(-+%0$3.)$2%+$3%(-+%00'(1$-"#$P#00.3#)$P"#+#$ 8E3"$%2$-"#$6%+-"$S8#+'3.$0')-$-.-#1'#)$2%+$&+%-#3-'(1$-"%)#$./0#$-%$+.($'($ -"#$6#P2'#0.&'.(4V)$3.$%+$8.$/0%P%E-5$ $ 6#P2'#0.$'(3+#.$P#005$T\E'&8#(-$.33#))$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$..$.8.E3'(1$-"#$ (E8/#+$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$(%-$%(04$'(30E.$L".$30#.4$M@B@.(./'0'-4$/4$ &.$-"')$P'00$.$')$)-'00$'()E22'3'#(-$-%$3.)$.0$.'.$KKL$ M@ $ .3-)5$ $ !"#$&%-#(-'.$ P#00$3.8&0#.)$T8#+1#(34$<#)&%(.($%'0$.(.('#)$-".$`3-%/#+$M@@B5$ $6#P2'#0.-"#+#.-$')$'($-"#$"%0#$.2.+#.)$P#00$/0%P%E-.($-".$P#00$ 3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$.$P#00$3%(-+%0$+#)&%()#$&0..$%'0.$&0.$KKL.($E(3%(-+%00#.$/4$.$+#)&%()#5$ c%+$#*.0$'($+#..$C8&+%J'(1$<#)&%()#$!'8#).$.$`'0$.$SE1E)-$?.$P'-"$.$ 3+#P).(.(.$#\E'&8#(-.'(#.+$-%$8##-$7SNT7V)$)-.(.0$2%+$)8.$3%(-+%0$-"#8.4$".$&+%J'.)$-%$3%(-+%0.(.&$.$'2$'-$P#+#$-%$%33E+5$ 6#P2'#0.0.0$&'#3#)$%2$#\E'&8#(-$E)#.$%-"#+$)-.4$P#00$3%(-+%0.E)#.-$LmNNV)$(#P$O+.#+.#$8#-"%.-#.$)#&.$7+#&.004$3+'-'3.(.E)#$-"')$ #\E'&8#(-$8E)-$)-'00$/#$/+%E1"-$'($2+%8$-"#$XE02$%2$Z#*'3%.$ /0%P%E-V)$'8&.-$(.(.$&0.+1#$%2$-"#$.00$'-)$ 1+.(.')3".$7+#&.0.)'($')$.&&'(1$)-.$P#00$3%(-+%0$)'-E.1#(3'#)$+#\E'+#$8E3"$8%+#$.#)$ (%$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-'%($%+$+#)&%()#$&0. water supply replacement.+'%.$&0.#)$(%$'(2%+8.#$)E22'3'#(-$2E(.&-#+$F.#$.('#)$P'-"$1+.I%+$ 2%+8.&.$&0E)$-"#$.$L%E(-4$'($ +#)&%()#$-%$a+#3#(-$"'1"=&+%2'0#$.$P"'3"$')$-%H$ $ …act as a penalty for failure to comply with the drilling.0'R#.)$..1#$M@$%2$>>$ $ .J#$0'--0#$%+$(%$P#00$3%(-+%0$ #*&#+'#(3#5$$ $ Y"'0#.-'%($P.).$L%E(-4$ 2.$)#J#+'-4$%2$P#00$3%(-+%0$'(3'.0$X.(3#$ &+%1+.0$2%+$.$/0%P%E-5$$ $ O4$3%8&.J#$.$'($P#00$3%(-+%05$$O#3.4)$A&#3'.-#+:$-".(.#)$(%$'(2%+8.+#.8.$-%$.V)$77L$0')-)$-"#$&%-#(-'.$./0#$2%+$ +#J'#P5$ $ S$P#00=-"%E1"-=%E-.$D%E)-%(.+-$%2$-"#'+$#8#+1#(34$&0.@@@=1.0$)&'00$J%0E8#$2+%8$.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.)$Z.)g$&(#E8.($977L7:.>G$/E-$&+%J'.$..-'%($%($/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-#+$)'R'(1..E$7+#))$<#0#.$I%+$1.(.+1#$.().0$&+%-#3-'%($%2$P.(.).('#)$".00$3%8&.V)$77L$&+%J'.$2#.-'3$3E--'(1$.-"#4$P.).$.$P'-"$-+.3Q$.)#. restoration and plugging requirements of the Act.#J'3#)g$-+.3"'.-#$.-'%($#*3##.(.-#1'#)$%+$#\E'&8#(-$ -%$+#)&%(.$-"#$N#0.-#$-"#$.)'(1$.(.3+%))$-"#$mA5$S.#$)%8#$.$%+$S0.$E)#)$2%+$-"#$/%(.+#$<'J#+$O.+#.$77L5$!"#$77L)$2+%8$%-"#+$3%8&.#(3#$%2$)E3"$.00%(=&#+=8'(E-#$&E8&g$"#.-#+)$'($-"#$N#0.$)E/8'--#.+'00'(1$3%8&.(.1%($%+$.1'(1$P#00$3%(-+%0$#\E'&8#(-$ (#.$/#$'($&0.$7+#J#(-'%($.(.J.$M@B@5$ >G >_ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ N<OL$D#.-$')$+#2#+#(3#.(.(.&.+'00'(1$ )-.+/4.$7S.($)"%E0.$C(35$$ 7.'0#.)$-%$3%(-+%0$.3'0'-4$P'00$'(30E.+'00'(1$8E.$L.+-(#+'(1$P'-"$LmNN$Y#00$L%(-+%0$-%$0%3.(.$3+'-'3.$M.(E.#(-'24$ #(J'+%(8#(-.-#$P+'--#($P#00$3%(-+%0$.3-'3)$.(.'0.$#\E'&8#(-5$Z%)-$3%8&.8%E(-$P%E0.)Q.&&'(1$)-.-"#+#.b>?$-"#$-4&#$%2$#\E'&8#(-$ 0%3.b$/E-$.'(.)#$/0%P%E-$)3#(.(.$a"%-$-.$P#00$3.004$)#()'-'J#$.$7SNT7$ 6#P)$OE+#./04$)-.-$8.$L%(-'(1#(34$70.-'%().I%+$+#8#.-$'8&+%J'(1$7#(()40J.-'%($%($8#-"%.'(-#(.#0.-E+#$1.--#8&-$.-#.$ L%(-'(1#(34$70.().-#04$.-"#4$P.$h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g$'-$&+%J'.)$P#00)$'($7#(()40J.P..)'(5$S/)#(-$ -"#)#$&0.(.$/E-$-"#+#$')$(%$#J'.$-#)-'(1$8#-"%.-$ $7SNT7.$6.$7SNT7$".(#)).(.3-'3).+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.+#$/%-"$0.$/0%P%E-$%+$-.$P#00$ /0%P%E-5$6%+$P%E0.)$8.$P#00$3%(-+%0$#\E'&8#(-$')$0%3.#+)$K%3.-#$..#-.-$)"'#0.(#)).('.#$2%+$)&#3'.($.('.'(#..

$ '++#J#+)'/0#$#(J'+%(8#(-.)$'1('-#.8$.)$3.$P.+1#$J%0E8#)$ %2$P.004$P#00$3. cool surface (heat absorption) and reflect radiant heat.#&%)'-$%($.-$.+.+#$.&&'(1$+#\E'+#)$0.@@@$-%$U. but with large.$P#00$ 3%(-+%0$#*&#+-$3%8&.3#.#0E1#$-"#$+'15$ Y#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$+#3%88#(.$9Exhibit 28:$ N<OL$D#.0)$-%$+#)&%(. low velocity.-#+$)E&&04$)%E+3'(1$. water alone is adequate for this.$P#00$.(-$.@@@$1. Foam can help contain fire near the source and allow work near the flow source.+-'3E0.#/+'):.(.$KKL$ MB $ -"#$-'8#$%2$.#0E1'(1$#\E'&8#(-$/#$'(3%+&%+.$9Exhibit 28:$ $X+.'($0.+./'0'-4.(.&&'(1$ #\E'&8#(-5$Y.+.)5$$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ]@ ]B $e%"($Y+'1"-$L%5.'($ .$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-.00%()$%2$P.+#$J#+4$'(2+#\E#(-.($3%(-.5$S$/0%P%E-$'($-"#$N#0.-#+'.$.)..4$2+%8$-"#$P#00$/0%P%E-5$N#0E1#$20E'.-#+.0).)#. lateral oil flow.004$.$1+#.(.$XE02$7+%2#))'%(.$/#$..$%+$.+. Modern firefighting foam such as 3M Lightwater ATC is commonly used… Nozzles are available to handle up to 6.+'00'(1$%&#+.-'J#)5$Y#00$3.$.($+.(.+4$3"#8'3.%P()-+#.($.8$P.$Y#00$L%(-+%0$D.-#+$+#\E'+#8#(-)$-%$3.P$-"#$ 0.$+#0'#2$P#00.-#$P#00$'1('-'%($%+$)&%(-.$'(.+1#$.$.&&'(1.-$P'00$ #J#(-E.#.(I8#3".--#+$.()&%+-$%'0.$'(-%$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-$E(-'0$-"#$P#00$(.+1#$\E.$3%(-'(E#$-%$/#$+#0#.+1#$J%0E8#)$%2$P.0)$ +#0#.$P#00$3.$+#0'#2$P#00$3%E0.$.$0%P#+$#0#J.$P#00$'1('-'%(:.-'%($ P.000-bpm nozzle is most used on oil well fires.0=0'--#+.I%+$2%+8.($+#)E0-$'($0.(.-E+.$P"'3"$3.P.$.0)$-".'+/%+(#$3%8/E)-'%($8.$.'(.+#.0$'(-#+J#(-'%($9#515$P#00$ 3.)#.&&#.-E+#I&@?5"-8.$#*&0.$%+$-"#$)E/)E+2.3-)5$ $ !"#$8%)-$3%88%($8#-"%.(4.(1#$2+%8$?$/.$2%+$P#00$3.$)-+#.-'%().$/4$"E8.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.52 $ S./%%Q.+/4$ )E+2.$P##Q).3"'#J#.++#0)$%2$P.J#+. but principally act as a smothering agent.$'2$(%$(#.+'00'(1$&0.(.(-'-'#)$%2$1.#&#(.5$$ $ AE+2.$+#.4)$-%$P##Q)$-%$3%(-+%05$N#0E1#$%&#+.E+'(1$-"#$/0%P%E-$-%P.004.$P#00$'1('-'%($%+$.(.(.+'00'(1$.$.$-%$.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$0.$".$')$3%(-+%00#.4$/#$-+E3Q#.(.%$%33E+. Generally.$+'J#+)$.0$.P.($0. Use is generally on methane well fires where explosives cannot be used and water supply is inadequate.(.+#$<'J#+$O. foam concentrate and air.3#$P.000 gpm.-#+$&#+$8'(E-#$9?$/&8:$]@$-%$E&P.8%E(-)$%2$0%3.1#$/0%P%E-$ -. suppress vapor emissions (explosive vapor release is restricted).-#+$)E&&0'#)$8.-#+$+#\E'+#8#(-)$3. It is used on liquid hydrocarbon fires to smother the fuel surface (excludes oxygen)..-E+#$%2$-"#$P#00$/0%P%E-.'+$ &%00E-'%(.$%+$8%(-")$ E(-'0$P#00$3%(-+%0$')$2'(.'(.&&'(15$ D%P#J#+.'()H$$ $ Foam consists of water.$P"'3"$3%E0.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.(.@@@.$<5$.('3.$.-#)$-%$]@@.$P'-"$-"#$.3#$9P.3#$90.-#+$8.(.$/0%P%E-5$D4.$/#)-$-#3"(%0%14.4$/#$-.$. Dry chemical extinguishers work like water.Q#).)5$$ $ Y#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$.$'($ .8):$%+$)E/)E+2.$ P"#-"#+$'-$".+%&)$-%$.-#+$P#00):$P.(.-#$0.-#.$0#J#0$ -".8.$%-"#+$8.$%+$P./0#5$Y#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$E)#$"'1"$J%0E8#$&E8&)$-%$.-#+$-%$.+/%($+#)#+J%'+)$3.Q'(1$.(.$M@@F5$ ]M $e%"($Y+'1"-$L%5.P.$N.-04$%($-"#$(.0=0'--#+.00%P$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$-%$P%+Q$(#..(.&$. but the 2.3#$-".$./0#$3%()#\E#(3#$%2$#*&0%+.1#)$%($'-)$ %P($9#515$&0E11#.)$%2$ B@@$/&85]B$!"')$#\E.+.004$.)%(.($-+.-'%($.0)%$E)#$2%. generate steam (removes heat and displaces oxygen).$-%$/0%P%E-)5$e%"($Y+'1"-$L%5.0$'8&.$"--&HIIPPP5^P3%53%8I-#3"('3.+'00'(1$.004$/+'.1#$MB$%2$>>$ $ .$-"#4$.(.'0.$P'-"$).J.$O0%P%E-$. Common compounds used are sodium bicarbonate.&&'(1$%&#+.3#$+#)#+J%'+$&+#))E+#$2'(. Purple K (potassium bicarbonate base) and Monnex (highest efficiency rating).$.$/0%P%E-$')$-4&'3.+1#$&%%0)$%2$P.-'%()$3+#.$C(35$$ 7.+$-"#$2'+#$P'-"$.5.()5$Y.$2E#0).0$7E/0')"'(1.$%-"#+$.-#$8.'-'%(.-#+$%($-"#$)E+2.$3"#8'3.$. foam may be required.-'%()5$O0%P%E-)$3.$.$.004$. Use on blowouts is restricted to gas condensate fires and oil wells where lateral flow has led to a large fire surface area.-#+$&#+$.1%().-#+).%R#+).-#+$(##.-$-"#$P#00$)-%&)$20%P'(15$Y"'0#$/0%P%E-)$.$%'0$.)-$2%+$.(#%E)$3%8/E)-'%($3.)'($3%E0./04$ 2%+#)##.1#$.$"--&HIIPPP5^P3%53%8I-#3"('3.4).($%(=0.(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.-#+'.+%3.')-+'/E-#$&.-E+#I&@?5"-8..(.J#$)'1('2'3.-%+4$.(.#0'/#+.$-%$3%(-+%0$.-#+$%+$)E&&04$P#00$')$.$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-.(.$P.0-#+(.$.4.

.)$.$ 3.$77L$-%$'(30E.8.#$8.'(.'(1$.$-%$.00$&'&#)$-".-'%($%($-"#$%-"#+$1+.+#./'0'-4.(-'-'#)$%2$8.-'%($%+$#(.-$3%E0.(3#$N%3E8#(-$>@@=MM@=@@B5$!"#)#$+#\E'+#.(#))g$$ N#)3+'&-'%()$%2$-"#$)%E+3#)$.#1+.$\E.+#.'+#3-'%($%2$-"#$20%P$%2$8.0$)&'00)$.$)4)-#8)$+#0.(.(.+'#).$<.$-"#$..)-#)g$$)&#3'2'3$ 3%E(-#+8#.V)$Z.-'/'0'-4$%2$.$8.$-%$8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.1#$-.$KKL$ MM 7SNT7V)$77L$XE'..-#+'.(3#$&+%1+.$.'0.$-.P'(1)$)"%P'(1$..J#+-#(-04$8'*#.$.004$.(.0)$%+$P.(3#$N%3E8#(-$>@@=MM@=@@B5$ $C($M@B@.(..-#+'.'3-'%($%2$-"#$.$(%-$'(30E.004$%+$'(.$ 6#P2'#0.33'.$0#.$\E.-'(1$-%$3%(.-"#+#.4$M@B@$77L$9-"#$%(04$77L$.'-'%()$-".#(-$&+#J#(-'%($&+.#H$$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! N+.#(-.+.&"4g$0%3.-#+'.(.Q#)$.$3"#8'3.2-#+$0.8$2+%8$-"#$)'-#g$$ N#)3+'&-'%()$%2$.$(%(#$%2$P"'3"$8#-$-"#$7SNT7$77L$1E'.))')-.()5$$ $ ]> ]F N<OL$D#.($#++%+g$ AE88.3-'3#)$2%00%P#.1#.'().'0E+#.$ &+#.(Q$%+$&'&#0'(#$P'-"$'-)$ #(J'+%(8#(-g$$ S$&+#J#(-'J#$8.-$ P#00)'-#g$.+..$N.'-'%(.)'04$ +#8#.#(-$&+#J#(-'%($&+.$-+'/E-.'.3-'3#5$7SNT7$".$.$ /%E(.0$.$P.$#0#8#(-)$ .(.$&%00E-'%($'(3'.'(1$-"#'+$3%(-#(-)$.-#1'#)$.-#+'.$%33E+g$ N+.004$)#()'-'J#$ .$/#$(##.'+#3-'%($ %2$20%P$%2$)&'00#.0.#\E.#.'(.')3".8.-$0#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(3#$2%+$-"#$.-$.(Q).('.$3%(-.(4$ %2$-"#$#0#8#(-)$+#\E'+#.P'(1).$.-#+'.'(1$.(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.'(-#(.$#(J'+%(8#(-.%$(%-$'(30E.(.$+#)&%(.0).$P.(.$.+.1#$0%3.#(-$&+#J#(-'%($%+$#8#+1#(34$+#)&%()#$&+#&.'(#+$)E3"$.()$-%$/#$+#J')#.)$ -"#$8.-'%(.'(..$P'-"$+#1.(.P'(1)$)"%P'(1$"'1"=+')Q$.0)$.P.((#0)$-".Q$%+$)&'00$.3#$.(.+#$3+'-'3.]]$6#P2'#0.$.-'/'0'-4.$)E3"$.-'%()$%2$.+.$.(-'-'#)$%2$8.$&+'J.0$3%8&.$'(30E.0)$%2$-.J#$+#J'#P#.$S&&.0-"$.-'%()$%2$)E+2..#0'(#)$+#\E'+#8#(-)5$$ ]] $S.1#.&)$)"%P'(1$-"#$P#00$)'-#$0.+#$(%-$#.$/4$7SNT7V)$77L$XE'.(.(.)$L%+&%+.8)$ .$3%(-+%0$-"#$)&'00$-%$&+#J#(-$'-$+#.).0$2.($ #0#8#(-)$'(30E.$.(.$T`X$<#)%E+3#).3-'3#).$)"%P'(1$)%E+3#)$.()$&+#J'%E)04$.$-".(.-#+'.$&0%-$&0.2.3#$)-+#.0$)&'00)$8.4$2+%8$-"#$)'-#..#2'3'#(3'#).0)$.+.$"'1"$+')Q$.(4$77L)$ '($7#(()40J.'($.$.-'%().$)-%+.3-'3)$2%+$+#)&%(.(4$#*')-'(1$&0.$2%+$-"#$&+%^#3-$2%+$-"#$&E+&%)#$%2$ &%00E-'%($'(3'.$ .$0#.)$ P"#+#$&%-#(-'.(.0$+#J'#P$%2$-"#$S-0.P.-$.$%+$3%8/'(#.($..$&'&'(1$.$-%$#()E+#$-".0)$)&'00#.)-#)$P"#($'(-#(-'%(.3#$P./%-$`'0$d$X.(.)$.()g$./0#$2%+$-"')$+#J'#P:$.+#.$L.3"'(1$P.)$%($ %33.P'(1)$.1#$3".(.$8%('-%+'(1$&+%1+.(.+.-#$.0$-%$&+#J#(-'(1$.(1#$<#)%E+3#)$77L.4$2+%8$&%-#(-'.3#$)-+#.+4$%2$-"#$3%8&.$%+$#(J'+%(8#(-.J.$C(35$$ 7.Q#($'($-"#$#J#(-$%2$.g$$ AE88.(.+..()$)"%P'(1$)%E+3#)$..4$%33E+.-#.$#*-#+(.#$-"#)#$3%8&%(#(-)$'($&+.3-%+$&0.$.E)#$#(J'+%(8#(-.+1#$-%$)E+2.1#$3%E+)#)$0#.(.$P#00)$77L$&0.-$C$".3-'3#)$)&#3'2'3$-%$-"#$ )%E+3#$%+$.-#+)$%2$3%(3#+($-%$N<OL5$Z'))'(1$&0.0)$.+1#$)&'00)$-%$+#8#.8&0#.(('(15$j#-.$)&'00.(.#+)$-%$ 2%00%P$-%$3%(-.+$-"#$)'-#g$ K%3.8$2%+$#\E'&8#(-$.$)%E+3#)$.+'#)$(#.+#.$&'&#).)E+#)$-%$/#$-.+#$ .-#$)E+2.()$&+'%+$-%$.%#)$+#\E'+#$.Q)$8.$+#)E0-$%2$#\E'&8#(-$2.)g$'()&#3-'%($.+#.+'00'(1$')$(##.)g$ N+.2#-4g$ $ ! ! ! ! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $7SNT7V)$7LL$XE'.()$P%E0.-#5$ $ c%+$#*.8.(1#+8#(-$%2$&E/0'3$"#.#\E.(.-'%($%2$)-%+#.$8.8)g$)#3E+'-4$&0.$'(30E.$-"#$&%00E-'%($'(3'.$C$3%8&0#-#.-#+$)%E+3#).3"'.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$)-%+..g$ A#&.$-#3"('3.$/E-$-"')$')$%2$0'--0#$ .$%-"#+$#\E'&8#(-.(.$C(35.)$P"#+#$)&'00)$.+4$%2$-"#$#(1'(##+'(1$&+.$.8)$%+$.0$0#.)-#)..1#$MM$%2$>>$ $ .#J#0%&#.'(1$-%$)&'00)$'($.(.+#.(3#]F$9Exhibit 27:$.(.#.(.'.$-"#$+#.$P.+.4%E-.)$P"#+#$&%-#(-'.$77L$70.+#.+#.-#+'.+#.$P.$8.'(.Q)$8%)-$0'Q#04$P%E0.#H$8.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$-".(.4$&0.4$%33E+.1#..$#)&#3'.#-#+8'(#$-"#$.-$-"#4$.$.)$.5$S$8%+#$-"%+%E1"$+#J'#P$%2$-"#)#$&0.%P()-+#.34$%2$-"#$%-"#+$ &0.$'(30E.0$'(2%+8.$.$%+$"E8.(4$Q(%P($&E/0'3$.]>$.)'%($+#\E'+#..((#0)g$$ K%3.P.-#+$'(-.'(1$)-+.P'(1)$)"%P'(1$%E-2.$).3-'%($%2$ 8.^%+$)E+2.$3".(.)$T(#+14$C(35.$-%&%1+.

$20%P$.$7S.'0.#+-.$-%$.3'0'-4$&#+)%((#0$'($-"#$#J#(-$%2$.$\E'3Q04$ -%$#8#+1#(34$)'-E.J.0$ )#+J'3#)$%($)"%+-$(%-'3#5$97SNT7$+#\E'+#)$#\E'&8#(-$)E&&0'#+)$-%$/#$3%(-.$".(.-$P'00$/#$E(.-#$-"#$(#.(.2#-4:5$ S$0')-$%2$.$.”58 $ j#-$6#P2'#0./'0'-4.00.V)$77L$0')-)$-"#$&%-#(-'.R.$7+#J#(-'%($.8%E(-$')$'()E22'3'#(-.#0'J#+4$8#.$.(#)).-#+$)E&&0'#).)$+#\E'+#.$.8$-%$#()E+#$-".$ +#&.8'(.-E).-'3$ 3E-=%22$)4)-#8)g$3%88E('3.+'00'(1$.).Q$.$+#&0.&&.$).+.-#+$+#)%E+3#)5]_$6#P2'#0.$7+#&.$2'+#$3%(-+%0$#\E'&8#(-$9'(30E.(-$%22$)'-#$ .+8$)4)-#8)g$+#)&%()#$-%$2'+#)$.8'(..)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.-#$-"#$3%()#\E#(3#)$%2$-"#$+#0#.$).-'%($#\E'&8#(-.$/%%8$.)5"-80k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g$$ S$)E88.$8%('-%+'(1$#\E'&8#(-g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xhibit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g$)'-#$ #J.E+#)g$.(.$.2#04$.$7+#&.-'%().+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$S&&.-#$ .$.+#$0')-#.&.)$)"%P($-%$ -"#$+'1"-5$ $6#P2'#0.$L%(-'(1#(34$70.'+'(1.E-%8.(.#.-'%($%2$'-)$ '(-#(.-$&#+)%((#0$.)#.+4$3"#8'3.+.(.#.#$-"#$0%3.-'%()5$A%8#$#*.E+#)g$$ A&#3'2'3$3%E(-#+8#.&.$%+$P.$P"#+#$.1.(.$'(#+-$1.'(1$)&#3'.'(.+/4$#(J'+%(8#(-.'0#.3'(1$#8#+1#(34$.-'%($&+%3#.J./'0'-'#)$%2$#.J#$#\E'&8#(-$. the employee who first discovers the spill should contact the Emergency Coordinator [emphasis added].0$2E#0$.(.-'%()$+#\E'+#$2E#0$-%$%&#+.+#$.8&0#)$%2$#8#+1#(34$#\E'&8#(-$.#)3+'&-'%(.$.(.0.(.J.8'0'.-#)H$$ $ “For large spills or spills of oils or hazardous materials which may reach surface water or impact the environment.(.

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g$(#'-"#+$./'0'-4.+.(.'+.-"#+#.$ .$/4$.'(.$.$-%$P#00$3%(-+%0$)'-E.)#$)E/)-.($#*&0%+.-'%()$%+$#J'.-#+$+#\E'+#8#(-)$3.1#$-.$)E3"$.+'00#.$-%$3%(-+%0$.(.$KKL$ M] $ $ $ Findings: o$ S($E(3%(-+%00#.).$)'(10#$`&#+.(.)5$$ T*&0%+.2.$L%(-'(1#(34$977L:$70.$-%$.#\E.$%-"#+$)-.$)&'00)$3.(4$%-"#+$8.-#1'#)$2%+$&+%-#3-'(1$ -"%)#$.0)5$$ 6#P2'#0.P.8.&&'(1$+#\E'+#)$0.$ .$30#.(.-'%($.8%E(-)$%2$%'0.)$-%$3%(-+%0.0$)&'00)$'-$0')-)5$$ o$ o$ o$ o$ o$ o$ o$ o$ $ N<OL$D#.$ 2%+8.+#.45$N#0E1#$%&#+.#$)E22'3'#(-$ 2E(.+'00'(1$.@@@$2%+$.-'%()$+#\E'+#$2E#0$-%$%&#+.$P#00$/0%P%E-5$$ !"#+#$.0$)-%+.3-'3)$.3-)$P'-"$ #*&#+-)$-%$3%(-+%0$P#00$/0%P%E-)5$C($3%(-+.(Q)$-%$0#.J#$/##($#\E'&&#.@@@.$/4$.&.8'(.3#$-%$'.1#$3.()$-%$.&&0'3.(.+.$-"#$ &+%3#))$%2$.(.'($.00%P$P#00$3%(-+%0$#*&#+-)$-%$ P%+Q$(#.(#)).('.(.)'(5$!.$%2$hM].-.(.+$-"#$/0%P%E-5$Y.0$..$%+$P.#.$)-+.$ 3%(-.E+'(1$.+1#$J%0E8#)$%2$P.2.$7+#J#(-'%($.-$.#(-'24$#(J'+%(8#(-.#+.#(3#$%2$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-'%($%+$3%(-+%0$3.(.-'%($%+$#J'.'(1$.$".+/4$#(J'+%(8#(-.$/E-$%(#$-".-#$-"#$(#.(.004$)#()'-'J#$.3#$-".0$2E#0$.($+.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.+#.($+#\E'+#$#J'.$'($7#(()40J.$\E.0)%$'(.Q$..1#$.$%2$hM.(('(1$.$.(-$#(J'+%(8#(-.$P+'--#($/0%P%E-$3%(-+%0$&0.$3%8&0#-'%($#\E'&8#(-$.(.'(.-#+$+#)%E+3#)g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

%$(%-$1%$2.'(. In light of these existing safeguards and the investment-backed expectations of the sponsors of these projects.$%&#+.(.-#+$+#)%E+3#)g$.(.3-'%($S3-'J'-'#)$'($A".-'J#$-%$)E/)-.(.0$".2.(-'.&-#+$_G:$2%+$`'0$.3#$2%+$#*&0%+.2#1E.1 PADEP’s Chapter 78 Oil and Gas Well Regulations are known to be deficient N<OLV)$eE(#$B>.$(%-$.$/4$7SNT7$&#+8'-)$'))E#.5.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-..$$ S'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.$J#+4$30%)#$-%$P.-#+$)E&&0'#).-$ -"#$#*')-'(1$L".-8#(-$%&#+.+.$KKL$ MU $ D.(.$N.(.(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.'(.((#.$'2$P#00)$.$E(.0-"$.#3')'%($-%$1+.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.3-$P.$#)&#3'.E)-+4$/#)-$&+.$eE(#$B>.($"#. environmental and safety protections in place for exploration drilling projects in Pennsylvania well-founded? $ N<OLV)$.-'%()$.$P'-"$1+.$%(=)'-#$.0#$1.(.60 $ j#-$7SNT7V)$3E++#(-$+#1E0.2.$%+$8'-'1.-#.g$$ 7SNT7V)$P#00$)'-'(1$3+'-#+'.0#$ c%+8.$-%$'(.1#$MU$%2$>>$ U@ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .P.$#(J'+%(8#(-.1#.$2%+$-"#$2%00%P'(1$+#.$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-.$C(35$$ 7.$'-)#02$.+8$'2$(%-$&+%&#+04$8.#.3#.()&%+-#.+#$(%-$P#00$E(.&-#+$_G$`'0$.$).($'8&.$.-"#+#.4$1.$-%$8%)-$%2$ -"#$1+.(.H$$ $ In contrast to the thousands of wells projected to be installed in the Basin over the next several years.#+$L".(.(.+'00'(1$P.E)#$7SNT7$".)$Y#00$<#1E0.00%P)$P#00)$-%$/#$&0.-$M]$7S$ L%.(.004$+#J')#$-"#$7#(()40J.+'00'(1$&+%^#3-)$'($ 7#(()40J.$%E-$%2$-"#$O.$2%+$-"#$OdT$P#00g$$ N+'00'(1$P.1#8#(-$70.('.$.$'($&.#$L"5$_G$9L".)%()H$$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $ $ 7SNT7V)$L".$-%$/#$3%()-+E3-#.-'%($.))E8&-'%($-".$(%-$-+.(.-"#+$P#00)$P.-"#+#.)$ )E22'3'#(-$"E8.-#+$Z.)-#$3.#2'3'#(-g$ X+.'.$P#00)$')$)8. this Supplemental Determination does not prohibit any exploratory natural gas well project from proceeding if the applicant has obtained a state natural gas well permit for the project on or before the date of issuance set forth below [emphasis added]. the risk to Basin waters posed by only the wells approved by PADEP since May 2009 are comparatively small.+#$(%-$ &+%&#+04$3%()-+E3-#.-#+).$M@B@$.)b$ %22#+#.0$N#-#+8'(.$%($-"#$a#*')-'(1$).&-#+$_G5$N<OL$3%(30E.)#.+-.0+#.00$/#3.0-".$)%8#$.2.3-)$.(.4$/##($/E+'#.5 Was DRBC’s assumption that the risk associated with the grandfathered wells is small because PADEP has sufficient human health.3-'3#).$.#.&-#+$_G$+#1E0.+#$(%-$3E++#(-04$+#20#3-'J#$%2$$/#)-$&+.-'%()$.b$+#\E'+'(1$.-'%()$.($+#)E0-$'($#(J'+%(8#(-.3-'3#)$2%+$)".)$P#00)$3.-E+.0$7#+8'-$L%(.3-E+#$-+#.5$ D.$AE&&0#8#(-.)$.$P#00)g$$ c+.1#$S+#.-$-"#$+')Q$.('.0$X.#(3#$-".-"#+#.)-#$ ".)$8'1+.$.+$#(%E1"$ -%$&+%-#3-$"E8.2#-4$&+%-#3-'%()$'($&0.-'%($.-'%()$P'-"'($-"#$N+.$Y.004$2%+$)#()'-'J#$+#)%E+3#)5$$$ $ $N<OL.-#.$.$1.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.('.'-'%().)$P#00)$ '($7#(()40J.$M@B@$9Exhibit 3:5 N<OL$D#.(.$P'-"$%'0$.-'%($%2$-"#$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$L%(3#+('(1$6.&&04$aA&#3'.8.$X.+#$&0. Not only are these wells subject to state regulation as to their construction and operation.3Q(%P0#.$P#00)$.(.(.))%3'.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.(.('.-#.g$$ 7SNT7$..+#$(%-$+#\E'+#./'0'-4.)$/.)$Y#00)$')$#J'.)$T*-+.-%+4$'('-'.$X.+#$Q(%P($-%$/#$.0$.$+#1E0.$')$(%-$P#00$2%E(.))%3'.)'(g$$ A-+.#+)-%%.-'%()$.-#.(.-$7#(()40J. but they continue to require Commission approval before they can be fractured or otherwise modified for natural gas production.($"#.2.1#)$-".$%2$A&#3'..

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

M_

$
!"#$8.^%+'-4$%2$7SNT7V)$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($.(,$P.-#+$)E&&04$+#&0.3#8#(-$+#1E0.-'%()$P#+#$&+%8E01.-#,$ '($eE04$B?G?$.(,$+#8.'(#,$0.+1#04$E(3".(1#,$E(-'0$7SNT7$&+%&%)#,$+#J')'%()$-%$L".&-#+$_G$'($M@@?5$ !"#+#2%+#;$7#(()40J.('.V)$#*')-'(1$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($)-.(,.+,)$.+#$8%+#$-".($M@$4#.+)$%0,$.(,$,%$(%-$ +#20#3-$/#)-$-#3"(%0%14$%+$&+.3-'3#5$A#J#+.0$%2$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$".J#$.0+#.,4$/##($3%()-+E3-#,$ E)'(1$-"#)#$%E-=,.-#,$+E0#)5$$ $ 7SNT7$)E88.+'R#)$-"#$&+%/0#8)$P'-"$-"#$#*')-'(1$L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-'%()H$$ $ Many of the regulations governing well construction and water supply replacement were promulgated in July 1989 and remained largely unchanged until this rulemaking. Since that time, recent advances in drilling technology have attracted interest in producing natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation that underlies approximately two-thirds of Pennsylvania. New well drilling and completion practices now employed to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale and other similar shale formations in Pennsylvania, as well as several recent incidents of contaminated drinking water caused by traditional and Marcellus Shale wells resulted in the Department’s decision to re-evaluate the existing well construction requirements. It was determined that the existing regulations were not specific enough in detailing the Department’s expectations of a properly cased and cemented well, especially in light of the new techniques used by Marcellus Shale operators. The Department also determined that the existing regulations did not address the need for an immediate response by operators to a gas migration complaint and did not require routine inspection of existing wells by the operator The final rulemaking contains revised design, construction, operational, monitoring, plugging, water supply replacement, and hydraulic fracturing reporting requirements. The final rulemaking also provides material specifications and performance testing to ensure the proper casing, cementing and operation of a well. Additionally, the final rulemaking contains new provisions that require routine inspection of wells and outline the actions an operator and the Department must take in the event of a gas migration incident [emphasis added].61 $ !"#+#2%+#;$N<OLV)$0.3Q$%2$$+#J'#P$%2$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$#*&0%+.-%+4$P#00);$.)$P#00$.)$.(4$%-"#+$,+'00'(1$ -".-$N<OL$.00%P)$/#2%+#$-"#$(#P$7SNT7$L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-'%()$.+#$'($&0.3#;$P'00$.00%P$-"#$3E++#(-$P#00$ 3%()-+E3-'%($,#2'3'#(3'#);$Q(%P($-%$/#$.$&+%/0#8$'($7#(()40J.('.;$-%$/#$+#&#.-#,$'($-"#$N<OL$P.-#+)"#,5$$ $ C($M@@?$7SNT7$&+%&%)#,$(E8#+%E)$+#J')'%()$-%$L".&-#+$_G$.(,$)%E1"-$'(,E)-+4$.(,$&E/0'3$3%88#(-$-%$ '8&+%J#$-"#$+#1E0.-'%()$3%()')-#(-$P'-"$7SNT7V)$)-.-#,$1%.0)$%2H$8'('8'R'(1$&E/0'3$3%(3#+()$.))%3'.-#,$ P'-"$1.)$8'1+.-'%($'(-%$&E/0'3$,+'(Q'(1$P.-#+$)E&&0'#)g$E&,.-'(1$8.-#+'.0$)&#3'2'3.-'%()$.(,$&#+2%+8.(3#$ -#)-'(1$+#\E'+#8#(-)g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xhibit 23)5UM$$7SNT7$".)$,#J#0%&#,$2'(.0$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$7SNT7$6%-'3#$%2$c'(.0$<E0#8.Q'(1;$N#&.+-8#(-$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$7+%-#3-'%($T(J'+%(8#(-.0$WE.0'-4$O%.+,;$M]$7.5$L%,#;$ L".&-#+$_G$`'0$.(,$X.)$Y#00$L#8#(-'(1$.(,$L.)'(1;$M@B@$9Exhibit 30A:5$ UM $D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL;$$<#3%88#(,.-'%()$2%+$7#(()40J.('.V)$7+%&%)#,$L".(1#)$-%$`'0$.(,$X.)$Y#00$$ L%()-+E3-'%($<#1E0.-'%();$<#&%+-$-%$T.+-"^E)-'3#$.(,$A'#++.$L0E/;$Z.+3"$M@B@5$ N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$ 7.1#$M_$%2$>>$
UB

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

MG

$
+#J')'%()$-%$L".&-#+$_G$9Exhibit 30 and 30A:;$/E-$-"#)#$3".(1#)$P'00$(%-$/#$3%,'2'#,$E(-'0$#.+04$M@BB5$$ L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-%+4$3".(1#)$)-'00$8E)-$E(,#+1%$+#J'#P$/4$-"#$C(,#&#(,#(-$<#1E0.-%+4$<#J'#P$ L%88'))'%($9&0.((#,$2%+$6%J#8/#+$BG;$M@B@:$.(,$-"#($8E)-$/#$&E/0')"#,$'($-"#$Pennsylvania Bulletin$ .)$2'(.0$+E0#8.Q'(1$9&0.((#,$2%+$#.+04$M@BB:5$UF$ $ 7+%&%)#,$L".&-#+$_G$'8&+%J#8#(-)$-".-$,%$(%-$.&&04$-%$-"#$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$'(30E,#H$$ ! ! ! ! S,,'-'%(.0$&+%-#3-'%()$2%+$P.-#+$)E&&0'#)$9p$_G5]B:$'(30E,'(1$'8&+%J#8#(-)$-%$+#)-%+.-'%($%+$ +#&0.3#8#(-$%2$'8&.'+#,$P.-#+$)E&&0'#)$,E#$-%$%'0$.(,$1.)$P#00$%&#+.-'%()g$$ S,,'-'%(.0$+#\E'+#8#(-)$2%+$P.)-#$3%(-+%0$.(,$,')&%).0$&0.()$9p$_G5]]:g$$ C8&+%J#,$'()-+E3-'%()$%($P"#($.$/0%P%E-$&+#J#(-#+$.(,$%-"#+$P#00$3%(-+%0$).2#-4$3%(-+%0$,#J'3#)$ .+#$+#\E'+#,$9p$_G5_M:g$ C8&+%J#,$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($.(,$%&#+.-'%(.0$)-.(,.+,)$9p$_G5_F:;$'(30E,'(1$)-.(,.+,)$-%$#()E+#$ -".-H$%'0;$/+'(#;$3%8&0#-'%($.(,$P#00$)#+J'3'(1$20E',)$,%$(%-$&%00E-#$1+%E(,P.-#+g$.((E0.+$ %J#+&+#))E+'(1$,%#)$(%-$3.E)#$1.)$8'1+.-'%($'(-%$)E/)E+2.3#$P.-#+$)E&&0'#)g$.(,$1.)$')$).2#04$ 20.+#,;$3.&-E+#,$%+$,'J#+-#,$,E+'(1$P#00$,+'00'(1$%&#+.-'%()g$$ C8&+%J#,$P#00$3#8#(-'(1$.(,$3.)'(1$)-.(,.+,)$9p$_G5GF=_G5G]:$-%H$&+#J#(-$)E/)E+2.3#$'(2'0-+.-'%($ %2$)E+2.3#$P.-#+)g$#)-./0')"$8%+#$+'1%+%E)$+#\E'+#8#(-)$-%$3#(-+.0'R#$3.)'(1;$'()-.00$3#8#(-;$.(,$ J#+'24$-"#$3#8#(-$'(-#1+'-4$-%$&+%-#3-$1+%E(,$P.-#+g$+#\E'+#$-"#$`&#+.-%+$-%$&+#&.+#$.(,$8.'(-.'($ .$3.)'(1$.(,$3#8#(-'(1$&0.(g$.(,$+#\E'+#$E)#$%2$(#P$&'&#$.(,$&+#))E+#$-#)-'(1$.(,$\E.0'-4$ )-.(,.+,)$2%+$-".-$&'&#g$$ C8&+%J#,$8#3".('3.0$'(-#1+'-4$)-.(,.+,)$2%+$%&#+.-'(1$P#00)$9p$_G5GG:g$$ X.)$8'1+.-'%($+#)&%()#$9p$_G5G?:g$$ C8&+%J#,$P#00$&0E11'(1$)-.(,.+,)$9p$_G5?M=_G5?]:g$.(,$ S$+#\E'+#8#(-$2%+$-"#$`&#+.-%+$-%$3#+-'24$-".-$-"#$P#00$".)$/##($3%()-+E3-#,$-%$7#(()40J.('.V)$ P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($)-.(,.+,)$9p$_G5BMM:5$$

!

! ! ! !

!"+##$9F:$%2$-"#$#0#J#($9BB:$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$P#+#$,+'00#,$E(,#+$-"#$#*')-'(1$+#1E0.-%+4$)-+E3-E+#$-".-$')$ Q(%P($-%$/#$'(.,#\E.-#5$!"#$+#8.'('(1$#'1"-$9G:$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$P#+#$&#+8'--#,$E(,#+$-"#$#*')-'(1$ L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-%+4$)3"#8#;$.(,$8.4$(%-$/#$+#\E'+#,$-%$3%8&04$P'-"$-"#$(#P$L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-%+4$ +#\E'+#8#(-);$,#&#(,'(1$%($P"#($-"#$P#00)$.+#$.3-E.004$,+'00#,$.(,$P"#($-"#$L".&-#+$_G$+#J')'%()$.+#$ 3%,'2'#,5$ $ Findings: o$ o$ T*')-'(1$7SNT7$%'0$.(,$1.)$P#00$+#1E0.-'%()$.-$L".&-#+$_G$.+#$Q(%P($/4$7SNT7$-%$/#$ '(.,#\E.-#$-%$&+%-#3-$"E8.($"#.0-"$.(,$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-5$ 7SNT7$')$'($-"#$&+%3#))$%2$+#J')'(1$L".&-#+$_G$P'-"$-"#$)-.-#,$1%.0)$%2$8'('8'R'(1$&E/0'3$ 3%(3#+()$.))%3'.-#,$P'-"$1.)$8'1+.-'%($'(-%$&E/0'3$,+'(Q'(1$P.-#+$)E&&0'#)g$E&,.-'(1$8.-#+'.0$ )&#3'2'3.-'%()$.(,$&#+2%+8.(3#$-#)-'(1$+#\E'+#8#(-)g$.(,$+#J')'(1$,#)'1(;$3%()-+E3-'%(;$ %&#+.-'%();$8%('-%+'(1;$&0E11'(1;$P.-#+$)E&&04$+#&0.3#8#(-;$.(,$1.)$8'1+.-'%($+#&%+-'(1$ +#\E'+#8#(-)5$

$ $

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
UF

$6%J#8/#+$F;$M@B@$&"%(#$3%(J#+).-'%($P'-"$A3%--$7#++4;$N'+#3-%+$%2$7#(()40J.('.$OE+#.E$%2$`'0$.(,$X.)$Z.(.1#8#(-5$ 7.1#$MG$%2$>>$

N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$

$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1;$KKL$

M?

$
$

o$

7SNT7$".)$(%-$4#-$&+%8E01.-#,$L".&-#+$_G$+#1E0.-'%()$-".-$.+#$.,#\E.-#$-%$&+%-#3-$"E8.($ "#.0-"$.(,$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-g$1+.(,2.-"#+#,$P#00)$.+#$/#'(1$,+'00#,$E(,#+$+#1E0.-'%()$Q(%P($-%$ /#$,#2'3'#(-5$$

$

D.5.2. Grandfathered wells are not required to be constructed to industry best practices for shale gas wells in Pennsylvania
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`&#+.-%+$-%$3#+-'24$ -".-$-"#$P#00$".)$/##($3%()-+E3-#,$-%$7#(()40J.('.V)$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($)-.(,.+,)$9p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

U>

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$6%J#8/#+$F;$M@B@$&"%(#$3%(J#+).-'%($P'-"$A3%--$7#++4;$N'+#3-%+$%2$7#(()40J.('.$OE+#.E$%2$`'0$.(,$X.)$Z.(.1#8#(-$
7.1#$M?$%2$>>$

N<OL$D#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.(,$N.8.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'(./'0'-4;$C(35$$

$

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o$ $ D.5$ !"#$Y.)$.-'%()$2%+$)E+2.-#+)$.$Y.$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($&0.+.0#$1.J.+#.-"#+#.$(%-$ '(30E.&&+%J#$-"#$8#-"%.'0.0$7#+8'-$L%(.(.$P#00)5$$ Findings: o$ o$ $ 7SNT7$.+'00'(1$%&#+.1#8#(-$70.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.” requiring a Water Management Plan.3-'3#)$.1#8#(-$70.(.1#.$Y%%.-'%($&+%3#))$.$-".#-#+8'(#$'2$A&#3'.-#+$Z.$E)#.'-'%()$".#1+.-$-"#$P#00$P'00$/#$ 3%()-+E3-#.(./0#$%($-"#$1+.-'%($ +#\E'+#8#(-)$.'.-#+$P'-".E)#$-"#$L+E8.(.-#.1#8#(-$70.$A&#3'.&&0'3.$Y%%.%$(%-$+#\E'+#$8.$.$<%/)%($P#00)5$$ !"#+#$')$.(.0$7#+8'-$L%(.$ <E-0#.-%+4$E)#$%2$+%/E)-$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($&+.+.&&0'3.1#.-#+$Z.&&0'#.'-'%()$.$A3"P#'1"%2#+..$E)#)$%2$)E+2.-$-"#$`&#+.0#$P#00)5$$ 7SNT7V)$P#00$&#+8'-$.3 PADEP did not apply “Special Permit Conditions.5$$ !"#+#$')$'()E22'3'#(-$'(2%+8.($8E)-$'(30E.$.($/#$)E/8'--#.-$.1#8#(-$7+.$P#00)$.(.$.J#$.(.E)#$-"#+#$')$(%$#(1'(##+'(1$+#J'#P$%2$-"#$&#+8'-$ .00#..1#8#(-$70.$(%-$+#\E'+#$.(.($2%+$-"#$L+E8.3Q$%2$Y.03E0.'-'%()$.-#.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.-$.$!##&0#$kB.$%+$".1#8#(-$70.2#$4'#0..$A3"P#'1"%2#+.$P.004$ .$%+$ '()-.(.(. to most of the grandfathered wells <#3%1('R'(1$-"#$'(3+#.+3#00E)$A".J.1#8#(-$70.0.-"#+#.'0.$2%+$-"#$.$-%$/#)-$'(.1#.(.(-'=.&&0'#.$P#00)$-%$J#+'24$-"#$&0.$P#00)5$ N<OL$D#.$.0.)$'()E22'3'#(-$'(2%+8.(.P.'(..-"#+#.2.)$.-#+$ Z.+'00'(1.')-+'/E-'%($2%+$-"#)#$P#00)5$ !"#+#$')$.$0.$0.$X#E-"#+.$'-$.'-'%(.(.$8E)-$J#+'24$-".(.$Y.$ (%-$/##($..$N..E)-+4I/#)-$-#3"(%0%14$&+.%#)$(%-$#()E+#$-".$)-%+.(.(.1#8#(-$70.$KKL$ F@ $ Findings: o$ o$ 7SNT7V)$+E0#)$.(.(.$0.(.P..$Y.(.($/#$)E/8'--#.$2%+$ 84$+#J'#P$)"%P'(1$-".(.&&0'#.-"#+#.-#+$Z.$(%-$+#\E'+#$.$.($A&#3'.$ '(30E.1#8#(-$70.(.5$$$ $ 7SNT7$+#\E'+#.()$2%+$8.#.$-%$-"#$1+.'.5.0#$1.)#.#)3+'/#$P.$<%/)%($&#+8'-)$.-#+$)%E+3#)$-".'('(1$1+.$!##&0#$kB.-#+$Z.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$Y.'-'%($-%$)".$!##&0#$kB.1#.'.$3%8&0#-'%().3#$P.$.$Y%%.$.(.-#+$Z.2.#)'1(.#$.P.($-%$/#$)E/8'--#.$Y.-'%($.'-'%($2%+$-"#$OdT$ P#00.()$2%+$8.-$P'00$/#$E)#.(.

$M@B@$c`CS$+#\E#)-5$!"')$#8.$%+$-+.-$N<OL$.$/E+'#.$P"#-"#+$ f.4.E)#$'-$8E)-$"..$&"%(#$3.(.8&0#.0$ 7#+8'-b$3%(.)-#$P.-#+$3%(2'+8#.$P#00)5$N<OL$8.-8#(-)g$"%P#J#+.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$N<OL$2.$P.($%'0$)"##($%22$%2$-"#$ &'-g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aA&#3'.-%E)"#Q$P#00$P.1#$-+#.+'00'(1$P.$.$/E+'#.-%+:.+'00'(1$P.$-%$#*&0%+.+'00#+V)$P.$.$l#J'($T5$A3"+. use.)-#$.0$%2$.$M@B@$ J'.$p$_G5UB$.-$-"#4$".$/#3.+#$<'J#+$O.($.$.0$8#-"%.(3#$-".$%($)'-#5$`()'-#$P.$.&&+%J#.-'%(:5$ $ c%+$#*. Fracture treatment operations are planned for the B&E well.-'%($ -+#.1#$FB$%2$>>$ $ .$.(1#$\E#)-'%(#.-$.$$ $Exhibit 18B$)"%P)$.0$P.0$P.$p$_G5UM$.)$(%-$.$%($6%J#8/#+$>.'(-.)$-".5.2.()&%+-#.(.00#4$ e%'(-$A#P#+$SE-"%+'-4$-".0$%2$+#)'.$%()'-#.)%($-%$/#0'#J#$-".-#+$/4$0.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.')&%).-#)$2+.)$%/-.-$-"#$.-%+$-%H$$ $ …not drill the well until the permittee submits to the Department and the Department has approved the method by which the permittee will withdraw.(.$7SNT7$ .$-"#+#5$!"#$Z.'($3'+3E8)-.-8#(-)$.-"#+#.'(.P.00%P)$.@@@$1.0$P.)-#5UU$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $OdT$Y#00$kB.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.P.$-".5.)-#)$P%E0.-$-"#$`&#+.2.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.+#$0'8'-#.$+#)'.(.((#.-%E)"#Q$'()&#3-'%($+#&%+-$)-.-$-"#$Z.($+#\E'+#8#(-$%($-"#$OdT$Y#00$kB$P#00$')$ (%-#P%+-"4$/#3.'0$#*3".+'00'(1$ P.$.(.3-E+'(1$%&#+.J#$".$+#.1#8#(-$70.$2+%8$N<OL$-"+%E1"$.+#$<'J#+$O.+'00$3E--'(1)$.-$7SNT7$'(30E.$)-%&&#.-%+.00#4$e%'(-$A#P#+$SE-"%+'-4$"..-$P.-$P'00$(%-$E(.+'00'(1$+#)#+J#$&'-g$-P%$P%+Q#+)$P#+#$%/)#+J#.#+.+'00'(1$20E'.)-#5$7SNT7$3%(2'+8#.(.$N<OL$)-.()&%+-#.00%P#.0$%2$-%&"%0#$P.)-#=&'-).-8#(-$2.2.(.)$)#(-$-%$f. store. distribute.00#4$e%'(-$A#P#+$SE-"%+'-4$&+'%+$-%$S&+'0$M@@?5$$!"')$)#+'#)$%2$#J#(-)$P.)-#=0.$/#$#(3..)'($')$'(3%()')-#(-$P'-"$N<OLV)$+#\E'+#8#(-$-%$3%00#3-$.(.+#$(%-$.-8#(-)$.$P.$M@@?$'(30E.3-E+#$)-'8E0.3-$-".E.$M@B@$7SNT7$'()&#3-'%($+#&%+-$.$E(.$P.$P"'3"$.-$-"#$ 1+.$P.($#8.+'00'(1$ P./'0'-4.-#+$Z. process and dispose of water for well drilling and hydraulic fracturing purposes (“Water Management Plan”).(.(.$Z.+04$&+%"'/'-#.+#$&0.$N<OL$.')&%). N<OL$0')-)$-"#$OdT$Y#00$kB$.Q'(1$.-#.-'%($P.)-#$-%$/#$.&&0'3.$2%+$.$7SNT75$!"')$ '(2%+8.$-%$.)$%(#$%2$-"#$BB$1+.$p$_G5U@$.00%()$%2$Y%%.$M@@?.'-'%($-".)$P#+#$ /#'(1$+#8%J#.5.$/E-$N<OL$0.+3"$].'0$#*3".$-"#$OdT$Y#00$kB$&#+8'-$'))E#.(.-'%($)".-"#+#.(.E.$2%+$-"#$OdT$Y#00$kB$P#005$ c+.($P'00$8##-$N<OLV)$P.$2+%8$-"#$.0$%2$+#)'.#)$.-"#+'(1$ &+%J')'%()5$ $ Findings: o$ $ 7SNT7$&#+8'-$'(.-%E)"#Q$P#00)'-#$)"%P)$-".$'($Exhibit 15.')&%)#.)$P#00)$-".$Y#00$`&#+.&&0'3.#.$-"#$&'-V)$)%0'.$P'-"$f.-$+#\E'+#)$-"#$`&#+..$E(.33#&-#.8&0#.-#+$ 2+%8$-"#$Z.-$.')&%).$&+%.(.1#8#(-$&0. Drilling waste can result in environmental harm if not properly managed !"#+#$')$(%$.$ .'(#.(('(1$2+.E)#$7SNT7$.(3#)$9p$_G5UB$ .)-#$/E+'.-$.0$ P'-"'($N#0.)$-+.$.0.$E(.$N.%#)$(%-5$c%+$#*.-#+$P.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$7SNT7$7#+8'-.$P'-"'($0'(#+$.E3#.3'0'-4$-".(.')&%).-#.

'.(.$.)-#5$c%+$#*..0$L%()E0-.$N./0#$2%+$84$+#J'#P.0'(1$3%(3#+()$.)-#$".$"'1"$&+#))E+#$2+.$C(35$$ 7.-$P.-#$.1#8#(-$%J#+)'1"-$')$(##.$.$".+.)'/0#5_>$!#*.$`+.+4$.2.($.($-"#$%-"#+$1+.8.)$2%+$.(.(3#5$C-$.)$.(.$0%%&$-.$'8&.(1#$%+1.-"#+#.$.$<#&%+-$2%+$6jA$%($NAXTCA..('3)5$ _M $S0&".00$20E'.)$.8#(-)$-".(.$-"#$P.004$2#.()$8#-$-"#$N<OLV)$P.$P#00).-'%($&+%J'.&&0'#.)-#$8.(.&&0'#.$3"0%+'.P.8'(.8#(-.(.)-#$&+'%+$-%$&+%3#))'(1$%+$.3'0'-45$$ $ S0-"%E1"$0.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$..)$-"#$E)#$%2$30%)#.-#)$.E3-'%($ P#00$-".%$(%-$.1#8#(-$&+.$!7DU?.$T(J'+%(8#(-.+1#=J%0E8#.)-#$8.'(.(.+#$)-+%(1$'(.+'(15$ $ <#&%+-#.5$C2$-"#$)%'0$')$30#.)$.$2+%8$-"#$+#)#+J#$&'-$.P.(.04)')$.$<#&%+-$2%+$6j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kB=MD$ &+%.$-"#$X<`.$'-$')$E(30#./'0'-4.+1#$'8&%E(.$M@M@$J'%0.3-'3#)$'($%-"#+$)-.-$-"#$!##&0#__$.'#)#0$+.5$!"#$ L'-4$%2$c%+-$Y%+-".0$%2$.-#$+#1E0.#.#0'(#)$2%+$`'0$.)-#$'($ -"#$3%(-.$M@@_5$ _] $c%+-$Y%+-"$!#*.$P.0$L%()E0-.$-%$ P#00)$)E/^#3-$-%$-"')$D#.$.-#+5$ C8&%E(.-$N<OL$".$2%+$-"#$ 1+.$Z.$T(J'+%(8#(-.$N#J#0%&8#(-.+%3.(.+..-'%($P#00)5$!"#+#$')$'(3%()')-#(34$'($&#+8'-$3%(.$+#J'#P#.$C(35.J.)%0'(#$+.$C(35.$ .)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.(.$XE'.3-'3#$ '()-#.$0%%&$-.-$.1#8#(-$&0.(.(.$2+.+'00'(1$8E.)-#$8.$P#00)$P#+#$(%-$.$-"#$)%'0$E(.$X.$*40#(#5$$ U? $!D7r$-%-.(3#$P'-"$)-.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.3-'%(.('3)5$ _B $N<`r$.(.$<#&%+-$2%+$6jA$%($NAXTCA.3'0'-4$'($.+$ P".(.E$%2$K.(Q$)4)-#8)$.$'8&%E(.$&+%"'/'-)$%()'-#$/E+'.-$ .')&%).-'%($.0$P.0)%$+#\E'+#)$-"#$.(._U$P"'3"$+#\E'+#)$.$O%%Q.'(.$')$/#)-$&+.(.$P.)-#$8.-'%($%2$.-'%()$-".)-#$8.$AE+2.$ 6#P$Z#*'3%$+#\E'+#)$.-"#+#.(.1#$&'-5$!"#$E)#$%2$-#8&%+.&&+%J#.(.3-E+#$-+#.'0.'-'%()5$ __ $Exhibit 9B$)"%P)$.-'%($')$2%E(.($ '(-#+8#.0$2.()&%+-$'-$%22)'-#$-%$.$!#*.0#.')&%).J.(Q$)4)-#8).1#8#(-$&0.(.)$-"#$&%-#(-'.(.($'8&+%&#+04$0'(#.'-'%($2%+$-"#$!##&0#$kB=MD$&+%.$.0$&#-+%0#E8$"4.(.$.33%+.2.(.1#$-%$%33E+$-"+%E1"$-"#$0'(#+.3#$`&#+.1#8#(-$&0.3-'(1$1+%E(.$A#&-#8/#+$M@@?5$ _> $OE+#.$KKL$ FM $ O#3.#+$-"#$+#)#+J#$&'-$/#$-#)-#.)$/#$+#8%J#.00%P$%()'-#$/E+'.(4$'8&%E(.0$2%+$0#.$%2$+#)#+J#$&'-)$..-#+$&+%-#3-'%($+#\E'+#8#(-)5$ $ O#)-$P..(3#$6%5$BG>>?=@M=M@@?5$$ _U $A##$Exhibit 20.(.$-%$-+.8&0#.).0$7#+8'-$L%(.0$2.)-%E)"#Q_G$P#00)$.(-)..-$-"#$P.)$T*&0%+.()$2%+$-"#$1+.$&'-5$$ _G $Exhibit 18B$ N<OL$D#.-'(1$A-.($')IP.+'00$3E--'(1)$.)-#$.-$P'00$/#$E)#.$N<`_B$3%8/'(#.(.1#8#(-.++.$3E--'(1)5_F$!"#$+#)#+J#$&'-)$.-#$.0$O!TqUG.(.-'%()5U_$6#P$Z#*'3%$.$Z.Q.+#$(%-$3E++#(-04$&#+8'--#.(3#$ P'-"$)-.$P#00)$-%$ #()E+#$-".$P#00)$'(30E.3Q2'00#.4$MU._@$.#)'1($.(-$ 3.(Q)5$_]$C-$')$8E3"$8%+#$#22'3'#(-$92+%8$.3'0'-4$-".2.&%'(-:$-%$3%00#3-$P.$-%-.'.$%2$+#)#+J#$&'-)$.$+#)#+J#$&'-$0'(#+)$/#$)#(-$-%$.8#(-)$+#)E0-)$'($)E+2.$'($-"#$2E-E+#$-"#+#$P'00$/#$+#\E'+#8#(-)$2%+$J#+4$0.'+$&%00E-'%(5$ $ 6%(#$%2$-"#$%-"#+$1+.0)%$(%$'(2%+8.$)4)-#8)$P'-"$)-##0$-.+4$+#)#+J#$&'-)$.$+#8#.-8#(-)$.33%+.)$.$'()-#.+#2E0$.8#(-)$.$7SNT7$P#00$&#+8'-$2%+$NK$!##&0#$B$MD$2%+$A&#3'.(.1#8#(-$ 2.-'%().$#-"40/#(R#(#.+/%()5$ _@ $X<`r$1.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.5$$ $ U_ UG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $S0&".))#))8#(-$2+%8$7SNT7$2%+$.$/#)-$&+.($#(#+14$)-.-#$)-%+.-#.'-'%($.(.(.$".$C(35.$2%+$ /#(R#(#.'(#+$-".$0'8'-)5$$$ $ !"#$E)#$%2$30%)#.($'-$3.)$.$3".$%2$'($.$3E--'(1)$8E)-$/#$+#8%J#.$'8&%E(.')-E+/.$Z.($#(J'+%(8#(-.+'00'(1$P.1#8#(-$9OKZ:$+#3%88#(.'3.$0%%&#.-"#+#.00$8E.$Z..00$%2$-"#$P#00)5$!"#+#$P.'-'%(.(.$'8&%E(.(.$A#&-#8/#+$M@@?$ $O!Tqr$/#(R#(#.0)%$1#(#+.)$+#\E'+#)$30%)#.$P.

$P'-"$3"#8'3.)-#$-+#.$.E3#.'('(1$)#3-'%($%2$-"#$P#00$.#$.5$$ $ !4&'3.0$8#-"%.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$)-.$.)-#)$-".'0E-#$.'+$%+$.(-$P.$N<OL$T(1.$N<OL$Z.'(1$%($'-)$ %+'1'(:5GF$Z#+3E+4$3%(3#(-+.$-"#$77L)$&+%J'.(.+'00'(1$%&#+.$GM$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.$&+%.$0'8'-'(1$)".$/#3..'()$8#+3E+4$9B&&8=B@&&8$D1.(.$-"#+#$')$(%$8#-"%.)$ .1#8#(-$O+.$)-%+.%8#)-'3$P.$/4$.+'00#.+'00$3E--'(1)..-'%()5G]$!"')$#\E. waste oil and municipal waste and trash [emphasis added].3"'(1$P'-"$.(E.$)E/8'--#.$P#00)5$ G@ $ZE)R4()Q'.P.$M@B@5$$ GB $N<6$3%88E('3.8)$2+%8$.$)4)-#8:.(.$P'-"$8E.-'%($3.+'00'(1$8#-"%.P.+1#.)-#P.$N.$-%-.+.$ 3E--'(1)$.E3-#.004$9BGF?$0/$D1I4+:$2+%8$8E._? $ S33%+.(Q)$.P.($/#$+#.)'(.)-#$1#(#+.-#04$B5U?$0/)GU$%2$8#+3E+4$&#+$P#00$2%+$P#00)$.-'%(g$)%0'.-#.$%(H$-"#$.E+'(1$-"#$.-'%($0#J#0)$%2$8#+3E+45G>$$ $ !"#$m5A5$N#&.P.$2%+$+#J'#P$'(30E.$&%+-.$ '($8%+#$.(.$3%8&0#-'%($%2$..0$.+4$B?.3'.$.+#.-'%($P.-$'-$')$3%00#3-#.'+$.E+'(1$P#00$.+-8#(-$%2$C(-#+'%+$#)-'8.$-%$3%(-+%0$-"#$"4.-'%(.$'(-%$-"#$XE02$%2$ Z#*'3%$9X`Z:$.'(1$.(.1#(-$E)#.$-"#$3%8&0#-'%($.$7+#J#(-'%($.'#)$)"%P$-".$)3+.')&%)#.-#$)-.$P'-"$.$P'-"$.&&+%*'8.#$%2$-"#$N#0.$&E/0'3.-8#(-$.(.1#$FF$%2$>>$ $ .004$%33E++'(1$0%P#+$3%(3#(-+.(.)-#$3"#8'3.-$6#P2'#0.$(%-$.(.+'00#.-#.)$P.0)5$$ $ N+'00'(1$8E.0$2+%8$O.$KKL.+#$.0.$.(.-'%($%2$-"#$Z.$'($.($'(30E.+'00'(1$.-$/.0$P.$/E-$+.$.)$P'00$ /#$E)#.).+'00'(1$8E.0$.((E.-'%()$3..1#+$Y.#H$$ $ Wastes generated during these activities will be typical for gas drilling operations and will include drill cuttings. produced water.(.$.$0#.(.'+$.-#+'.$(%(=.$9.(.')3".$-"#+#$.+#$(%-$E)#.+#$<'J#+$O.+'00'(1$8E.-E+.E3#.8%E(-$./0#$-%'0#-)g$&+%.)$.(.$'-$8E)-$/#$.+'#)$ /.+'00'(1$8#-"%.).E)-+45b$ N<OL$D#.'+.-#$ .+'-#5$O.)$.$)-.($#*".E)-+45b$ G> $"--&HIIPPP52%))'05#(#+1451%J.'(.))E8#.'-'%(.$2%+8.(3#5$$7SNT7$%(04$.+#$<'J#+$O.$7+#)#(-.-'%($P#00$'(30E.+'00'(1$%&#+.-'%($P#00$J.)$ T*&0%+.+#$<'J#+$O.$.$Z.0$2+%8$O.$-"#+#$')$(%$&+%3#))$-%$0'8'-$-"#$.$P.-#+$.$.#&-"$%2$.8.$.-'3$&+#))E+#$'($.$-%$.(.)-#$%'0)g$.+3#00E)$A".+'00'(1$P.$2E#0$)&'00)5$6#P2'#0.'(1$-%$-"#$N<OL.-$-"')$-'8#$9Exhibit 21:5G@$S/)#(-$N<OL$+#J'#P$%2$#*&0%+.)-#$1#(#+.-E-#$'($7#(()40J.-E+.'+$.#.&&0'3.+#$E)#. drilling and frac fluids.)-#$'(30E.-#)$-%$ .0$3%(3#+()5$$ Drilling Muds & Drill CuttingsH$N+'00'(1$8E.1#$2.$ )-'8E0.$')$/.$ 6#P2'#0.)-#$)-+#.$KKL$ FF $ !"#$.-'%($8#-"%.-"#+#.&&+%J#.+3#00E)$A"..($#*&0%+.$.+'-#$P'-"$(.-'%($P#00)$'($ -"#$N#0.@@@V5$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ _? $6#P2'#0.$/4$E)'(1$-"#+8.$.)-#P.#/+')g$P.(.0$0#J#0$%2$%J#+)'1"-$.0#$Z##-'(1.3"'.4$M@B@.-#04$BM.8&0#)$%2$)'1('2'3.3'0'-'#)$'($-"#$ N#0.$-".$ 8.$Z.(-$#(J'+%(8#(-.)'(.+'-#$3%(-.(.'+$.8%E(-$.-'%().)#.($#*&0%+..$-4&#$%2$P.$.-$3%E0.(.'0$/#0%P$-%$"'1"0'1"-$)%8#$%2$-"#$8%+#$)'1('2'3.$(%-$'(3+#8#(-.0.E3#.$)-'8E0.)'($.V)$77L$.$7+#&.+'-#$2%+$-"#$`'0$C(.0$1.+#$8#-.E)#$-"#+#$')$(%$)-.-#+$2+%8$%(= )'-#$)#&-'3$-.(.+%)-.($2%+$E)#$%2$..+'00'(1$8#-"%.J4$ 8#-.+'-#$3.(.(.4$/#$.$-"#$+#8.-#+$<#)%E+3#)$Z.%3E8#(-)$&0.+'00'(1$-%$.$7S.(.+'00'(1$8E.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.0$X.+'00'(1$-#3"('\E#)g$"%P#J#+.%8#)-'3$P.)$.-$'-)$P#00)$E)#$.$Y5e5.-E+.$)"'&&#.&&+%J#.$N#J#0%&8#(-.#&#(.$aZ#+3E+4$<#8%J.+'00'(1$8E.0$0%3.+'-#$2%+$-"#$`'0$C(.$P.+.$P.)$ %(04.(.))E+.)$#*&0%+.)-#$)-+#.(.$2+%8$.3'0'-4$%E-)'.V)$77L$0')-)$'-)$#*&#3-#.5$$ $ m5A5$N#&.('.).#)3+'/#.&&+%*'8.$aZ#+3E+4$<#8%J.00$'-)$ 1+.0$)-.$/#$1#(#+.#)$.-$')$3%(.1#8#(-$'($6.))%3'.+'00'(15$N<6$+#&%+-)$-".-#.-'%($.+'00#.$-4&#$%2$P.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$-#)-'(1.$-%$.(.8)$2+%8$ '-)$a(.0)$.-'%($P'-"$DLKKL$%($`3-%/#+$MF.-$@5G$8#-+'3$-%()$%2$8#+3E+4$')$.-"#+$-"#)#$.-#+5$!"')$')$(%-$.($3%(-.2.0)g$P.-$#*&0%+.$M@B@5$$ GM $Y"'0#$N<6$+#&%+-)$-".004$.$ P#00/%+#5GB$!"#$8%)-$3%88%($P#'1"-'(1$.(#)).&$8#-.$A#&-#8/#+$B].).(.-8#(-$2.$%-"#+$"#.-'%($.E)#$7SNT7$')$(%-$ &+%J'.-$.-#)$-".-$7SNT7V)$)-.8%E(-$%2$P#00$-#)-'(1$-".$C(35$$ 7.-'%(b$-%$'(30E.($#*&0%+.'($8#+3E+4$.($977L7:.)-#)$./'0'-4.(.+'00'(1$8E.$-%$#()E+#$-".$L%(-'(1#(34$70.)5$ $ T*.0#$1.5$ GF $"--&HIIPPP52%))'05#(#+1451%J.E)-'J#$0')-.#H$.'(1$-"')$.-#+$-+#.$.-$-"#$-%&="%0#$)#3-'%($%2$)%8#$P#00)$ 8.#-.$/#3.+-8#(-$%2$T(#+14$)-E.+#$(%$N<OL$.))E+#)$-".+'00'(1.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.-$.-#.-'%($P#00$&#+8'-$ .$S&&.(3".$e.$M@B@$8##-'(1$-".$ -"#$.$%+$ )#0#3-'(1$/.0#$2%+8.-#.

)$ )".+'00'(1$8E.($C))E#$2%+$-"#$T(#+14$C(.+#$<'J#+$O.)5GG$$ $ N+'00$3E--'(1)$3.$&+%.$.+3#00E)$P#00:t$9].$)'1()$.GF?$ 0/ID1:I9B.-8#(-$.+3#00E)$A"./'0'-4$X.1#$'(-%$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-5$$ $ j#-$7SNT7$.)-#).-'%($XE'.-#8#(-$`($-"#$`'0.E)-+4.E3#.3#$/#-P##($-"#$P#00/%+#$.+'00'(1$8E.$.)-#$.$%2$.J4$8#-.3-'J#$Z.$".$ )-'8E0.+'-#$\E.(.-$#*&0%+.0$X#(#+'3$T(J'+%(8#(-.+'00'(1$8#-"%.$/#$.-#+$.(.+.(..-'%().8$Y#00$7#+8'-$C))E.-'%($0'8'-)$'($.-'%($-%$.-#).$0%P#+$ /.$.$mAXA$c.$.$X.$-%$/#$.3-'J#$P.)-#$.')&%).+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.()&%+-.(.$&+%.(.$&5$>=FU5$ ?@ $6#P$j%+Q$A-.+'-#I2-:t9B*B@=U$D1I1$/.-$.8.$+#)#+J#$&'-$.')3".)$d$A%0E-'%($Z'('(1$ <#1E0.004$`33E++'(1$<.P.-#I#(J'+%(ID1sM@.2.+'-#r$9B$Z.'.0$2%+$0#.(.$Y.+3#00E)$P#00:t$9].-$%()'-#$/E+'.0$N+'00'(1$.-'%()$2%+$Td7$%&#+.+'#-4$%2$ 8#-"%.3-$A-.$)E+J#4).0#$.$P.$-%$..$1.(-$6`<Z$%2$ 3%(3#+(.$.@@@$2-IP#00:t9B@@$0/)$/.$3E--'(1)$'(30E.@@@V$2%+$-"#$+#8.)$<#)#+J%'+).3-'J#$Z.(Q$)4)-#8).')&%).+'00'(1$8E.+-'3E0.-#$ .#)$-"#$E)#$%2$a30%)#.)-#$-+#.1#$ P#00/%+#$0#(1-"$%2$].(./'0'-4$X.(.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.J#$.+'-#:$r$]5@$0/$D1IP#00$ GG $m5A5$T(J'+%(8#(-.('E8=MFG$.(.0$ 2.$#*&0%+.$X.25$ $9B.-E+.$)&+#.$T7S$GMB=<=?F=@@F.$P#00)5$ C()-#./'0'-4.)$2%+$-"#$`22)"%+#$AE/3.(-'.0)%$3%(-.(.$+..(.$T\E'&8#(-=$ .(Q$)4)-#8)$2%+$-"#)#$1+.8'E8$ 3%(3#(-+.$-"#$6`<Z$ 3%8&%)'-'%()$3.('.(.+'00#.(.#0'(#)$.$&5$U=BM?5$ ?B $mA$N#&.-#1%+4$%2$-"#$`'0$.')&%).8'E8.$C(35$$ 7.-#+$)%0E/0#$.-#$%2$B@@$0/)I2-.'(104$.$0'3#()#.$ ')$#)-'8.$3E--'(1)$'($7#(()40J.%)#$3%(-+%0.$X.#-#+8'(#$6`<Z$3%(-#(-$.&&+%J#.#(-'2'#..0$C8&.'($6`<Z5$!"#$6#P$j%+Q$A-.$8%('-%+'(1..(.(.+'00#.)$.$ )-+'(1#(-$6`<Z$+#1E0.$-"#+#$')$-"#$&%-#(-'.4$3%(-.3'0'-45$`-"#+$%'0$.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.0$C8&.+.P.$P#$8E)-$.@FG$2-IP#00:t9B>@$0/)$/.-'%($-%$.E0'3$c+.$%+$-+.$`-"#+$K%P=7#+8#.$E)'(1$.(.$0.+'00'(1$3E--'(1)$.33%+.$/E+'.')&%).02=0'2#$%2$B.+'00#....$-"#$8#+3E+4$3%(-#(-$'($.(.(.$%2$'($.+'-#I2-:t9B@*B@=U$D1I1$/.0)$96`<Z:$'($7+%.-#+$.(.-"#+#.0$2.(.0$X#(#+'3$T(J'+%(8#(-.3-'3#$%2$30%)#.$%2$.J%'.$+#3%+.4$%33E+5$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $"--&HIIPPP51%8+588)51%JI"%8#&1I+#1E0.-%+4$7+%1+.$-"#$3.-.($%22)'-#$P..+'-#:r$B.(.$`-"#+$K%P=7#+8#.'.+'-#$E)#$+.+#$Q(%P($-%$3%(-.'($6`<Z$'($)%8#$+#1'%()5$A"..+'-#I2-:t9B*B@=U$D1I1$/.2-$AE&&0#8#(-.$K%E')'.$6#P$A%E+3#$ 7#+2%+8.$.+4$)E/)-.3#$'(^#3-'%($'(-%$.)$<#)#+J%'+).E3#.$P#00.'($6.)'(15$$ GU G] N<OL$D#.-'%($%2$&.U@@$4#.-'%($ ..')&%)#.+'-#:$r$@5]$0/$D1IP#00$ B@&&8$D1$'($/.($'(30E.)$.$D'1"=f%0E8#$D4.0#$3%(-.@@@$2-IP#00:t9B@@$0/)$/.-'%($-+#.$-%$)E&&%+-$ %-"#+P')#.-%+4$7+%1+.-8#(-$P.(3#$-".)5?B$!"#+#2%+#.-#8#(-$`($-"#$`'0.$'(^#3-'%(.$-"#+#$')$.0$.(.00%P)$.3-'3#$2%+$8.)$.(.)-#$.(.$(%-$+#\E'+#$-"#$/#)-$&+.((E0E)?M$%2$.+)5?@$<.0$3.0$2%+$6`<Z$3%(-#(-$'($.$P'-"$8E.#&#(.-$-"')$6`<Z$8.$M@@?$N+.'(1H$%33E&.$-"#$&%-#(-'.(3#$2%+$D%+'R%(-.+'00$3E--'(1)$)"%E0.2-$AE&&0#8#(-.)$d$A%0E-'%($Z'('(1$ <#1E0.(.3-$A-.')&%).-$-"#$Z.@?B$P#00):$r$B5U?$0/)$%2$8#+3E+4$&#+$P#005$ G_ $B&&8$D1$'($/.+3#00E)$A".'E8=MMU$.$0%%&$-.(.$NAXTCA.33%E(-$2%+$0%P#+$#*&#3-#..-"P.-$.%($1.(..0#)$.$-+.'%.$<.E0'3$c+.-#5&.$-+#.-E+.-'%($96jANTL:$+#&%+-)$-".)$T*-+.).)'(5$X.E)#$'-$')$P.3-$ %2$3%()-+E3-'(1$.$.(.$'(30E.$Q##&'(1.1#$-".0'-45$$ $ N+'00'(1$8E.3-E+'(1$-%$N#J#0%&$-"#$ Z..1#$F>$%2$>>$ $ .$+.-$@5]=$]5@$0/)G_$&#+$P#00.$.b$ '()-#.'%.0'(1$P'00$8##-$N<OL$P.$.)$)-.)5$O#3.$.J#+.0$%($)'-#$'($&'-).+1#sM@#)-'8.$0#.)$!#*.3-$A"##-$cA=B>M=??5$ ?M $S((E0E)$')$-"#$)&.'($-"#$"#.-'%(.$M@@?$N+.+.'E8=MMU.0$P#00..)5$ $ O#)-$&+.-#.$7SNT7$.(.$".+'00#.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.8$Y#00$7#+8'-$C))E.$'($X`Z::t$9BM.-#$ N#&.-#.'.$"..+$'(^#3-'%($'(-%$-"#$.+'00$3E--'(1)$'($-"#$N#0.-'%(.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.(3#$2%+$D%+'R%(-.#$ #*-#+(.0#$'($6#P$j%+Q$A-.$<.-'%($&..$0.0.')&%)#.+'-#r$9B$Z.+3#00E)$A".)-#5G?$6jANTL$'.004$`33E++'(1$<..($/#$"#-#+%1#(#%E)$.$)E3"$.+'00$3E--'(1).$N.($.$'(30E.($J.E3-'%($P.$ B??F5$ G? $6#P$j%+Q$A-.%&-#.'('(1$)#3-'%($%2$-"#$P#00$')$.0$%2$.$0%%&$-.4$.GF?$0/$D1I4+5$$9B.0#)$3.(.'(1$%2$%-"#+$Td7$ P.'(.'#)$%($-"#$Z.$-%$.-$-"#$-%&="%0#$%2$)%8#$%2$-"#)#$P#00)$')$.@?B$P#00)I4+$.$ +.0$7+%-#3-'%($S1#(34.+3#00E)$A".+.(3#$A-.(.$P.-#+'.)$8.$.+-8#(-$%2$C(-#+'%+.Q.1'(1$.'%.$+#)#+J#$&'-.+-8#(-$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$8#-"%.$ &+#J'%E)04$.-#+'.4)$3.(.'()$ m+.-'%($P#00$P.0$L%()#+J.)$-"#$8%)-$)'1('2'3.0$96`<Z:5$S/)#(-$.$D'1"=f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`'0=c'#0.E)#$7SNT7$.

/$2%+$-"#$mA$ N#&.%$(%-$0'8'-$.$-%$.)$6`<Z$Y.$P.(./0#$2%+$0.-8#(-$ 2.')&%)#$%2$'-$-%$)E+2.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.'3-'%($%J#+$-"#$.0$8#-"%.$`'0=c'#0.-'%($P.$!5N5$9X.-#+$')$-4&'3.)$m(.E3#.3Q$.)-#$.(.(.$&+%.)$.+'00'(1$&#+8'-)$'))E#.$X.)-#$')$3%(2'(#.E3#.$/4$S+1%((#$6.#+$ )%8#$3'+3E8)-.-'%(.P.$C(35$$ 7.-'%(.8%E(-$%2$P.-#+$-#)-'(1$.$'-$')$E(30#.$mAXA$c.(.)$^E+').8.$ )&+#.004$T(".$)E3"$.00$P.$.(.(1#$<#)%E+3#):$.$%2$/4$0.((#+$-".$P.E3#.$P.+3#00E)$A".3-'J#$#0#8#(-$+.E3#.($Y.'(1$ -"#$+.')&%).'(.(.'()$ 6`<Z5$T7S$+#&%+-)$-".-'J#$L%..$%+$+%.-#+$-%$/#$.)-#$&+#)#(-#.2.))$CC$'(^#3-'%($P#00)5?U$S/)#(-$P.(.$A%E+3#)$%2$N+'(Q'(1$Y.0$%2$%-"#+$6`<Z$P.1#$-+#.+1#$T0'8'(.'('(1$6`<Z5?G$S$)-E.'0E-#.$<.3-'J#$ Z.')3".'%.(.$E(.)$-"#$N#0...$P.0$&E/0'3$%2$. TENORM100 in the water will concentrate in the bottom sludges or residual salts of the ponds.E3#.)$<.+'(1$2%+8.)$S.'(1.-"#+#.P.($C))E#$2%+$-"#$T(#+14$C(.$p>5U@B$=$ >5UFM5$aN')&%).#.E3#$0.(.'%0%1'3.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.-#+'.8$'($7#(()40J.(.$./%+.$`3-%/#+$M@@B5$ $7SNT7$`'0$.$7.('.)$%2$-"#$mA$.+#$+#1E0.0)$X#(#+.&-#+$>.$Z.-$0.$B??U5$ B@@ $!T6`<Z$')$!#3"(%0%1'3.()$2%+$8%)-$%2$-"#$1+.%#)$(%-$ 3%(-.-#+.-H$$ $ Lined and/or earthen pits were previously used for storing produced water and other nonhazardous oil field wastes.0$7%00E-.+#$<'J#+$O.2.3-'3#$'2$&+%.-'%()$-".0$%2$`'0$.8$9mCL:$%2$-"#$2#.#.3-$A"##-$cA=B>M=??5$$ ?G $!#*.E)-+4.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$6.#(-'2'#.#+1+%E(.$)&#3'2'3.(E..-#+$.$/4$-"#$7#-+%0#E8$C(.)-#$8.(3#.Q#)$&+%.5$$ $ Produced Water Waste: c%+8.-$'(^#3-#.$)&+#.)$!#3"(%0%14$C()-'-E-#:.$P.(.+$P".-$.('.E.8'(.-'%($%+$ )E+2.(.E3#.$8.$-%$)E+2.-#+$ Z.00#(1#)$'($7#(()40J.$E(.$T\E'&8#(-=$ .&-#+$c.')&%)..0)$96`<Z:$'($7+%.(. In this case.%$(%-$)&#3'24$P.')&%)#.$P.004$+'3"$'($3"0%+'.1#8#(-$ &0.$P'-"$8E.004$`33E++'(1$<.$-%$-"#$'(^#3-'%($R%(#$'($.+-8#(-$%2$C(-#+'%+$9N`C:$3%(30E..0'%.#+$-"#$2#..')&%).+1#.$'(30E.&-#+$>.$L%88'))'%($9!q<<L:.$&+%..$.'0+%.$2%+$.0$`33E++'(1$<.-#.')&%)#.$/#3.(.(-)5 ?]$S$ )8.$E(.#.$2'0-#+$-"#$P.'E85$!"')$%2-#($8.0.-#+$/#.$BU$!#*.&-#+$M.($%E-.-#.-#+$E()E'-..'+$.$')$-"+%E1"$&+#=-+#.($/#$1#(#+.-#+$.1#8#(-$L".'(1$%2$.$M@@G5$ ?U $!"#$m(.5??$ $ cE+-"#+8%+#.$+#\E'+#$#*-#()'J#$&+%.0#$Y.$P.)-#b5$!"#$!LTW$".-'%(.5?F$$ 7+%.-#+$S3-.$ .)-#$8.-#+b:$3.004$`33E++'(1$<.#+.4$3%(.(3#)$-"#$)%0E/'0'-4$%2$%-"#+$#0#8#(-).-$.$P.(.)'(5?_$$$ $ `-"#+$)-.0$K.3-'J#$Z.3-'J#$Z.'#.%$(%-$ )#-$0'8'-)$%($.$P.$N.$X.5?>$ $ !"#$&+'8.E3#.-#+$'($7#(()40J.$.+#.+'24$.E)#$7SNT7$.($')$2%+$&+%.-"#+#.+1#+$\E..$C(^#3-'%($L%(-+%0$7+%1+.-'%($.$-".$ P.+'00'(1$.$KKL$ F] $ $ !"#$.E3#.$3%8&%)'-'%(.0$.%)#$%2$#*&%)E+#$-%$-"#$1#(#+.$P.-#+$9mANY:5$$ ?_ $mA$N#&.$P.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.8'(')-+.-8#(-$&0.$7.+-8#(-$%2$C(-#+'%+.(.$X.-'%()5$7SNT7$+#&%+-)$-".)$.-'%($S6KITSN=M.$6`<Z$P.$P#00).)$Z.-#+)$-".+'00#.$`3-%/#+$M@@B5$ ?] $X.$.-#+)$-%$#()E+#$-".)-#$3%(-.(-'-'#)$%2$&+%..-#+$3%(-.$/4$7SNT7$2%+$-"#$BB$1+.3#$P.)-#)5$ ?? $S+1%((#$6.0$8#-"%.-#+)$%+$0.8'(')-#+)$-"#$67NTA$&+%1+.#+1+%E(.E3#.(.2#$N+'(Q'(1$Y.$K5`5$9<.#+$.-#.0$K.)-#$.004$'($)#()'-'J#$.E3#.-#+$%+$)#P.+'00'(1$8#-"%.$-"#$"'1"#)-$ &%-#(-'.-E+.'%.'(1$%2$P.)-#$.0)%$.1#8#(-$%2$6.)$)E3"$.0$N%)#$S))#))8#(-$<#0.-#+$-".$AE/3".$P.-#).)$Z.E+'(1$#*&0%+.-%+4.-#+'.-'%($A4)-#8$967NTA:$&#+8'-5$7SNT7$ .4#).$P#00)$.3#$P.-$-"#$P.('.produced waters are now generally reinjected into deep wells…No added radiological risks appear to be associated with this disposal method as long as the radioactive material carried by the produced water is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $7SNT7$`'0$. Thus the pond sediments pose a potential radiological health risk….0$%2$%'0$2'#0.05$$ ?> ?F N<OL$D#.E3-#.0$A.+-$B.)-#P.')&%).0$L"..)-#P.(.-$.1#8#(-$&0.-'%()$3.(E.(.00#+$.$P.$Y.E1".3'0'-'#)$-".$6.(.+#$.-E+.-#$2+#)"$P.(-$N')3".E)-+4.($&+%.E3#.00%P)$&+%.$-%$Z.E3#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$S5Y5.$%2$'(-%$L0.)-#$.-$8.-#+$93%88%(04$+#2#++#.)$)-E. hydrocarbon storage brine.$)&+#.&&0'3.+'00'(1$8E.(.0$ L0#.)$a&+%.4$)#+J#$.#+.$#)&#3'..004$&+%"'/'-$+%. or mining wastes.-#+$&'-)$.).$D..-#+$S3-$1%J#+()$3%(-+%0$%2$-"#$'(^#3-'%($%2$ 20%P/.-$30.1#$F]$%2$>>$ $ .$L".-#.'%.$7E/0'3.$6.-#+$')$.-E+./'0'-4.($-"%)#$P#00)$.+4$8#-"%.3#$P.-#+'.$!'-0#$BU.)$!#*.0$L".$P#00$-#)-'(1$%&#+.-#.$&+.')&%).(..'%.+'00'(1$ %&#+..$T7S$'.(3#)5$ $ 7+%.$P"'3"$#(".

51%JI+.$7+#J#(-'%($.$P#00)5$ <#&%+-#.-$.(.-"#+#.-#+'.)-#$".$'-$')$(%-$&%))'/0#$-%$3%(2'+8$P"#-"#+$-"')$P.P.$B@M $ 6#P2'#0.(. as well as accumulate in or adjacent to structures such as residences and water wells.$C(35$$ 7.(.-#)H$$ $ Produced water will be removed periodically from the tanks at each wellsite and transported by a licensed residual waste hauler to a permitted disposal facility [emphasis added].$%-"#+$"#.0$%&#+.(.$L%(-'(1#(34$977L:$70.$S&&. This stray gas may adversely affect water supplies.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.)-5$ $6#P2'#0.$&+#2#++#.$8#+3E+4.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.')&%).(.-E+.'0.)-#$".1#8#(-$&+.($)-.$P#00)5$ N<OL$D#. Stray gas migration associated with oil and gas wells can impact water supplies $ 7SNT7$)-+#))#)$-"#$'8&%+-. These situations present a serious threat to public health and safety as well as the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ B@B B@M $"--&HIIPPP5#&.P.00%P$%()'-#$/E+'.)5"-80k.0&.+#$(%-$3E++#(-04$2%E(.0$"..J4$8#-.$7S.-$L".-"#+#.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$/E-$P'00$/#$P"#($-"#$ +E0#8.#$6.$.$KKL$ FU $ returned in the same or lower concentration to the formations from which it was derived [emphasis added].(.+#$)-+%(1$'(.)-#$".)$2%+$8%)-$%2$-"#$1+.#.-'%()$ -".(.))E+.($3%(2%+8)$-%$N<OLV)$ +#\E'+#8#(-)$2%+$P.(.)-#$8.-'%()$.'%.+#.0$8#-"%.J.($977L7:.)-#$3./'0'-4.(.$%2$30%)#.1#$FU$%2$>>$ $ . If a well is not properly cased and cemented.(.()$P#+#$(%-$.V)$7+#&.-$N<OL$.)-#$8.5$ O#3.($')IP.00$'-)$ 1+.+$P".$7+#J#(-'%($.')&%).)$-".)-#$.6.$/#)-$&+.)-#$8.$P'-"$.-'%(I-#(%+8I%'0.4$M@B@.1#8#(-$%J#+)'1"-$')$(##.3-'3#)$'($%-"#+$)-.0$%2$.'(.-$-"#)#$ &+%-#3-'%()$.Q'(1$')$2'(.2.4$1.1#8#(-$&0.0'R#.5.$'($M@BBH$$ $ Properly constructed and operated oil and gas wells are critical to protecting water supplies and public safety./0#.0'(1$3%(3#+($.1#.)-%E)"#Q$P#00)$.0$P.-#)$.$%J#+$+#)#+J#$&'-)$.0'(1$&0.-$-"#$!##&0#$.3-'J#$Z.-'%()$'($-"#$N#0.$(%-'(1$-".)-#$ 8.8#$-"#$&#+8'--#.$Z.$'-$')$E(30#.($P'00$8##-$N<OLV)$P..$7+#&.8#(-)5$ N+'00'(1$P.-$-"#$P. Under certain conditions.+8$'2$(%-$&+%&#+04$8.)-#$8.E)#$P.$ '8&%E(.-#+$ &+%-#3-'%($+#\E'+#8#(-). stray gas has the potential to cause a fire or explosion.8.(#)).00%P)$P.'.$KKL.(.'-'%(.$.+'00'(1$P.101 6#P2'#0.8'E8$.%#)$'-$(.E)-+'..'3.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$.E)#$7SNT7$.($'(30E.0$2.(#)).0)5$ $ o$ o$ o$ $ $ $ D.$'($7SNT7V)$+#1E0.(.(3#$-".%#)$ (%-5$ O#)-$P.$(%+$.($+#)E0-$'($#(J'+%(8#(-.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.&-#+$_G.0$96`<Z:.$0%%&$-. natural gas in subsurface formations may potentially migrate from the wellbore through bedrock and soil.-$.%#)$(%-$)&#3'24$P"%$-"#$P.$L%(-'(1#(34$70.%$(%-$.).$P.$/#3.$N.004$`33E++'(1$<.(3#$%2$&+%&#+$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($-%$8'-'1.$)E/8'--#.3-'3#.(.)-#$3.1#8#(-$&0.)-#5$ !"#$E)#.E0#+$')..+'00#+V)$P.(.5$$ !"#+#$')$(%$.)'(5$$ $ Findings: o$ o$ o$ o$ N+'00'(1$P.-#$)-+.1.(Q$)4)-#8)$')$.3'0'-45$ !"#+#2%+#.0..$Z.(.2.1#8#(-$&0.3"'.$ 3.(.(.)-#$2+%8$'(.+#.')&%).+#$<'J#+$O.

)$3.+.(.$ 3#8#(-'(1$3%(2'1E+.$'(30E.$.$%'0$.)$'(-%$.$P#00/%+#$-"+%E1"$ 2.$ L".+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$'-$')$ (%-$&%))'/0#$-%$J#+'24$P"#-"#+$ )-+.)$8'1+.$C(35$$ 7.#.+'(Q'(1$P.$1. monitoring and plugging requirements for oil and gas wells to minimize gas migration and protect water supplies [emphasis added].+'(1$'(-#+J.$ P'-"$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%($&+./. testing.(.+/%($/#.#\E.(.4$(.+.$8.$%2$1.+#$.E)#$ -"#+#$.'0#.$P#00)5$O#3.'(1$J#+-'3.(.8.(.+#$<'J#+$ O.E+#).1#$F_$%2$>>$ $ .4$1.$N.-'%(5$$ $ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ B@F $7SNT7$6%-'3#$%2$c'(.$)-+E3-E+#)5$Z%)-$%2$ -"#)#$3.)#$-"#$0'Q#0'"%%.$KKL$ F_ $ environment.-#.0).1#.%(8#(-$&+%3#.00#.(.$P#00)$ 3%E0.-"#+#.0$P#00)5$ $ S)$)"%P($'($-"#$2'1E+#$.(.-"P.$P"#+#$'8&+%&#+04$3%()-+E3-#.$T(#+14$m-'0'-'#)$O%.((E0E)$%J#+=&+#))E+'(1.$N#&.0'-4$%+$'8&+%&#+04$&0.$+#)E0-$'($)-+.-'%($7.-"#+#.-#.'(.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.'0E+#$-%$.4$1.$-%$'(.$3%()-+E3-'%(.$"%+'R%(-.)#.-$8'-'1.$'($.$.#)'1(5$!"#+#2%+#.-'%($')$.%(8#(-$.B@>$-"#+#$.04$'(-+%.2.(.1+.$2.J#$+#&%+-#.4)$N'.-'%($')$.-E+.103 $ C($`3-%/#+$M@@?.))%3'.P.8.$.(.P.-#)$)-+.$%+$'()-.)'(1$.-'%(.'0.E3#.-#.)'(1$2.-#$'($.$ +%/E)-$.0$1.$%&#+.-'%($ .$(E8/#+$%2$P.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.0$X.Q'(1.+'R'(1$U]$3.-'%()$%+$ .$7SNT7$+#0#.(.$'2$-"#)#$+')Q)$.$.)$ P#00)$".$P'-"$%'0$.)5$A-+.$S0/#+-.0)$2%+$-"#$1+.5$L%.$'($-"#$ 1+..-#.$.&-#+$_G$`'0$.$'8&+%&#+$P#00$%&#+.$P'-"$P#00$ ./'0'-4.-"#+#.-'%($ .$ P#00)$-%$J#+'24$P"#-"#+$-"#$ &0.$P#00).-$1.0$WE.$3.$M@B@$9Exhibit 30A:5$ B@> $7%-#(-'.$1.$P"#+#$(%$3#8#(-$%+$3.0$1.+. casing.)$Y#00$L#8#(-'(1$.+%3.$.)'(./0#$%($-"#$1+.$%+$.+#$(%-$ 8'-'1.(..3+%))$"4.))%3'.--+'/E-#.&&0'3./..(.-#.\E'2#+).0$<E0#8.$#+%)'%(:$%+$-"+%E1"$&%%+$\E.$&%%+$$ P#00$.-#.$1.$-%&$)%'0).($ '(3+#.J#$/##($&0E11#.$ '8&+%&#+04$.-E+.(.4)$-".((#.$P#00).(.)$&+%/0#8)$.(.J#$/##($8'-'1.(.+#$(%$&0E1$.$%+$ P'00$/#$&0E11#.3#.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.4$(.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.-'%($'($-"#$N#0.2.$3%++%)'%(.(.(. cement.&&+%J.+-8#(-$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.-#+$P#00).$X.$'-$')$(%-$&%))'/0#$-%$J#+'24$P"#-"#+$-"#$P#00)$".$P#00$-".5$$ $ !"#+#$')$'()E22'3'#(-$'(2%+8.$ 3#8#(-5$$ $ `&#($"%0#$3%8&0#-'%().)'(1$.)$8'-'1.4$1.$&'&'(1$9#515$3.)'(1./%J#.((#+$-".J.$ .8.00#.3-'3#)$ ".$'8&+%&#+04$ 3%()-+E3-#./.-#$P#00$.2-$+#&%+-$)E88.0'-4$O%.$3.#)'1($3%(3#+($2%+$.(.))%3'.)#)$P#+#$.$P#00$ 3.0$7+%-#3-'%($T(J'+%(8#(-.$L.)#)$%2$)-+.0$.%(#./.'0E+#.-$')$(%$0%(1#+$'($E)#5$$ $ !"#$+')Q)$.)$Z'1+.#)'1($.)$8'1+.2. The purpose of this final rulemaking is to improve drilling.$.00$-4&#)$ %2$P#00$3%()-+E3-'%(.)$ 8'1+.)$P#00)$9Exhibit 32:.5$$ N<OL$D#.($8'1+.%($.$.$M]$7.)'(1$')$'()-.

((E0E)$.1+.8)$.$P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.+$)&.4$".Q)$'(-%$-"#$ .8)$)"%P($'($-"')$+#&%+-$.5$!"#)#$.'.'0E+#5$X..$P#00$.$1.$2%+3'(1$"'1"$&+#))E+#$1.$.$1.((E0E)$')$(%-$%J#+$&+#))E+#.-'%($.$-"#$"'1"#+$&+#))E+#$1.($2%+3#$1.0P.)$0#.-$".1+.! 1E.$/#3.(.8.!LLC!© #*.8&0#.P.-$-"#$)E+2.$3%8&0#-#.$P'-"$8%+#$ gas!from!entering!the!annulus 8%.((E0E)$-"+%E1"$.)$2+%8$.$ "'1"#+$&+#))E+#$%'0$.$KKL$ FG $ m(8%('-%+#.((E0E)$&+#))E+#$3.(.+.$'($ Production!Interval -"#$.8)$.+$%J#+=&+#))E+'(1$9'($.($%33E+$'($3..(3#).+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$)E3"$.4$1.)$&+%/0#8)$-".)$8'1+.#+$3#+-.$-%$)"%P$"%P$-"#$1+.)'(1$&+#))E+#$1+.$ Cemented!and!Perforated! Oil!and!Gas!Formation! to!a!casing!and/or!cement!failure! 1.(.((E0E)$'(-%$0%P#+$&+#))E+#$1+%E(.(.0)%$+#)E0-$'($1.!it!is!important!to!keep! 8'1+.J#$/##($ 3%()-+E3-#.E#$-%$ Surface!Sediment Conductor!Casing! 3%++%)'J#$.%#)$(%-$%J#+=&+#))E+#.'.#.$C(35$$ Gas!Pressure! in!!Annulus 7.'#(-5$ !"#+#2%+#.'.)#.((E0E)$&+#))E+#$'($3%8&0#-#.E)#$-"%)#$3%()-+E3-'%($.$-%$#()E+#$-".)$-"+%E1"$ 0%P$'(-#1+'-4$&%'(-)$'($-"#$P#005$$ $ c%+$-"#$1+.$-"')$1.#$%&&%+-E('-'#)$ 2%+$)-+.+'04$)E)&#(./0#$2%+$84$+#J'#P5$<.((E0E)$9)##$.'(.Q$'(-%$-"#$.($/4&.+'00#.(.-$')$0#2-$%&#($"%0#$9E(3.$P#00$-".$P#00:$%+$.$.($/#$#*-+.-$-"#$.((E0.+#$'(-#(.$P#00)$8.!or!leak!into!the!annulus!due! 3%()-+E3-'%($-#3"('\E#)..(-$-".-"#+$-"#)#$ .'-'%()$'($-"#$ Surface!Ground!Water Surface!Casing P#00/%+#.3-'3#)$3.)$3.$3#8#(-#.+.!pressurized!gas!can!be! therefore.$.2.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.'.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.)'(1$.$P#00)$-".$.I%+$3#8#(-$2.$/E-$(%-$4#-$&0E11#.E#$ -%$.#+($P#00$ Gas!can!by"pass!a!worn!production! wellhead packer.4$1.%$(%-$ Gas!will! always!flow!towards!a! Oil!&!Gas!Flow If!gas!pressure!builds!in!the! decreasing!pressure!gradient.$-#8&%+.)$P"#($ .'0.J.((E0E)$.($/E'0.$.)$ Where!Gas!Can!Accumulate Annulus!Through!Failed!Casing!and! 8%J#8#(-5$ Poor!Cement Production!Casing $ 7+%&#+$8%('-%+'(1$%2$-"#$ Cement!Behind!Int.!Casing! .($ Open!Annulus! Gas!Leak!From!Over!Pressured! .$ the!annulus!pressure!low forced!through!low!integrity! /E-$-"#)#$&+.0)%$&+%J'./'0'-4.4$1.4)$20%P$-%P.1#$FG$%2$>>$ $ .2.))$ .$1.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$'($%&#($"%0#$3%8&0#-'%()5$ $ 6#P$3%()-+E3-'%($ &+.3-'3#)$.)'(1$2.#.E)#$-"#$.$'-$')$'8&%+-.-'%($P'00$(%-$%33E+.E3-'%($&.8)$%($(#*-$&.-$-"#$P#00$')$ 8%('-%+#.)$+#)#+J%'+$'(-%$-"#$0%P#+$&+#))E+#$ .((E0E)$')$%2$ 0%P#+$&+#))E+#5$O4$-"#$0.($2.)$2+%8$-"#$P#00$ .3-'3#)$.g$3.1+.:$.1#):$3.&&#()$E(.1+.'0)5$ $ !"#$.$+#)E0-'(1$'($ Cement!Behind!Surface!Casing! 1.)#.-'3)$)"%P'(1$-"#$+')Q$&%)#.$)3"#8..($.(.$#+%)'J#$ 3%(.-'%(5$TJ#($'($P#00)$ Production!Packer!set!to!prevent! 3%()-+E3-#.J#$/##($.'($3'+3E8)-.3-#.E3-'%($ allows!pressure!to!build!in!annulus &.$-%$)"%P$-"#$-4&#)$%2$)-+.3Q#+$2.$ E(3%8&0#-#.E3-'%($ &.($P#.(-04$+#..((E0E)5$$S)$0%(1$.)#.((E0E)5$c%+$ Harvey!Consulting.)$ annulus.(.$P#00/%+#$')$(%-$3.Q$/#3.'0$.)$P'00$.3Q#+$%+$0#.1+.3#5$7%%+$ 3#8#(-'(1$&+.((E0.-$3.+#$)'8&0'2'#.P)$%2$&"4)'3).$/4$1.#.$ P#00).#3+#.$0#.$3%8&0#-#.8)$P#+#$(%-$.)$ Flows!Through!Up!the!Wellbore) 8'1+..#.$.)$P'00$8%J#$2+%8$-"#$%'0$.(.g$%+$.(.$.+$%E-$%+$ 3.($ Production!Tubing!(Oil!&!Gas! "#0&$&+#J#(-$1.)$&+#))E+#$3.3#5$D%P#J#+.'0E+#$%33E+)g$3#8#(-$')$&%%+04$/%(.'.-'%($P'00$8%J#$'(-%$-"#$.-#+$R%(#)5$!"')$".%$ points!in!the!well )'1('2'3.(.$P#00)$3.)$-"#$.+#$(%-$'(-#(.)$3.)$2%+8.$&+%.E#$-%$.(-##$)-+.)$&+%/0#8)5$`J#+$&+#))E+#.$1.$N.$3.-"#+#.$P%+($%E-$&+%.-"#+#.$ N<OL$D#.3Q#+)$3.)'(1$3.(.E3#$+')Q5$ Annulus!gas!valve!in!shut!position! `J#+$-'8#$&+%.

$f%05$MB.-#+$ in!the!Annulus 3%(-.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.E3-'%($3.+.%3E8#(-#.0.3'.##&#+.-'%($%2$S\E'2#+)$/4$`J#+&+#))E+'(1$-"#$S((E0E)$%2$`'0$.3'.J'00#.($70.-'%()5$X.5B@].$6%5U5$ N<OL$D#.$X+%E(..($70.$Z.(.$'($-P%$.$X.8E#0$D.$.8'(.P.0$/4$A.$2%+8.$TJ.00%P#+$2%+8.-#$2+%8$ reservoir.4=eE(#$ B?G].-$-"#$/%--%8$%2$ allows!pressure!to!build!in!annulus -"#$&+%.$/#$J#(-#.P.$.$)E3"$.004$ Conductor!Casing! -.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.8.)-$+#)')-.0E.++')%(.('.#.$TJ.$X+%E(.$'($-"#$X+%E(.!Insufficient!geologic!barriers! between!the! Gas!Migration .$A5A5.Q#$-"#$&.8'(.8%E(-)$%2$8#-". the annulus may become pressurized and a hydraulic gradient may be created between the potential contaminants in the annulus (e.(#.)$-%$ 8%J#$2+%8$-"#$"'1"#+$&+#))E+#$ Open!Hole!Location .)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.1#$F?$%2$>>$ B@] $ .)$NE#$-%$X.00%P#+$R%(#)5$$ Geologic!Barriers $ Gas!Pressure! !"#$&+%/0#8$%2$1+%E(.!LLC!© 7#(()40J.+-'30#$2+%8$B?G]$)-.$A5A5.)$NE#$-%$X.)$'($-"#$ Surface!Sediment 2%+8.$N+5$D.$f%05$MF.$ S&&.$6%5U5$ B@U $D.0E.-#+$L%(-.+1#-#.$')$P#00$ Smaller.)$Y#00).$/#)-$&+.$.$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $D.)$8#-".-'%()$ gas!and!water!can!cause!the!gas!to!migrate! vertically.!amounts!of!methane!gas!in!the! formation!above!the!commercially!targeted! .($3.$X+%E(.$-"#$0%P#+$ &+#))E+#$%&#(=.+-'30#)$ reservoir!can!break!out!of!solution!due!to!the! Shale &E/0')"#.-#.-8%)&"#+#$-%$+#0'#J#$ &+#))E+#$%($-"#$.#)$)#J#+.-'%($.4)$2%+$1.$Y.)=Y#00$N+'00'(1$%($X0.$ Harvey!Consulting.-#$1+##("%E)#$1.(#$1.$-".B@U$ $ N+5$D.-'%($D.$.$6%J#8/#+=N#3#8/#+$B?GF.$"'1"#+$&+#))E+#$2%+8.'(.++')%(.++')%(.(3#.E)#$1.$C(35$$ 7.++')%(.$8%J#$-%P.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.((E0E)5$S($%J#+= Cement!Behind!Surface!Casing! &+#))E+#.($0#.$KKL$ F? $ '2$-"#$. contamination of the aquifer will result [emphasis added].++')%($3%(30E.('.((E0E)$/#3%8#)$%J#+$&+#))E+#.++')%(V)$.-#$'(-%$)".$L%(-.0$A3'#(3#$2+%8$ S00#1"#(4$L%00#1#.Q$-"%E1"$ Annulus!gas!valve!in!shut!position! &%%+$3#8#(-$&0.-#+.$f%05$MB.-#+$ Shale pressure!drop!in!the!annulus!and!contribute!to! Shale e%E+(.E)#$'-$-%$8'1+.R.+.(.Q$%E-$%2$ Surface!Ground!Water Surface!Casing )%0E-'%(.-'%()5$ $ If!pressure!build"ups!in!well.8'(.-'%($D.$P.($/+#.-'(1$A4)-#8$2%+$X+%E(.8'(.)$P'00$-.(.$ S&&.$0%P#+$&+#))E+#$ 2%+8.00#+$ .)=Y#00$N+'00'(1$%($X0.0$ Open!Hole!Construction can!be!forced!to!move!vertically!through!the! Oil!&!Gas!Flow &.R.0.)'(15$A8.3"'.$P"'3"$8.-#.)$3.(.-#+.”B@_ $ `2$(%-#.=Y.E.P.-"P.-#+.((E0E)$'(-%$0%P#+$&+#))E+#.P.((E0E)5$D%P#J#+.$Z#./%J#$-"#$3%88#+3'.3#.!exceeding!the!normal! pressure!in!the!adjacent!reservoir! strata!then!gas! S($%&#(="%0#$&+%J'.$6%5F5$$ B@_ $D.3"'.$ gas!movement wellhead Shale 7+%2#))%+$%2$X#%0%14$.-$1.H$$ $ This annulus is a potential avenue of migration of contaminants from strata of higher hydrodynamic pressure into formations of lower hydrodynamic pressure.g.4$ 3. If a permeability pathway exists between the pressurized annulus and an overlying fresh-water aquifer.-#. If gas from the strata exposed to the annulus is not permitted to escape to the atmosphere.)$#8'))'%().-'%($/4$%&#(="%0#$ 3%8&0#-'%()$'($7#(()40J.((E0E)$3.)$)"%E0.$ Oil!and/or!Gas!Formation! T(J'+%(8#(-.3-'3#)$-%$8'-'1.$ Where!Gas!Can!Accumulate )".$N.$-%$.+.-#./'0'-4.-"$%2$0#.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.00%P#+.)$-%$8'1+. -%$)"..-#.$+#)#+J%'+$3.=Y.$A5A5.E.-'%($1.-'(1$A4)-#8$2%+$X+%E(. brine and/or natural gas) and the overlying fresh-water aquifers.$6%J#8/#+=N#3#8/#+$B?GF.-#+$L%(-.

))%3'.++'#+)$%2$3#8#(-$.4$1.4$1.-'%($ '($-"#$N#0.0#.$P#00)$3.E&$'($-"#$.&&04$-%$8%)-$%2$-"#$ 1+.(..$ ..$P.or oil-well annulus could be greatly reduced by filling the annulus with cement.%(#.((E0E)$8E)-$#*3##.)$P#00)$3.\E'2#+5$!"')$&+%/0#8$3.+.#.0$20%P.5$$$ O#3..))%3'.)$-"'3Q$3%(-'(E%E)$)".8.-8%)&"#+#.E3'(1$-"#$1.$P"#+#$-#3"('3.4#+).+'00'(1$".$3.$+.4$+#.E)-+4$".'(.-#.)$8.(.(.)$&+%/0#8)5$ o$ o$ o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`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he risk of contaminating fresh ground water with the contents of a gas.$2%+$.-$1.(.)$)"%P($'($-"#$8%+#$ 3E++#(-$P#00/%+#$3%()-+E3-'%($.(.-#.(.2.(.#)$.&&0'3.$1.-"#+#.-#$J#+-'3.((E0E)$%J#+=&+#))E+'(15$!"#$2.($.-'%($.#)&'-#$-"')$+E0#$/#'(1$'($&0.((E0E)$&+#))E+#$'($3%8&0#-#.004$)##Q$#\E'0'/+'E8$&+#))E+#$.$/E-$P'00$(%-$.#= &+#))E+'(1b:5$$S($%&#(="%0#$.)$'(.+./.+%)-.((E0E)$3.$1.+(#.&-#+$N.((E0E)$9a1.0%(1$-"#$ #(-'+#$0#(1-"$%2$-"#$"%0#$&+%J'.)'(1$-"#$&+#))E+#$'($-"#$.P.-'3$&+#))E+#$1+.)$&+%/0#8)$.5$ $ Findings: o$ o$ A-+.$ P#00).'#(-.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$p$_G5_F$+#\E'+'(1$`&#+.-'%($')$/#'(1$3%8&0'#.)$3.004$2#.-#+$)E&&0'#)5$ Y#00$3%()-+E3-'%($'8&+%J#8#(-)$-%$8'-'1.E)#$-"#+#$.E0-)$.$P#00)$3%E0.$P#00$3.)$8'1+.$P. !"#$%'0$.('./.)$-%$-"#$)E+2.4$1.

$aD'1"$WE.-$/0E#$"#+%()5$C-$')$.$.(3#$<#)-+'3-'%($c+%8$T*')-'(1$OE'0.3Q$ /#.))'2'#.)'(5$$c%+$#*.(.10#)$-".+'.P.$P#00$)'-#$')$0#))$-".0Q'()$L+##Q$)E&&%+-)$/+%%Q$-+%E-.+#$'($&+%.$.$.(.-$2')"$-"#$+'J#+$.$`3-%/#+$?.0'-4$/'%-.).)$P#00)$/#$0%3.$X.&&+%J.4$1+.$O%.-#+$P#00).(3#).(. PADEP’s well siting criteria allow wells to be placed very close to water resources $ !"#$`'0$.(.+#.)$S3-.)$30.$`'0$N#&%)'-'%($Z%.)$30.$.P.$KKL$ >B $ D.(.-E+#$)#()'-'J#:.$-"#)#$&%00E-.$J.E3#$%+$)".(3"$%2$L.(.+#$(%-$ )E22'3'#(-$-%$&+%-#3-$"'1"=J.(.-#+$+#)%E+3#)5$$ $ D.)$.$%($-"#$8%)-$3E++#(-$_u$8'(E-#$-%&%1+.$P'(.(1#)$'($)-+#.$N.3#$`'0$Y#00$O0%P%E-).($#^#3-$.E3-'%(.-#.$.'E)$%2$-"#$/0%P%E-$&0E8#5$ N#&#(.$/.-$0#.0'-4b$L+##Q...$3".(.4$%2$Y.)$%2$2##-$.-$0#.$-"#$ N#&.(-'(1$. $ !"#$M]$7S$L%.$C($<#)&%()#$-%$`+.$pU@B5M@]9/:$%(04$+#\E'+#)$%'0$.$..)$'.$)&##.(.)$+'1"-).(.(4$P#-0.0$<#)#.02$8'0#$2+%8$-"#$+'J#+.$"E(.'J#$.3+#$'($)'R#.+'.3Q)$2+%8$)#()'-'J#$P.4$%+$M@@V$2+%8$.#&+'J#$-"#$%P(#+$%2$-"#$%'0$.3#$-"#$P#00$#J#($ 30%)#+5$$ $ !"#$`'0$.(.00%P)$2%+$1+.00%P)$2%+$1+.(.$-%$-"#$(#.+#.0)$)&'00#.'+$\E.'J#+$2%+$N')-.')-.J#0$.$1+#./%-$`'0$d$X.(.0$%2$2%+8$]]@@=cZ=`X@@]G.$20E'.(.+#$ -#8&#+.-#+$%+$Y#-0.$.($B@@V$.()#+$.#.5$ BB@ $A5K5$<%))$T(J'+%(8#(-.$/4$ 7SNT75$$C-$".$/4$N<6$6%J#8/#+$B.(.:$%(04$+#\E'+#)$%'0$.(-'(1$.$/0%P%E-$3'+3E8)-.$7+#&.8).)$-%$-"%E).-'%()$2+%8$.$J.J#0$-%P.0Q'()$L+##Q.+#$<'J#+$O.$1.-#+)"#.'8#(-$.$.$/4$m<A$L%+&%+.1'(1$.4$"E(.-$0#.$(#)-'(15$ Findings: o$ 7SNT7V)$)#-/.$'($-"#$)-+#.-'%(.3Q$+#\E'+#8#(-)$%2$B@@V$2+%8$.-#.+-8#(-$8.'(.0.+$.($%(#$.$M@@?.+#.$M@B@5$ N<OL$D#.$ &+#&.&"'3$8.-'%($&+%J'.$.$/4$'(20E*#)$%2$)#..8.3+%))$)E+2.)$L%+&%+.$%'0$.)$%2$ 2##-.-#+$ +#)%E+3#)$-"%E1"$-"#$)%'05$$c%+$#*.)$S3-.'(.)$3.1#$>B$%2$>>$ B@G $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $ .$)&+'(1$%+$/%.$1.$#.'(1$%($-"#$+#)#+J%'+$&+#))E+#.8&0#.-#.#$p$BM_5B>$9FG:$#*#8&-)$%'0$.+'.-'%($2%+$L.$.10#)$E)#$-"')$.5 BBM$$!"#$Y%%.&&+%J./'-.(3#B@G$-%$&0.I%+$2%+8.)$"'1"$\E.)$P#00)$/#$0%3.$.$%($D%00')-#+$L+##Q.&.$.-#+$-".)$P.$8#+1.$/.(-)$3.-#+.-$P'00$/#$'8&.+-8#(-$8.4$P.(.+.8$-".(4$ )-+#.(.$.0$C(2%+8.-#.$<#\E#)-$2%+$f./'0'-4.45BBB$ $ !"#$L+E8$P#00$)'-#$')$%($-"#$6%+-"$O+.(.-'%($P.+'00'(1$8E.$8%+#$-".$)&'00#.(.8 Air pollution impacts are not well understood or mitigated.3#(-$-%$-"#$P#00.3#$-#++.))'2'#.(.$ #.0'-4$3%(-+%0$ +#\E'+#8#(-)$9Exhibit 33:5$$$ $ $Y"#+#$-"#$+#)-+'3-'%($P%E0.E3Q).$1.$-+.$2%+$"E(-'(1.+3"$K'8'-#.8.$A#&-#8/#+$M>.4$%2$P.#0'(1$c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cZ=`X@@]_.$.(.($/#$ .$C(35$$ 7.+/4$A-#J#(V)$L+##Q)$0%3.$P#00$.$P'-"'($-"#$+.P.0.($ %(#=".$/+%P($-+%E-$9/%-"$.)-$M@@$2##-$2+%8$ #*')-'(1$/E'0.'(1$%+$Y.$1.$20E'.$P.(.($)&+.$.+'00'(1$%&#+.0'-4b$)-+#.$+%%)-$-"#$2%+#)-$'($-"')$)E/=P.)$3.0E#$P.-#+$ 2+%8$-"#$P#00$.#+$N.)-$B@@$2##-$2+%8$.$.3Q$/#.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$'($-"#$ N#0.$'($A#&-#8/#+$M@@?$P#00$3"#8'3.3#$)'-'(1$3+'-#+'.$/0%P%E-)$3.)-$ B@@$2##-$2+%8$.(3#$<#\E'+#8#(-)$c+%8$A&+'(1).+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$%+$)##&$'(-%$-"#$1+%E(.(.(.(.3-#.-#+$AE&&045$ B@? $!"#$N#&.(.$B??G5$ BBB $L.-$-"#$L.#(-'2'#.+$.$#*')-'(1$P.0.#$)E22'3'#(-$)#-/.$1+#.(3#B@?$-%$&0.$2%+.8&0#.0)%$".+#.8.$pU@B5M@]9.$X.$.(.$.P.(.$%(-%$P.5.(3#$c+%8$ N')-./%-.+#.4$2+%8$-"#$P#005 BB@$$7+#))E+'R#.$aD'1"$WE.8$20%P5$L.%$(%-$&+%J'.$A-+#.

$%+$8'-'1..5$ $ 7SNT7$')$'($-"#$&+%3#))$%2$.#&%)'-'%(v'(.-#+)5$S'+$ &%00E-'%($3.+.$ '8&%E(.%#)$(%-$+#\E'+#$.'+$&%00E-.#&%)'-'%($%($P.))#))8#(-$%2$-"#$ .(.-'%($..2.(-$.'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.P)1E'.()2%+8$'($-"#$&+#)#(3#$%2$)%0.$`3-%/#+$M@@G5$$ $"--&HIIP.(.$+#1'%(.$0.$X.$-%$ 3%8&0#-#$-"#)#$)-E.($-+.(-)5$!"#)#$.3#)$3.0$. It can either be deposited directly onto the surface of the water (direct deposition) or be deposited onto land and be carried to water bodies $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BBF BB> $<.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.0'-4$'8&.(.+#):.'+$&%00E-.$P#00)$ .+$+.$.R.-#.$KKL$ >M $ “38.+-'30#)$%2$E(/E+(#.” $ !"')$#*#8&-'%($'(30E.4'(1$)"%+-=-#+8$.'+/%+(#$ &%00E-.$N. and can be an important contributor to declining water quality.$(%+$ .#*5328$ 7.+/%($8%(%*'.-'J#$'8&.-#.$P.3-)$.$'(30E.0$&%00E-'%(5BBF$ $ !"#+#$.(.$)E+2.-"#+#.(-$8'-'1.$%($T(J'+%(8#(-. Pollutants in waterbodies that may originate in part from atmospheric sources include nitrogen compounds.-#.'+$&#+8'--'(1$#*#8&-'%($')$P.'(1$('-+%1#($ %*'.$)E02E+$%*'.+$P"#-"#+$.$2E#0.P)+#1)I0.+#$. This includes petroleum liquid storage tanks which are used to store produced crude oil and condensate prior to lease custody transfer.#+%)%0$&.(-)$'(-#+.-#+5#&.)'($.(-)$.$.8#(-)$.(.$&#+8'-$.-8%)&"#+'3$8%')-E+#.2.I-8.++.”114 Airborne pollution can fall to the ground in precipitation.'+.8.(. c) plug abandoned wells and restore well sites.(.$/4$#*&0%+.4:5$ $ 7SNT7V)$)-E.+'00'(1$%&#+.(-)$-%$P.$C(35$$ $ .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.4$#*.)$P#00$.+04$M@BB$9Exhibit 33$'(30E.$P#00)$.'+/%+(#$&%00E-. pesticides.+#$<'J#+$O. sulfur compounds.0$.$P.0$<')Q)=$`'0$.&#+$BB>??F.'+)"#.Q)5$$$ $ A'(3#$7SNT7$.P.(.#)$)". and other toxics [emphasis added].(.$A5.'(.(.+%3.$E(8'-'1.(.+#$(%-$P#00$E(.'+$#8'))'%($)%E+3#)$2+%8$.$P#00)5$$$ $ T7S$#*&0.+#$3E++#(-04$E(+#1E0.-#+$.$'-$')$(%-$30#.(3#I3P.$(#P)$+#&%+-$)E88.$3E8E0.$.(.$')$#*&#3-#.(4$.$-"#+#$')$(%$0')-$%2$#8'))'%($)%E+3#).'+$&%00E-'%($.$.%#)$(%-$#*.(.E3-)$%2$ "4.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.#)$1.$N.'+$\E.#-#+8'('(1$P"#-"#+$-"')$.$&.3-$P'-"$.$/E+('(1$. Oil and gas exploration and production facilities and operations that include wells and associated equipment and processes used either to: a) drill or alter oil and gas wells.+/%($#J.'(1$3%8/E)-'%($ )%E+3#$#8'))'%()$9.(.))%3'.+#$ )'1('2'3.$.$P.P.3-)$.(.(-$-+.-#$%(-%$0.+3#00E)$ A".-.$".).E)'(1$/%-"$0%3.-#$8..-'%().$%-"#+$0#.-#+)$.$3.3-)$2+%8$-"#$1+.()&%+-$.(.$%2$.%P(P'(.+'00'(1$'(30E.#.(.$.E)#.$.+'R'(1$7SNT7V)$)-E..(.-'%($.)#%E)$&+%.%P(P'(.)$N+'00'(1$`&#+.#).4$.$.$.)$.3-.-'%()5$$ $ L%8&%(#(-)$%2$. in dust.)$.3-)$%2$8E0-'&0#$.$%+$.$.$.(-#. mercury.-"#+#.-#+$\E. b) extract.0#$1.3-)$2+%8$-"#$1+.#.-'%()5$7SNT7$')$3E++#(-04$)-E.#)$.0'-4$'8&.'+#3-$+#0.(.$(E8/#+$%2$&%-#(-'.$2E1'-'J#$#8'))'%()$2+%8$&'-).%#)$7SNT7V)$)-E.#&%)'-'(1$&%00E-.&%+.'()$-"#$.(.(.(.+'00'(1$%&#+.-8%)&"#+#$&%00E-'%($3./'0'-4.1#$>M$%2$>>$ N<OL$D#.$2%+$-"#$1+.#+)-%%.$A%3'#-4$%2$7#-+%0#E8$ T(1'(##+'(1$7.” Pollution deposited from the air can reach water bodies in two ways.(.$20.-'%($.%E)$.$2%+$Z.'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.-'%()"'&$/#-P##($.51%JI0.'#)$'($#.$ &+#3'&'-. or simply due to gravity.'.'+#3-$J#(-'(1$%2$1. process and deliver crude oil and natural gas to the point of lease custody transfer.-"#+#.-#.8'(#$-"#$'8&.8'(#$3%8/'(#.()&%+-$.+-'3E0.$.$'(30E.3-)H$$ $ Airborne pollutants from human and natural sources can deposit back onto land and water bodies. This type of pollution is called “atmospheric deposition” or “air deposition.--#+.)$ .-'%().(.(.$P.0#$N+'00'(1$`&#+.(.'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.-'%($-%$&+%-#3-$-"#$N#0.-#+$)E+2.-'%().+'00'(1$#(1'(#)$.3-)$. sometimes at great distances from the source.2.3-)$%2$.(.$0.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.++.+'00'(1g$-"#+#2%+#.3#)5$ !"#)#$'8&.(.$c. or d) treat and dispose of associated wastes.0I.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.(.$-+.+'00'(1$%&#+.

)$.$-"#$&%-#(-'.J'-45$$ ! ! ! $ C($8.J.$)-+#.$/E-$ 0.$/0'(.P.E)#$%2$'-)$ 8%/'0#.0$&.-PI"0-"#2I8#-".(-)$.I-8.(.$'('-'..$+.$/0E++#.+.$ 1'.0I.+1#$.(%0BB_:$8.$X.(-$&.%E)$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.(#(-$8%-%+$.+.+'00'(1$'($6#P$j%+Q$A-.$%2$L"#8'3.R./%E-$S-8%)&"#+'3$ N#&%)'-'%($D.-#+$9`Y:.#.'(#)).+.)g$$ Y#-$.+#$ 8%+#$)E/)-.+3#00E)$A".+.-#8#(-$3%8&0#-#.3-)$.))%3'.+'00'(1$%&#+.-$-"#+#$.(.'(1$-".()5$6#E+%0%1'3.8%E(-$%2$".+3'(%1#('3'-45$ "--&HIIPPP5#&.$'($+.(4$)-.8."P.+'00'(1$3"#8'3.(.#*5328$ $T7Sw)$`22'3#$%2$S'+$.4$+#1E0.004$%(04$'8&.-$')$#8'--#.-#+$-"%)#$&%00E-.-#$P.($'('-'.+.#&%)'-#.'+$ &%00E-.()&%+-#.-#.P)+#1)I0.$T7S=>]FI<=@B=@@?.)-+'3$.#&%)'-'%($P"#+#$.-#8#(-$`($-"#$`'0.8&0#$%2$P#-$ .3-'(1$ %(#$&.$)"%+-=-#+8$(.$c+#\E#(-04$S)Q#.)$(%-$4#-$30.0#$.3#)$J'.. they can have undesirable health and environmental impacts.-'(1$0. and unsafe drinking water [emphasis added].#&%)'-'%(v'(.(.$-".'+$ &%00E-.3-E+'(1$-%$N#J#0%&$-"#$ Z.'+$&%00E-'%($-%$3%(-..R.$ 1+%E(.-#+$+#)%E+3#g$$ C(..($B@$-%()I4+$%2$.$&5$U=]_5$ BBU BB] $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ N<OL$D#.4.^%+$)%E+3#$%2$".3-$A-.(-$-"+#)"%0.+'00'(1$#\E'&8#(-$".$N.$.$+'J#+).0$N+'00'(1$.-#). harmful algal blooms.-$ 3#(-+.#&%)'-'%($P"#+#$.0#$.$%+$M]$-%()I4+$%2$$8E0-'&0#$".(4$)'(10#$".$`22'3#$%2$Y.-#+$+#)%E+3#)..$-"#+#2%+#$6#P$j%+QV)$)-E.$D'1"=f%0E8#$D4.'(..2-$AE&&0#8#(-.8)$.+.(.'+$ &%00E-.4$.(%05"-805$L"+%('3$'(".'+$'8&%E(.+#.-$-"#$.R.-#+$)E+2.$#)&#3'.$NAXTCA.$-%$-"#$P.-#+5#&.%E)$.P.0$#*&%)E+#$8.+#$E)#.51%JI0.(.(-.)$.($-"+##$-'8#)5$ $"--&HIIP.$2%+$Z.(.E0'3$c+.$ P"#($0.$/E-$E&%($2E+-"#+$)-E..-E+#.+#$.E)-+'.1+.4$/#$&+#)#(-$.'RR'(#)).#&%)'-'%($P"#+#$-"#$.$('-+%1#($ 3%8&%E(.+#$-+.)$%+$ 2%15$S3'.4$+#)E0-$'($"#.$ -"+%E1"$+E(%22..E)#.$A#&-#8/#+$M@@B5$ BB_ $T7S$0')-)$8#-".-#.8#(-)$.'(.$.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.$.$ O'%0%1'3.R.#*5$S($T(3430%&#.(.(-'.$.4$2+%8$'(.)$/##($#*#8&-$2+%8$.0$X#(#+'3$T(J'+%(8#(-.R. Once these pollutants are in the water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such as contaminated fish.(%0$P'-"$+#)&#3-$-%$3.'.$<.1#$>F$%2$>>$ $ .+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.($#*.+3#00E)$A".-#+)"#.$`-"#+$K%P=7#+8#.$P'-"$2%))'0$ 2E#0$3%8/E)-'%(g$$ N+4$.P)1E'.8%E(-)$%2$".+1#+$ .$'(30E.(.8#(-)$9FM5]$-%()$&#+$4#.+#$ .$-%$)-%+#$2+.(3#I3P.'+$&#+8'--'(1$+#\E'+#8#(-)$/#3.0$.$1+.'.$6e5$B?G?5$ BBG $6#P$j%+Q$A-.0)%$+#)E0-5$!"#$Z#+3Q$C(.'+.$N+E1).51%JI--(I.-$#8'-)$ 8%+#$-".0).'+$&%00E-.#&%)'-#.0$2%+$0.)$.0$'8&%E(.+-$%2$-"#$P.-#+$+#)%E+3#)5$BBU$ $ T7S$#*&0.(-).R.8'(.8'(.$(.(.-'%($9`S<:$.%E)$.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.-%+)$.'.$".$-"#$".+#$2'(..(-)$.%E)$.)$<#)#+J%'+).-#$ '.4)2E(3-'%(.3-$A-.+.(./'0'-4$X.-#+$+#)%E+3#./'0'-4.-"P.'+$&%00E-.'+$&%00E-.0#$.1#.0$C8&.4)$2%+$.')-E+/.$)(%P$30%E..0$)%E+3#)$-%$P.'+#3-$.(-.8.'($')$.(%0$.'+$&%00E-'%($98#-".#&%)'-'%($P"#+#$&%00E-.-"P.$<.$M@@?$N+.0.$Z.)$d$A%0E-'%($Z'('(1$ <#1E0.$/E-$".#&%)'-'%($%2$)E02E+$.$8#-".(3#$2%+$D%+'R%(-.'+$&%00E-'%($')$%(#$-".(-$')$.%E)$.#&%)'-#.0)5$BB-"$#.$3%(^E(3-'J'-').$WE#)-'%()$.5$T.+#$)#J#+.$KKL$ >F $ through run off (indirect deposition).(.-#+$ +#)%E+3#.-$)".

0$C8&.3-)5$ $ o$ o$ o$ o$ o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`&#+.+J#4$L%()E0-'(1.$/4$.$P'-"$E)#$%2$2+.-#$P.(.$.+$)%8#$(./'0'-4.'#)$'($#.$3.0'-4$')$2'(.$-"+%E1"$-"#$2%%.-'%().$(#.$')$#*&#3-#.(.+'00'(1$ %&#+.(.3-'J'-'#)$'($!#*.51%JI%.R.-E+.$0%%&#.($/#$8.($8'-'1.(.#+#.$/E-$ ".$'($YcSS=!f$(#P$+#&%+-.(.P.'+/%+(#$P"#($#8'--#.'+$&%00E-'%($'8&.+'(1$<#&%+-$2%+$N#0.($.)$A".8'(#$3%8/'(#.'+$).0$WE.0'-4$3%(-+%0$+#\E'+#8#(-).0'-4$ '8&.'3.E3#$.$-%$3%8&0#-#$-"#)#$)-E.-'%().(-)$.)$.$"'1"$0#J#0)$%2$/#(R#(#.^%+$)%E+3#)$%2$".'(5BM@$$ $ Findings: o$ 7SNT7$#*#8&-)$%'0$)".-#+.(3#+=3.0#$.0$ '8&%E(.(.+.$.+3'(%1#(5$$ $ S'+$-%*'3)$.3-E+#$.1#$>>$%2$>>$ $ .$3E8E0.3#$P.0#$1.%#)$'-$#*.)$)"%3Q#.'(1$ )E+&+')'(104$"'1"$0#J#0)$%2$/#(R#(#$#8'--#.0$%&#+.3-)$%2$.$\E%-#.8%E(-)$%2$/#(R#(#$ #8'))'%()g$"%P#J#+.$ 2%+$Z.$3.3-)$.)5BB?$O#(R#(#$')$.-'%()5$7SNT7$')$3E++#(-04$)-E.#&%)'-'%($%($P.$ Q(%P(.+'00'(1$%&#+.+04$M@BB5$$ 7SNT7V)$)-E.-#+)$P"#+#$-"#4$.$&%P#+$)#0#3-'%($%&-'%()$3.'+$\E.$N.('8.(..$3.+'00'(15$$ cE#0$.$+#3#(-$+#&%+-)$'(.4$-%$J#+'24$-".-'J#$'8&.%P(P'(.$3%00#3-'%($.$-"#$#(J'+%(8#(-5$$ 7SNT7$')$'($-"#$&+%3#))$%2$.%#)$(%-$#*.$'(1#)-#.0-"$.$C(35$$ 7.'+$&#+8'--'(1$#*#8&-'%($')$P.3-)$.'+$ &%00E-'%($'8&.$.$(%+$.(.(-)5$$ !"#$E)#$%2$30%)#.0#$1.1('2'#.4'(1$)"%+-=-#+8$.Q#($E&$/4$&0.3-'3#)$2%+$)".$KKL$ >> $ $ !"#$6#P$j%+Q$A-.(-$-+.($/#$ 8.+(#--$X.$0.%E)$.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$.$M@@?5$$N+5$ Z'3".$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$D.4$.8'(#$-"#$'8&.$-.#0$D%(#43E--.8&0'(1$+#J#.#0$D%(#43E--$aP.'.8.+3#00E)$A".'+I(#P-%*'3)5"-80$ N<OL$D#.$D#.+I-%*'3.)$.#-#+8'('(1$P"#-"#+$-"')$.(.'+$\E.$P"#($3%8/'(#.0$ 1.3'0'-'#)5b$ BM@ $"--&HIIPPP5#&.+'00'(1$3"#8'3.)$4#-$-%$3%8&0#-#$.($.$%2$!LTWV)$!%*'3%0%14$N'J')'%(.$(%-$#)-'8.(.0#.E)-+'.(Q$)4)-#8)$3.$-"#)#$-%*'()$3.()&%+-$.(.-$)"%+-$.(.(-$.$.(.+#$/#)-$&%00E-'%($8'-'1.'+$&%00E-.E)'(1$-%*'(.#&%)'-$ %(-%$)%'0)$%+$)E+2.(.($3.$.($S'+$S3-$+#\E'+#8#(-)$.$-%$)##$.$T7S=0')-#.

.

.

.

.

$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$C8&.+#$<'J#+Q##&#+$6#-P%+Q$ F@@$7%(.'(.$/4H$ $! T88#-$Z5$`P#().$O+')-%0.$$! $ ! 7+#&./'0'-4$ 75`5$O%*$B>_.-%+4$X.8.<#&%+-$%($A#0#3-#.$M@B@$ ! $! $ $! .$7S$BG>>F$ ! $! $! $! $! $! $ 6%J#8/#+$BG.P.)$N+'00'(1$'($-"#$N#0.+3"$T(1'(##+$ $ ! $! $ 7+#&.3-)$%2$$ T*&0%+.$Z'0.$7S$B?@@_$ ! $ .$A-+##-.$2%+H$ ! $ N#0.+#.(.P.)3E)$L'-'R#()$2%+$AE)-.$75T5$ A#('%+$<#)#.-#+)"#.+#.$ ! $ N.(J'00#.+#$<'J#+$Y.

+.+-'3E0.%3E8#(-#.(.(.#J#0%&8#(-$')$P#00$.%$(%-$1E..-'(1$)-#&)$%+$8#.(.#J#0%&8#(-$.#J#0%&8#(-$')$ .+#$<'J#+$P.(.$'($&+.-'%($2#.+$3.$ '($)#0#3-'(1$-"#$)'-#)$2%+$-"#$#*&0%+.$/#$'8&0#8#(-#.$8'-'1.-#+)5$$ D%P#J#+.-%+4$P#00$)'-#)$-".$'8&.-%+4$J#+-'3.-$)E++%E(.)$#*&0%+.#(-$-".0'-45$$7#(()40J.(.(-$-".3-'%(5$$7#(()40J.$1.(.-'(1$-"#$ #(J'+%(8#(-.3#$P.$.+'00'(15$$ <#1E0.#(3#$-".-'%($3%()'.(.-$ +#)E0-)$'($)E3"$3".-$)E3"$&0.(34$.+-'3E0.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.(4$3E8E0.$'(-#1+.$)E+2.(./0#$..$ P'-"$&+%&#+$&0.'(-4$  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  M$ .(.-'%($".)$8E('3'&.(.$E(.+#$<'J#+$P.-'%($%2$#*&0%+.+#0#))$)E+2.-#+$.-#$.+/4$P.(.I%+$P.##&$ 1#%0%1'3$2%+8.-'%($ $ S($'8&%+-.+04$P"#+#$(.$2+%8$-"#$)E+2.)'(1$8.+-'3E0.+#.-#+$P#00)5$$X#(#+.-#+$)E&&04$J.2.Q4$)E+2.-#+$P#00)$-".$)3+E-'(4$.-#+)$+#3#'J'(1$-"')$.P.E3-'%($ $ T*&0%+.004$"'1"$)3#('3.8'(.(.$P"'3"$.)$P#00).$&.)$.)#$2%+$.-"#+#.\E'2#+$'-)#025$ $ C($)E3"$'()-.-'%($9ATNN:$.$.3#(-$-%.^.-'(1$&%-#(-'.3#$ '8&%E(.0$%2$.#)'1(.+#$<'J#+$P.')3".3#$.0'-45$$ $ X+%E(.)$'88#.)$P#00)$')$ 1+%E(.0E#)5$$!"#$+#1E0.(.+'(Q'(1$P.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.-#+$ P#00)$.$.$2%+$)&+'(1$P#00).)#$-"#$+')Q$%2$3%(-.4$(%-$/#$)E/^#3-$-%$-"#$).8'(.)$2+%8$-"')$.$.-E+.+'(1$.+/4.'#(-$2+%8$-"#)#$#*&0%+.$-"#'+$#(-'+#$.-#+$)E&&04$2..'($/4$Z.00.-#+$L%(-.-#./0#$P.P.$ '($-"#$'()-.+#$0%3.#(-)$'(.0$&%00E-'%($&.4(#$L%E(-4.^.J#$/##($2%E(.-#04$%P(#.0$T*#3E-'J#$N'+#3-%+$N#-#+8'(.'+#3-04$-%$ -"#$.$-%$/#$.-'%(5$$!"')$1.-'%($')$)'1('2'3.2.-#+)$9A7Y:$/4$-"#$N#0.$#(-#+$-"#$P.J#$/##($%+$.(-04$+#)-+'3-$(#P$.-#04$.+#$ <'J#+$O.+#$)".-E+.5$$S$P.-#+$.-$')$(%-$3.)$P#00$.$$ .%P(1+.)$.(-5$!"#$1+./0#$3".-#+$'($-"#$P#00.(4$8#.+-$%2$.(.$.)$#*-+.0$.P.00%P#+$-".+3#00E)$)".-'%($2+%8$&%%+04$3%()-+E3-#.-%+4$1.0.$ &.0$1.+#$E)#.-$3+#.-'(1$-"#$(#.)E+.-#+$-%$+#)'.3-'J'-'#)$./0')"'(1$A7Y$)'1('2'3.J#$/##($.(..004.0$1.3-'%($ P'00$E)#$-"#$&+%3#))$%2$"4.$.-$-"#$(.3-$(.-%+4$ P#00)$.E3-'%($P#00).E0'3$2+.8'(.3#$.3#.8#(-)$%+$3.+-'3E0.($(.-%+4$P#00)$ 1+.)#.)$%&#+.#&-"5$ !"')$')$&.-"#+#.-%+4$P#00)$8.+1#)$-".+'00'(1$.+3#00E)$)".$'(30E.$30%)#$-%$1+%E(.-'%($3%E0.(-$'))E#$'($#J.%8#)-'3$P.$ '(3+#.(.$'($(%+-"#.P.'(1$Y.-'%(.-#+$P#005$$Y"'0#$-"#$\E.-#+$P#00)$.-#+$P#00$-".+1#)$%2$P.)-#P.'(1$&%-.-'%()$ #)-..-#+P.(.$&+%^#3-$-%$#*-+.$+#3+#.-#.0)$E)#.#+$-"#$ATNN$.($2%+$&+%.4$/#$0#))$-".J#$ #*3#&-'%(.0$.#+$P.$.

(1#)5$$ $ !"#$S3.)$.(.5$$!"')$')$J#+4$'8&%+-.3-$%2$.+-'3E0..-#+$3%(.3-'J'-4$".)$"'1"$'($-"#$"'1"$.-#+)"#.'(1$)-+#.8.)$&%'(-#.-#+$-+#.+#$#)&#3'.()&5%+1I.+2$P#.'($%J#+$.$.0'2#$.(-)$P#+#$.0$"#.E3-#.$+E(%22$'(-%$ )E++%E(.$f#0'()Q4$ !#)-'8%(4$9T*"'/'-$M:$9./)#(3#$%2$.-$.-#+)"#.3#$Y.#()'-4$%2$.$/4$N+5$f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c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  F$ .(.+('(1$)4)-#85$$c%+$#.$-"#$.)$-%$-"#$#*&0%+.-#+$1#(#+.00%P$ 1+%E(.'3.-$8E('3'&.+3#00E)$A".-'%()..x-"+##$'($ P"'3"$-"#+#$".0$&%00E-./E(.$\E#)-'%($ -".-#+)"#.+3#00E)=)".5$!"')$+#)#.$-"+##$'($P"'3"$ -"#+#$".)$-"#$ %-"#+$)'-#).8'(#.E3-'%($P#00).8'(.$')$P"#-"#+$-"#+#$')$.$.+#$(%-$3.+'00'(15$!"#$)-E.-$P%E0.)$(%-$1%(#$'(-%$ &+%.

+3#00E)$)".4$-%$#J.0$ $ N+'00$)'-#)$'(J%0J#$0.(3#.$1.$/#$(%-#.$-"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$ N#&-5$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.$-%$-"#$P.$%2$-"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$P.$P"#+#$-"#$1+.#+0'#)$.$.(.$#*&0%+.0#.#(-'2'#.)$8.)$&+%^#3-)$0#))$-".(.$3.)$.+#$.$#*&0%+.+#.))%3'.+#$&%+-'%()$%2$-"#$P.0'-4$'($-"#$P.$A-%+8P.3-$%2$1.-#+)"#.$P.#J#0%&8#(-.-"#+#.$P'-"$6jA$NTL$3".&&0'#.-#+)"#.P.-#+$..$ ..$-"#$ P.#(-$%($#(2%+3#8#(-$%2$J.$.$-+.(.(.-#$-"#$'8&.-#$-"#8$P"#($-"#4$.2.E)#$'-$')$(%-$#*#+3')'(1$..+#$.8$P.-$.($]$.-'%($-".-$.$'($-"')$..$.3-'J'-'#)5$S)$&.0E.-#+$E)#+)$..-#+$)E&&04$)4)-#8$'($)%E-"#.$-%$8.-'%($A4)-#8$ 9A7NTA:$X#(#+.)$ -%$-"#$)'-#.$/#$+#\E'+#.(.-'%()$.E)#$&%00E-'%($%2$)-+#.-#+)$%+$P'00$ 1#(#+.)$.2.$P.+'00#.4$1#(#+.(-#.$)%E-"#+($6#P$e#+)#4.(.)#$CC$A-%+8P.$2%+$%'0$.+-$%2$-"')$&#+8'-.$.-"#+#..#+.$P#)-$%2$-"#$DE.+1#.0)$.'J#+$2+%8$2#.$%2$-"#$6#P$j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j%+Q$ )E3"$&#+8'-)$.)$(%-$/##($'.$&'-.)5$ $ C-$)"%E0.$.-#+)"#.00$%2$-"#$ 3%88E('-'#)$.+#$.)$ /##($&+%&%)#.-#+$.+1#$T0'8'(.#J#0%&8#(-$".8$2+%8$-"#$)'-#5$L%()-+E3-'%($%2$.')3".+'00'(1$.(.J#$.-$".-#+)"#.-#+$\E.$3#(-+.$)&#3'2'3.3#8#(-$%2$P#00$2.3'0'-'#)$)E3"$.+#(-04$(%$)E3"$&#+8'--'(1$%2$-"')$-4&#$')$+#\E'+#.(3#.)$&+%..+#$0%3.-#+)$P'00$8%)-$0'Q#04$/#$-+.(.('.+#$<'J#+5$$!"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$&E/0'3$P.+#$.)$/##($1+..-%+4$3%(-+%0$%J#+$-"#)#$P#00)5$ $ $ K.(-$&%+-'%($%2$-"#$ P.$-".-#+)5$ $ Y'-"$+#1.'J#+$9D.$)E+2.$.-$'))E#$"#+#$.'(#+)$')$3%8&0#-#.3#$2%+$%&#+.0$P.-#+$)E&&04$)4)-#85$$$ $ !"#$#(-'+#$6#P$j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jA$NTL$E(.$)%E+3#$%2$&%00E-.$2%+$P.#0'J#+4$-%$-"#$&E/0'35$$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$".Q'(1$)'-#)$)E)3#&-'/0#$-%$+E(%22$.-8#(-$%+$.(-$N')3".0$7#+8'-$2%+$3%()-+E3-'%($.-%+4$P#00)$.%P()-+#.$-".#&#(.$&%(.-#.$-%$0.%P()-+#.$0.0$0%3.P4#+$M@@?:9T*"'/'-$F:5$$$   >$ .$#*&0%+.'($/4$Z.0%(1$-"#$N#0.-$ 3.(.4$.3-'J'-'#)$ .$)-E.-#+$)E&&04$-%$7"'0.(.)-#+($6#P$j%+Q$A-.0$.-"#+#.)$0.+1#$.0$7+%-#3-'%($3%8&0#-#.$ N#0.-'%($E(.')-E+/.+$'($8.$.-%+4$P#00)$-".$.004$%($-"#$+')Q$-%$-"#$2#.(-'(1$%2$-"')$P.)$2'J#$.

004$.-'%(.+/4$)-+#.%P)$9K##$#-$.#$)".#$2%+#)-$3%8&%)#.$)#..&&04$-%$-"#$A&#3'..)$'(-%$)E+2.'-'%(.-"#+#.85$C($.$-"#$Y'00)%E+3#$T*&0%+.(.(-$\E.-#+$)E&&045$$Y'-"$+#1.8)$.(.Q#$#*3#))$(E-+'#(-).$)-+#.$M@@]:5$$Z%('-%+'(1$%2$-"#$XE((')%($ T(#+14$T*&0%+.+#$ <'J#+$P.-"#+#.(-'-'#)$%2$)#.-#.P4#+$)-E.$)-+#.8w)$/.+8'(1$%2$P.'(1$0.3-'J#$3%8&%E(.'8#(-)$/#2%+#$-"#4$3.3-$%2$2%+#)-$/E22#+$R%(#)$'($+#.-E+#)$-".&)$)#.$-".-%+4$7+%^#3-.(.-#+$-#8&#+.'($3%%0$P.$.(.4$/#$.0$(E-+'#(-)$.'))%0J#.8$/.$A.-$20%P$-"+%E1"$8#.(..4)$9X%#-R$#-$.+/4$)-+#.'($ )-+#.-'%($%2$.0$c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m)#$%2$)E3"$/E22#+$.R#($.05$   ]$ .(.$8.(.$2%+$#*.$Z#).$.$P'-"$P#00$.8)5$$Z#.$/4$D.$UG%c5$ $ !"#$+#)E0-)$.')-E+/.)E+#)$-".$.-#$-"#$&%)'-'J#$'8&.P4#+$)-E.$+')Q$-%$-"#$P.$.+#.8$ 3".-'%($.#$ J#1#-.-$+#.#$)".0)%$.$.$(#1.$.E3#$-"#$2%+3#$%2$%J#+0.'()$-"#$1+%P-"$%2$-"#$2%+#)-5$$C($.5$$!"#$D.+#))#.$%*41#($0#J#0)5$ 6.(-$/%-"$.$-"#$1#%0%14$%2$-"#$N#0.8)$..$)"+E/)$.-%+4$P#00)$".$P'-"$1.(3#$.P.$3.-#+$+E(%22$'(-%$.$+%./E(.+.5$$!"#$1+.$-"#$.)$N+'00'(1$7+%^#3-$'($-"#$X+.$'()#3-).R#($.22#3-'(1$ )E++%E(.$+#3%88#(.+4$2%%.0$c%+#)-$.+Q'(1$0%-).(.1+'3E0-E+..P.Im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mX:$ 6.).$2%+$-+%E-.$&+%.E3-'%(.(8.$8.(-)$9K##$#-$.-$-"#$XZmX$6.(.)$B@$.(.(.')-E+/.8)'.(.'8#(-$2+%8$P#00$)'-#)$'(-%$(#.)$-"#$1#%0%14$%2$-"#$.(.)$%2$6#P$j%+Q$)-.-E+#)$/#0%P$UG%c$-%$)E+J'J#.+#$.(.0$7+%-#3-'%($S1#(34$9T*"'/'-$ >:.P.$+#\E'+#$P.-$#*3##.J#+)#$#22#3-)$%2$'8&#+J'%E)$)E+2.R#($.-#.($2%+#)-$/E22#+$')$.)'($P.$/#3.((#0).$.-'%($/#1.-#+$+#)%E+3#)$9m5A5$c%+#)-$A#+J'3#.$/4$N+5$<E/'($'($+#3#(-$3%88#(-)$-%$-"#$m5A5$T(J'+%(8#(-.-$P#+#$ .($/#$8'-'1.-E+.$E&-.#J#0%&8#(-$P%E0.-#+)"#.$P#00$)'-#)$.-'%($/E22#+).Y"'0#$-"')$)-E.-#$.004$%33E++'(1$+.(.J#.$-"#$8%J#8#(-$%2$ )'1('2'3..(.-#+$-#8&#+.(.0$ 2'0-#+)5$K#.$E(#*&#3-#.-'J#$-+%E-.(4$%2$-"#$2'(.$)E3"$..-#+$-#8&#+.$)-+#.(.0$7+%-#3-'%($Y.$%2$(.+#.+%3.%3E8#(-#.$#*&0%+.$"'1"#+$.$/E22#+)$ &+%J'.$P.)#$'($+E(%22$2+%8$P#00$)'-#)$P#+#$2%E(.8#$.$.))%3'.$ )-+#.#$(#3#)).#.-'J#$-+##).-$ 8.$/#0%P$-"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$+#)#+J%'+)$')$ -"#$).+'%E)$/#(#2'-)5$$OE22#+)$.3#)$9)E3"$.(.-%+4$%+$&+%.$.$ -"#$&+#)#(3#$%2$-+##)$.(...$ 8.(3#$=$OE22#+$y%(#)$ $ S$+'&.0%(1$.-#.#8%()-+..($)-+#..$-%$+#)E0-$'($&+%/0#8)$.$&..2.(.0$c%+#)-.)$3.+'.+#.)$P.)#.-#+P.-#.)$.$P'-"$/%-"$1.#J#0%&#+$.8&0#.(.3#%E)$ &0.$&+%J'.$3"#8'3.$ 1+%E(..-'%()$.P4#+5$$S8%(1$ %-"#+$3%(30E)'%().(.-$0.0)%$#(3%E+.)$(%-$&+%&#+04$3%(-+%00#.E3-'%(:.(5$$XE((')%($ T(#+14$L%+&5.$"#+/.)$#*&0%+.0)$%($)E+2.($#(-#+$-"#$)-+#.-'%(.#8%()-+.$A..'(1)$ .-$.-%+4$P#00)$'($\E#)-'%($"#+#.$/4$-+##$3%J#+$.$-%$'(3+#.P.'-'%(.

8)5$!"#)#$+E0#)$.(.)$&+%^#3-)$...-#+$ .$P.-E+.-$'))E#$"#+#$'(30E.$3%)-$#22#3-'J#$8#.3#$+E(%22../04$'(30E.(.0+#.$2%+#)-$3%J#+.(.M@@>:5$$C($.(.(.8%(1$%-"#+$'8&%+-.8$P.(3#$#-$.0$E)#)$-%$P"'3"$-".'($ ]@sn?@s$%2$-"#$-%-.)$%($.8)$'($-"#$-%&$M@s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c')3"#('3".22#3-$)%=3.004$&+%J'.2.'-'%(.+'.('.$N#3.'(-.#(3#$-".('.+#.+'.-#+)"#.8)$.'(1$+'&.($J#1#-.+#.$3.0$&"%)&"%+E)5$!"#$#)-..(.(.0E#$)-+#.$/4$-"#$C<<L$P'00$+#\E'+#$)%8#$.$P'-"$3%()-+E3-'%($ &+%^#3-)$-%$+#.$P'-"$P#-0.$P#00$)'-#)$1#(#+.4$'($-"#$)-+#.)$.05$M@@G:5  $ !"#+#$')$)%0'.(4$%2$-"#$&%-#(-'.0$1.-#+$-+#.$(.$&+%J'.$1+%E(./0')"8#(-$.8)5$$   U$ .$%-"#+$0.(.'8#(-.$M@@@:5$ $ !"#$.(.)$/##($2%E(.+'.$T+%)'%($.-#.(.$ 8.+'.&-#+$B@M.05$B?G>g$7'(.(.E3'(1$-"#$0%.-#$'($)".%P()-+#..#.-'%($L%(-+%0$8#.8)$9'5#5.-#+$)-+#.$M@@F:5$$K%P+.&&+%J#.($-"%)#$/E22#+)$%33E++'(1$'($ .-"#+#.$L".8&)$B?GG:5$$!"#$)&.3#(-$-%$2'+)-=.(.-#P'.)$-".J#$/##($%+$P'00$/#$.8$9c')3"#+$.(3#$#-$.0$J.(.3"#)5$$N%P()-+#.$+'&.($3%E(-#+$-"#$E("#.4$.')-E+/#.00%P$ )E/)E+2.=%+.-#04.$.2.(.$.#+$)4)-#8):$".-$+'&.3#8#(-$ %2$/E22#+$)-+'&)$P'-"'($.0$1..#J#0%&#+)$-%$8.)$%-"#+$(#P$.-E+#)5$ 7#(()40J.-$&+%J'.$)-+#.$.3#$P./'-.)$&%)'-'J#04$3%++#0.'(1$%2$('-+.$ -%-.05$9B??B:.-$".$-".$-%$/#$.=.(.$-.#J#0%&8#(-$&+%^#3-)5$!"#$ +E0#)$2.4$%2$7#(()40J.-'J#04$3%++#0.(-$.($2%+#)-$/E22#+)$+#-.P.-#1'#)$-"..)$/##($2%E(.)$.$P#00$)'-#)$ .-#.-#+)5$$m(2%+-E(.-"#+#.-'%()$ .-E+.8%E(-$%2$P#-0.-#+$\E.-$0.#-#+8'(#.(1#)$-%$L".-#+.$'8&+%J#)$ P.('.E3#$'8&.J#$&+%2%E(.4.-$)&#3'#)$+'3"(#))$P.$)-E.).8$/E22#+)$".'(-#(.(.-8#(-$<#\E'+#8#(-).J#$8E3"$ 1+#.$-%-.J#$/##($.#$&+%-#3-'%()$2%+$P.$+'&.0E#$%+$#*3#&-'%(.$ L".$#22#3-)$%($P..$.$ 9D.+#$#*#8&-#.#$ )&.-'J#$/E22#+$/#)'.(.#J#0%&8#(-5$$!"#$.()$%2$ (%(=&%'(-$)%E+3#$&%00E-'%($.$c'(.00%P$1+%E(.&-#+$?].3#$.$'(-.$-"#$.05$9B??_:$2%E(.(.-#.$A#.0$&0.$.)-#P.0'-4$-".)$P#00$.00$#-$.(.$#J'.-"$&+%-#3-)$.)#.0$('-+%1#($'($/%-"$)E+2.-#+$'(20E#(3#)$%($%J#+./.-#+$\E.00$P.P('(1$".8)$.(.E3'(1$2#3.-$2%+#)-$3%J#+$&+%J'.$-"%)#$.#.0$3%0'2%+8.($.($/E22#+)$%2$)E22'3'#(-$P'..\E.$+'J#+)5$$A-+#.00#.$TdA$ &#+8'--'(1$%+$T+%)'%($.(.$)".4$/#$3%(J#+-#.0'-4$P'-"'($.$)-+#.$-P%$(#P$ +#1E0.3#$+E(%22$.$)%0'.$-".8)$ .+'00'(1$&%00E-'%($.($".$3%J#+$2%+$ &+%-#3-'(1$P.$A#.)$.(.-"$+#\E'+#8#(-)$-".(.-#+$!+#.$.(.$2%+$.$)#.$Y.$B]@=2%%-$(.V)$/#)-$+'J#+)$.$&+%-#3-'%()5$$!"')$P%E0.+#$/#'(1$.(.-'.-#+)"#.)$A&#3'.#(-$<#1E0.J#$&+%&%+-'%(.-'%($ .^.+#.)$P#+#$#22#3-'J#$'($ +#..$-"'+.^.-#+)5$ $ C($.+#.004$0#))$'8&.0$/E22#+$P'.$2+%8$ -"#$.(.(.$P.%&-#.$.$P..P.#$2%+$P.$2%+$7#(()40J.0$0%.8)$.)$ 2+%8$-"#$'8&.-'J#$-+%E-.'(1$-"#$1+.-'%($L%(-+%05$$$L".-#$.-#8#(-5$$$A-%+8P.-#+$\E.

!"#$)E/^#3-$#*&0%+..-'J#$2%+#)-$#3%)4)-#8)$%&#+.(.#J#0%&8#(-$&+%^#3-)5$$ S1.$J#"'30#)$9Y%%.$J#1#-.3-)$ '(30E.$ +#.0'-4$%2$-"#$-+'/E-.)$1#(#+.3#$.5$$cE+-"#+8%+#.-"#+#.$)8.#$/E22#+)$.(3#$%2$'(-.2.3#)$P"#+#$-"#$1+.$P#00)$".-$".-#.$N')-E+/.(.)$P#00.$ (E-+'#(-)$.-%+4$/'+.4$&+#)#(-$.#$+%.0.$c%+#)-$c+.-'%($'($7#(()40J.)$/##($%/)#+J#.#$.0$'(-#1+'-4$-".5$$ A-+#.E)#)$0.J#$/##($ %+$P'00$/#$0%3.'(1$.3-$c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`V6#'00$#-$.$/E22#+$&+%-#3-'%().)#.(.)#$'($-"#$.(-045$!"#)#$'($-E+($3.+#$(%P$)E/^#3-5$$ $ K.05$M@@F:5$$C(-.-#+.(.-#+$\E.18#(-.-'(1$P'-"'($-"#$/%E(.18#(-.$&'&#0'(#)$9Y%%.$%-"#+$+%.$2%+$-"#$P#00$&.4$P'-")-.0'-4$%2$/'+.-E+#)$3+#.-$2+.4(#$ L%E(-4$+#1'%($-%$.-E+.05$M@@M:5$ $ c%+$1.(..E3#$%+$3%(-+%0$20%%.(.+#$<'J#+$'($-"#$Y.)$'($2%+#)-#.(..+'(1$9Z%%(#4$#-$.(.#$/E22#+)$2%+$)E3"$.+1#$3".$-".#J#0%&8#(-$&+%^#3-)$.(1#$%2$)%0.-'3$)&#3'#)5$`J#+$M@@$ 8E('3'&.05$B??B:5$$!"#$#*3".(.33#))$-%$+#8%-#$.)$P#00$.$+#)E0-$%2$2%+#)-$ 2+.$&'&#0'(#$.05$B??]:5$$C-$".-'J#$#22#3-$%($0%3.0$J#1#-.-$8.$(%')#$2+%8$-+.(.J#$(%-$/##($)E/^#3-$-%$ 2+.00$%-"#+$.$P#00)$".05$B??F:5$$c%%.&#$.$-+.$+#.0-"'#+$ #3%)4)-#8)$9A&#00#+/#+1$B??G:5$$ $ S+#.#)-+E3-'%($.(-5$$C-$".)5$Y"'0#$0.3-$2%+#)-$9D#'08.-$'(-.3+%))$-"#$0.+#.(.$P'00$)E22#+$2%+#)-$2+.$0.$#(.&"'3$3".('.(.$.-'%().0$-%$)#+'%E)04$.$.+#..)$.-$8./'-.1#$%2$'(-.#J#0%&8#(-.$)E+2.0$P'0.J#$/##($%+$ P'00$/#$0%3.$L%J#+$.)$.Q#+$.)$/##($2%E(.$.(1#)$9A.0'-45$OE22#+)$"#0&$2'0-#+$P.-'%($')$.)$.-'%()$'($7#(()40J.-$.$"#.004$/##($2%E(.$  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`(#$&%-#(-'.(1#)$'($-"#$&"4)'3.$-".-%+4$P#00)$P'00$(%-$#8&0%4$-"#)#$#*-+.$ '(3+#.+04$)#()'-'J#$ -%$30#.$.-'%($'($&+%*'8'-4$-%$-"#$&0..).(.0$.8)'.8)'.+1#$+%.+#$.#1+.(.'J#+)#$.22'3$2+%8$%22=+%.$P"'3"$/#3%8#$8%+#$JE0(#+.-'%($.(.3-$P..05$B??_g$DE().(.)$".(.)$-"#$ &%-#(-'.3-$2%+#)-)$-".$".$%'0$.$ P'-"$.-'%($/4$3%()-+E3-'%($%2$+%.(3#$+#1'8#).3-$%0.$ '(-.$)".$P'00$/#$+#\E'+#.($ %&&%+-E('-4$2%+$'(3+#.3-$ 2%+#)-)$#(3%E+.P.$2.0$#(J'+%(8#(-$.$30#.)$/##($3%++#0.-'%($ $ T3%)4)-#8$2+./'-.)$9N#00..-'%($"#0&)$ -%$+#.0-#+#./'-.)$%2$"'1"$#3%0%1'3.$9j.'(.('.-'%($".1#$%2$-"#$ +#8(.+#.E3#$P.004$3.

18#(-.)'(1$.-'%($9<%/'()%($B??G:5$ c%+#)-$2+..$ '-)$3%()#\E#(3#)5$ $ $ $ $   G$ .(.#3+#.$%-"#+$2%+#)-$.$)'-#).$'($-"#$ATNN$(%-$-%$#*#+3')#$-"#$L%88'))'%(V)$+#J'#P$^E+').$.$)#J#+#$/0%P.)E&&04$2%+$J.+#$<'J#+$ O..-"#+#.+#.)$/##($2%E(.$+#)E0-$%2$2%+#)-$ 2+.$-%$'(3+#.$.(.)$.%P($.8.E)#.$P'-"$"'1"$ P'(.-'%($.-'%(.('.18#(-.0$P#.)'($L%88'))'%($.-"#+$#J#(-)5$$c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

.

<#2#+#(3#)$ $ S0/#+-);$A5$<#,E3-'%($%2$-%-.0$)E)&#(,#,$)#,'8#(-$3%(3#(-+.-'%($'($.1+'3E0-E+.0$+E(%22$/4$.$ J#1#-.-'J#$/E22#+$)-+'&$'($L"#)-#+$L%E(-4;$7#(()40J.('.5$$$Z5A5$!"#)');$Y#)-$L"#)-#+$m('J#+)'-4;$ M@@@5$ S(/E8%R"';$f5;$<.,".Q+')"(.(;$e5;$.(,$T5$j.8.^';$M@@]5 C8&.3-$%2$+'&.+'.($/E22#+$R%(#)$%($ P.-#+$\E.0'-4$.(,$.))%3'.-#,$8.(.1#8#(-$3%()',#+.-'%()5$Ecological Engineering$f%0E8#$M>;$ C))E#$];$F@$Z.4$M@@];$&&5$]B_=]MF5$$ $ S(1#+8#'#+;$75K5;$S575$Y"##0#+;$.(,$S5T5$<%)#(/#+1#+;$M@@>5$S$L%(3#&-E.0$c+.8#P%+Q$2%+$ S))#))'(1$C8&.3-)$%2$<%.,)$%($S\E.-'3$O'%-.5$$Fisheries f%0E8#$M?;$&&5$B?=M?5$$ $ O%%-";$N5O5;$N5$D.+-0#4;$.(,$<5e.3Q)%(;$M@@M5$$c%+#)-$L%J#+;$C8&#+J'%E)=AE+2.3#$S+#.;$.(,$-"#$ Z'-'1.-'%($%2$A-%+8P.-#+$C8&.3-)5$Journal of the American Water Resources Association;$ f%0E8#$FG;$6E8/#+$F;$&&5$GF]nG>]5$ $  O+#((#+;$c5e5;$Z%(,%Q;$e5e5;$.(,$Z3N%(.0,;$<5e5;$B??B5$$C8&.3-$%2$<'&.+'.($S+#.)$.(,$K.(,$m)#$ %($c%E+$6%(=7%'(-$A%E+3#$7%00E-'%($7.+.8#-#+)$'($7#(()40J.('.$$Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science;$f%0E8#$U];$6E8/#+$M;$&&5$U]=_G5$ $ L.)-#00#;$S5$e5;$S5$Y5$e%"()%(;$.(,$L5$L%(%004;$B??>5$Y#-0.(,$.(,$A-+#.8$OE22#+$A'R#$ <#\E'+#8#(-)$n$S$<#J'#P5$Journal of Environmental Quality$f%0E8#$MF;$&&5G_G=GGM5$ $ N#0.P.+#$<'J#+$O.)'($L%88'))'%($;$M@@G5$$S,8'('()-+.-'J#$Z.(E.0$7.+-$CCC;$Y.-#+$WE.0'-4$ <#1E0.-'%();$P'-"$S8#(,8#(-)$-"+%E1"$eE04$BU;$M@@G;$BG$Lc<$7.+-$>B@5$ $ N#0.P.+#$<'J#+$O.)'($L%88'))'%(;$M@@?5$$N`LlT!$6`5$N=M@@?=BG=B;$A&#3'.0$7+%-#3-'%($ Y.-#+);$A-%(#$T(#+14$L%+&%+.-'%(;$Z.-%E)"#Q$B$Y#00$A'-#;$A".0#$X.)$T*&0%+.-'%($.(,$ N#J#0%&8#(-$7+%^#3-;$L0'(-%($!%P()"'&;$Y.4(#$L%E(-4;$7#(()40J.('.$ $$ N#00.A.0.;$N5S5;$S5$Z.+-'(;$<5$A&'J.Q;$!5$A3"E0Q#;$O5$O'+,;$Z5$L+'0#4;$L5$J.($N..0#(;$e5$l+#'0'3Q;$ <5$$O+%P(;$.(,$X5$S&0#-;$M@@F5$$$S$L'-'R#(V)$L.00$2%+$T3%0%1'3.0$c%+#)-$<#)-%+.-'%(H$c%+#)-$ <#)-%+.-'%($7+'(3'&0#)$.(,$L+'-#+'.5$$Ecological Restoration f%0E8#$MB;$6E8/#+$B;$&&5B>=MF5$$ WE%-#H$<#0.-'J#04$'(-.3-$(.-E+.0$.+#.)$.(,$3%+#$+#2E1'.$-".-$".J#$"'1"$#3%0%1'3.0$'(-#1+'-4$.(,$ 0'--0#$(##,$2%+$+#)-%+.-'%($)"%E0,$/#$&+%-#3-#,$.(,$8.'(-.'(#,5 $ N%40#;$<5$L5;$A-.(-%(;$X5$L5;$.(,$Y%02;$N5$L5$9B?__:5$zT22#3-'J#(#))$%2$2%+#)-$.(,$1+.))$ /E22#+$)-+'&)$'($'8&+%J'(1$-"#$P.-#+$\E.0'-4$%2$8.(E+#$&%00E-#,$+E(%22;z$S8#+'3.($A%3'#-4$%2$ S1+'3E0-E+.0$T(1'(##+);$7.&#+$__=M]@B;$A-5$e%)#&";$ZC5$ $ T))##(;$75=S5;$B??>5$$!+##$8%+-.0'-4$&.--#+()$.2-#+$#*&#+'8#(-.0$2+.18#(-.-'%($%2$.($%0,=1+%P-"$ 3%('2#+$2%+#)-5$$Biological Conservation$f%0E8#$UG;$C))E#$B;$&&5$B?=MG5$$ $ $ $

 

B@$

c')3"#+;$<5$S5;$Z.+-'(;$L5$`5;$O.++4;$N5$W5;$D%228.(;$l5;$N'3Q)%(;$l5$K5;$y'88#+8.(;$T5$X5;$.(,$ T0+%,;$N5$S5;$B???5$zL%++',%+)$.(,$J#1#-.-#,$/E22#+$R%(#)H$S$&+#0'8'(.+4$.))#))8#(-$.(,$)-E,4$ ,#)'1(;z$Technical Report EL-99-3;$m5A5$S+84$T(1'(##+$Y.-#+P.4)$T*&#+'8#(-$A-.-'%(;$ f'3Q)/E+1;$ZA5$ $ c')3"#+;$<5S5$.(,$e5L5$c')3"#('3";$M@@@5$aN#)'1($<#3%88#(,.-'%()$2%+$<'&.+'.($L%++',%+)$.(,$ f#1#-.-#,$OE22#+$A-+'&)b5$EMRRP Technical Note 9T<NL$!6=TZ<<7=A<=M>:;$mA$S+84$ T(1'(##+$<#)#.+3"$.(,$N#J#0%&8#(-$L#(-#+;$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$K./%+.-%+4;$f'3Q)/E+1;$ZA5$$ $ X%#-R;$A5e5$.(,$L5S5$e.(-R;$A5N5$7+'(3#;$S5e5$A8'-";$N5$f.+041E'(;$.(,$<5l5$Y+'1"-;$M@@>5$$ C(-#1+.-#,$S(.04)')$%2$T3%)4)-#8$C(-#+.3-'%()$Y'-"$K.(,$m)#$L".(1#H$!"#$L"#).&#.Q#$O.4$ Y.-#+)"#,5$$C(H$$<5$A5$N#c+'#);$X5$75$S)(#+;$.(,$$<5$S5$D%E1"-%($9T,)5:;$T3%)4)-#8)$.(,$0.(,$ E)#$3".(1#$9&&5$MUFnM_]:5$S8#+'3.($X#%&"4)'3.0$m('%(5$$ $ D.00;$Z5;$<5$X#+8.'(;$Z5$!4++#00;$.(,$65$A.8&)%(;$M@@G5$$7+#,'3-'(1$cE-E+#$Y.-#+$WE.0'-4$2+%8$ K.(,$m)#$L".(1#$7+%^#3-'%()$'($-"#$L.-)Q'00=N#0.P.+#$Y.-#+)"#,)5$$e%'(-$<#&%+-$/4$!"#$A-.-#$ m('J#+)'-4$%2$6#P$j%+Q$L%00#1#$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$A3'#(3#$.(,$c%+#)-+4$.(,$!"#$X0%/.0$ C()-'-E-#$%2$AE)-.'(./0#$c%+#)-+4;$j.0#$m('J#+)'-4$A3"%%0$%2$c%+#)-+4$.(,$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$A-E,'#)5$$ $ D.R#($.(,$A.P4#+;$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$T(1'(##+)$.(,$A3'#(-')-);$M@@?5$$c'(.0$C8&.3-$S))#))8#(-$ <#&%+-;$C8&.3-$S))#))8#(-$%2$6.-E+.0$X.)$7+%,E3-'%($'($-"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$Y.-#+$AE&&04$ Y.-#+)"#,5$$<#&%+-$&+#&.+#,$2%+$-"#$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4$N#&-5$%2$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$7+%-#3-'%(5$ $ D#'08.(;$X5T5;$e5<5$A-+'--"%0-;$65L5$A0%))#+;$.(,$N5S5$N#00.A.0.5$M@@M5$c%+#)-$2+.18#(-.-'%($ %2$-"#$3%(-#+8'(%E)$m('-#,$A-.-#)H$S))#))'(1$2%+#)-$'(-.3-(#))$-"+%E1"$+%.,$,#()'-4$.(,$)&.-'.0$ 3".+.3-#+')-'3)5$BioScience f%0E8#$]M;$6E8/#+$];$&&5$>BB=>MM5$ $ D%E0.".(;$e5T5;$$.(,$L5A5$c'(,0.4;$M@@F5$!"#$#22#3-)$%2$.,^.3#(-$0.(,$E)#$%($P#-0.(,$.8&"'/'.($ )&#3'#)$+'3"(#))$.(,$3%88E('-4$3%8&%)'-'%(5$Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science f%0E8#$U@;$6E8/#+$?;$&&5$B@_GnB@?>5$ $ DE().Q#+;$L5!5$$.(,$N5S5$K#J'(#5$B??]5$$D'#+.+3"'3.0$S&&+%.3"#)$-%$-"#$A-E,4$%2$Y.-#+$WE.0'-4$ '($<'J#+)5$$$BioScience.$f%0E8#$>];$6E8/#+$F;$T3%0%14$%2$K.+1#$<'J#+);$&&5$B?F=M@F5$ $ l.+1/%;$N5Z5;$<5X5$Y'0"#08;$.(,$N5e5$L.8&/#00;$M@B@5$$6.-E+.0$X.)$70.4)$'($-"#$Z.+3#00E)$ A".0#H$L".00#(1#)$.(,$7%-#(-'.0$`&&%+-E('-'#)$Environmental Science and Technoogy;$f%0E8#$ >>;$6E8/#+$B];$&&$]U_?n]UG>5$ $$ l#')-#+;$!5;$M@@?5$$Z.+3#00E)$1.)$P#00$P.-#+$)E&&04$.(,$P.)-#P.-#+$,')&%).0;$-+#.-8#(-;$.(,$ +#3430#$-#3"(%0%145$Y#/$)'-#H$$ "--&HIIPPP5&+%3"#8-#3"53%8IK'-#+.-E+#I!SOI7Ncv!SOvZ.+3#00E)v$ X.)vY#00vY.-#+v<#3430#5&,25$ $ l%1#08.((;$Y5e5;$D5$K'(;$.(,$<5O5$O+4.(-;$M@@M5$$S$A-.-#P',#$S))#))8#(-$%2$-"#$C8&.3-)$%2$7= C(,#*$C8&0#8#(-.-'%($'($7#(()40J.('.;$7".)#$B$<#&%+-;$7#(()40J.('.$A-.-#$L%()#+J.-'%($ L%88'))'%(;$7#(()40J.('.$N#&.+-8#(-$%2$S1+'3E0-E+#;$D.++')/E+1;$7S5$$
 

BB$

K##;$75;$L5$A84-";$.(,$A5$O%E-'(5$M@@>5$WE.(-'-.-'J#$+#J'#P$%2$+'&.+'.($/E22#+$P',-"$1E',#0'(#)$ 2+%8$L.(.,.$.(,$-"#$m('-#,$A-.-#)5$Journal of Environmental Management f%0E8#$_@;$ &&5BU]=BG@5$ $ K%P+.(3#;<5;$$K5A5$S0-'#+;$e5$N5$6#P/%0,;$<5<5$A3"(./#0;$75Z5$X+%228.(;$e5Z5$N#(J#+;$N5K5$ L%++#00;$e5$Y5$X'00'.8;$e5K5$<%/'()%($.(,$<5O5$O+'()2'#0,5$B??_5$$Y.-#+$WE.0'-4$cE(3-'%()$%2$ <'&.+'.($c%+#)-$OE22#+)$'($L"#).&#.Q#$O.4$Y.-#+)"#,)5$$Environmental Management$f%0E8#$ MB;$6E8/#+$];$&&5$UG_=_BM5$ 
 

K%P+.(3#;$<5$<5;$!%,,;$<5$L5;$c.'0;$e5;$D#(,+'3Q)%(;$`5;$K#%(.+,;$<5$S5;$.(,$S)8E))#(;$K5$T5;$ B?G>5$z<'&.+'.($2%+#)-)$.)$(E-+'#(-$2'0-#+)$'($.1+'3E0-E+.0$P.-#+)"#,);z$BioScience f%0E8#$F>;$&&5$ F_>=__5$$ $ Z#".22#4;$Z5D5;$6.)";$Z5A5;$Y.,#;$!5X5;$T,8%(,);$L5Z5;$T/#+-;$N5Y5;$e%(#);$l5O5;$M@@M5$$S$ K.(,)3.&#$S))#))8#(-$%2$-"#$L.-)Q'00IN#0.P.+#$Y.-#+)"#,$B?_]=B??GH$6#P$j%+Q$L'-4V)$Y.-#+$ AE&&04$Y.-#+)"#,)5$m('-#,$A-.-#)$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$7+%-#3-'%($S1#(34$<#&%+-;$T7SIU@@I<=@BI@_]5$$ $ Z%%(#4;$D5S5$#-$.05;$B??]5$aO'%,'J#+)'-4$.(,$T3%)4)-#8$cE(3-'%('(1H$T3%)4)-#8$S(.04)#);b$C($ f5D5$D#4P%%,$.(,$<5!5$Y.-)%(;$Global Biodiversity Assessment. L.8/+',1#$m('J#+)'-4$7+#));$ K%(,%(5$ $ 6.-'%(.0$7.+Q$A#+J'3#;$B???5$$L%8&+#"#()'J#$C(-#+&+#-'J#$70.(;$m&&#+$N#0.P.+#$A3#('3$.(,$ <#3+#.-'%(.0$<'J#+;$m5A5$N#&.+-8#(-$%2$-"#$C(-#+'%+;$`3-%/#+;$B???5$ $ `w6#'00;$<5f5;$L5!5$DE().Q#+;$l5$O5$e%(#);$l5D5$<''--#+);$e5N5$Y'3Q".8;$75Z5$A3"P.+-R;$C5S5$ X%%,8.(;$O5K5$e.3Q)%($.(,$Y5A5$O.'00.+1#%(;$B??_5$$Z%('-%+'(1$T(J'+%(8#(-.0$WE.0'-4$.-$-"#$ K.(,)3.&#$A3.0#5$$BioScience$f%0E8#$>_;$6%5$G;$&&5$]BF=]B?5$$ $ 7'(.4;$X5;$.(,$D5$N#3.8&);$B?GG5$z!"#$+%0#$%2$+'&.+'.($P%%,)$'($+#1E0.-'(1$('-+%1#($20E*#)$ /#-P##($-"#$.00EJ'.0$.\E'2#+$.(,$)E+2.3#$P.-#+H$S$3%(3#&-E.0$8%,#0;z$Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. f%0E8#$M;$&&5]@_=]BU5$$ $ 7%+(#0ER';$75;$O#,(.+R;$e5$L5;$X%%,+'3";$K5$e5;$y.P.,.;$65$.(,$D%%J#+;$e5;$B??F5$$<#&+%,E3-'J#$ 7#+2%+8.(3#$%2$!#++'-%+'.0$`J#(/'+,)$`33E&4'(1$c%+#)-$c+.18#(-)$.(,$.$L%(-'1E%E)$c%+#)-$'($ 7#(()40J.('.5$Conservation Biology$f%0E8#$_;$&&5$UBGnUMM5$ $ <%/'()%(;$A5l5;$c5<5$!"%8&)%($CCC;$!5Z5$N%(%J.(;$N5<5$Y"'-#"#.,;$.(,$e5$c../%+15$B??]5$ <#1'%(.0$c%+#)-$c+.18#(-.-'%($.(,$-"#$6#)-'(1$AE33#))$%2$Z'1+.-%+4$O'+,)5$Science$f%0E8#$ MU_;$&&5$B?G_=B??@5$ $ <%/'()%(;$A5$l5;$B??G5$$S(%-"#+$!"+#.-$7%)#,$/4$c%+#)-$c+.18#(-.-'%(H$<#,E3#,$c%%,$AE&&045$$ The Awk, A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology5$f%0E8#$BB];$6E8/#+$B;$&&5$B=F5$$ $ A&#00#+/#+1;$C5;$B??G5$$T3%0%1'3.0$#22#3-)$%2$+%.,)$.(,$-+.22'3H$.$0'-#+.-E+#$+#J'#P5$Global Ecology and Biogeography;$f%0E8#$_;$&&5$FB_nFFF5$ $
 

BM$

$N5$M@@?5$6.0#$%($7"'0.-$"--&HIIPPP5.$.5$$ A#&-#8/#+$MG.$T(#+14$C8&.$S+-'2'3'.%P(#+5$$Forest Leaves.0$X.0#$6.$ N#J#0%&8#(-..$N5L5.$M@B@5$SJ.+'(1.'#)..$SE.%0%14$2%+$7+%^#3-$N.(.$<#&%+-$BH$Z.'(1$+#1'%(5$O#2%+#$-"#$e%'(-$L%88'--##)$%($ -"#$T(J'+%(8#(-$.-'%($.$m5A5$c%+#)-$A#+J'3#.#0&"'.)"'(1-%(.$M@@]5$$Z#-"%.$`'0$ d$X.$<#)E0-)$%2$<#J'#P.('.('.(3#$ Conservation Biology.$f%0E8#$B@.0$'8&.0$T*30E)'%(.$-"#$)E++%E(.+3#00E)$)".(.(.(.-'%(H$L".(34.3-)$ S))#))8#(-.)$7'&#0'(#)$.-'%($d$7E/0'3$m-'0'-'#)$%2$-"#$L%E(3'0$%2$-"#$L'-4$%2$7"'0.$N#J#0%&8#(-$L.-'%(.$M@B@5$$ $ m5A5$c%+#)-$A#+J'3#.(.$c%+#)-$c+.+3#00E)=)".(.('.()&5%+1I.(.$Y'(.+.E/%($7#(()40J..$B??U5$$c%+#)-$c+.$c%+#)-$A#+J'3#$<#)#.0#5&"&$ Y%%.$#(J'+%(8#(-.$.$M@B@5$$7#(()40J.$L%00#3-'%($.+3#00E)$A".$!+.18#(-."(#+.$Y.3-)$%2$"4.$&&5$U_M=U_F5$$     BF$ .$7+#.(.-#$m('J#+)'-4$ f%0E8#$BG...+3"$.-E+#$L%()#+J.$A3"%%0$%2$c%+#)-$<#)%E+3#).$A-.#0&"'.-%+$S/E(.!"#$6.0$6#)-$A-E.-E+.)$.$<5D5.$6%J#8/#+$B].-E+.00#(1#)$2%+$-"#$c%+#)-$ K.$M@@]5$ $ f#0'()Q4.(.$6E8/#+$M..-.E0'3$.$.+'00'(1$ %2$Z.$!"#$7#(()40J.0$X.$N5$M@B@5$!#)-'8%(4$%($-"#$#3%(%8'3$./%E-I(#P)I8.(.(.18#(-.'0.()&%+-.-#1%+'3.$N#3#8/#+$BM./0#$.)$T*&0%+.$&&5B=M5$$ j.

In my professional opinion. PA and the broader Delaware River Basin. and hydrologist with more than twenty-nine years of professional environmental experience. thereby forever and irreparably compromising the hydrologic integrity of geologic formations that formerly protected freshwater aquifers. Ground motions from even one significant earthquake. b) the likelihood of eventual migration of toxic natural and drilling-related substances through extensive natural fractures that exist throughout the region. Rubin HydroQuest November 15. as well as horizontal hydraulically fractured wells. at the very least. As such. may result in fracturing and loss of integrity of well casing cement designed to isolate freshwater aquifers from deep saline waters. This risk exists not only at the time of drilling but also increases over time. hydrogeologist. the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Environmental Sciences Division). and c) the exacerbation of a) and b) above by natural or drilling-induced seismic activity. the New York City 1 . because of a) the likelihood of failure of the well over time. which includes work conducted for the New York State Attorney General’s Office (Environmental Protection Bureau). among many that occur over time. This report also documents significant natural seismic activity in and adjacent to the Delaware River Basin over time. While this testimony is oriented to exploration wells in Wayne County. thus well failures from any single or combination of mechanisms is likely an irrevocable commitment of natural resources. the concepts forwarded are applicable throughout the Appalachian Basin to areas overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales.Report for the Delaware River Basin Commission Consolidated Administrative Hearing on Grandfathered Exploration Wells To Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens for Sustainability Prepared by Paul A. vertical exploratory gas wells. Pennsylvania. These points will be discussed in greater detail below. Restoration of contaminated freshwater aquifers is probably not possible. and Delaware. I have reviewed numerous reports and much material that relates to the practice of developing gas wells in shales. earthquakes may instantly destroy the integrity of hundreds of gas wells. may catastrophically shear numerous gas well casings or. 2010 1) On behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper. New Jersey. Much of my focus relates to the Appalachian Basin that encompasses portions of New York State. 2) I offer this opinion based on my training as a geologist. and Damascus Citizens for Sustainability. create a high risk of contamination of the water resources of the Delaware River Basin.

for clients. and as an independent environmental consultant as President of HydroQuest. lie within the headwater region of the Delaware River Basin. geologically and hydrologically. Before the sediments of these rock units were lithified into bedrock. Geologically.! ! I have conducted detailed assessments of streams. watersheds. Wayne County. PA lies in a white area directly southwest of the boxed label titled: Cannonsville Reservoir Delaware R. Wayne County. I have authored numerous reports and affidavits related to this work and have made presentations to judges and juries. Significantly. the furthest northeastern county of Pennsylvania. 6) As reflected in Figure 2. PA. and some conglomerates layered from the Honesdale Formation downward through and below the Marcellus Formation.Department of Environmental Protection. Delaware. PA is virtually indistinguishable from portions of Broome. these units are composed of a series of sedimentary shales. sandstones. Figure 2 depicts similar geologic formations present in Broome. I have published papers and led all-day field trips relating to this work at professional conferences. New Jersey. as well as portions of Schoharie. headwaters. they were shed northwesterly from the ancestral Acadian Mountains. and Delaware. The need to comprehensively evaluate and regulate hydrologic and hydrogeologic risks on a gas field basis is paramount. Figure 1 portrays this large watershed area. 4) Geologically. In addition. My educational background and professional experience are more fully set forth in my Curriculum Vitae. Sullivan and other counties throughout New York State that lie in close proximity to Wayne County.not solely state by state or watershed by watershed. In Figure 2. In places. Delaware. 2 . The exploratory wells that are the subject of this testimony lie in Wayne County. and as part of my own personal research. it is apparent that erosion has. siltstones.! attached! to! my! report. The environmental risks associated with the installation of vertical exploratory wells and hydraulic fracturing are interstate in nature and must be fully evaluated in this manner . and Sullivan Counties. and east of Wayne County are three New York State counties: Broome. Greene. Location and Bedrock Geology 3) The Delaware River Basin encompasses portions of New York State. wetlands. These rock units were deposited under the same hydrologic conditions through the widespread area now recognized by geologists as the Catskill Delta. Pennsylvania. Portions of these counties. Wayne County and nearby watershed areas have the same bedrock units exposed at the ground surface. Immediately north. ground and surface water flow in Wayne County and surrounding counties behaves similarly – all potentially being vulnerable to gas field related contaminants from below and above. in places. and aquifers for professional characterizations. 5) The subcrop of the Marcellus shale underlies portions of these New York State counties and all of Wayne County. 7) The Marcellus and Utica shales extend under a large. and Sullivan respectively. and Ulster counties in New York State. attached as Addendum A. Delaware. removed some of the uppermost bedrock units through glaciation and erosion. northeast. land area. multi-state.

Thus. Reference to Figure 3 reveals the dominant NW. 2009). Engelder et al. In the absence of hydraulic fracturing. Engelder et al. the greater the potential gas production. pose similar environmental risks as do horizontal well completions. In the more deeply buried. As seen below. 2009). PA. sometimes with disastrous results.. these trends coincide with those throughout the broader Appalachian Basin. perpendicular joint sets exist throughout Wayne County.Joints. and E-NE fracture orientations. Methane Presence.e. Taylor (2009) discusses the 1940 Crandell Farm blowout near Independence. and east of Wayne County. the density of these fractures clearly argues that similar joint sets and faults are present in neighboring Wayne County.. proximal region of the Catskill Delta. well-integrated. even in the absence of stimulation via hydraulic fracturing. Figure 4 depicts four figures from Engelder et al. PA and beyond. 10) Vertical exploration wells. (2009) document the presence of unhealed (i. Figure 3 confirms this cross-cutting relationship in New York State counties immediately north. While much of Jacobi’s work did not extend into Pennsylvania. inclusive of Wayne County Pennsylvania. methane-filled) joints at depth in the Marcellus shale and major blowouts that occurred when these unhealed joints were encountered (as cited from Bradley and Pepper. Prominent joint orientations throughout the Appalachian Basin. New York where massive uncontrolled gas flow occurred from joints intersected by an unstimulated vertical Marcellus well that lacked any evidence of faulting. N-NW. Engelder et al. Engelder et al. Hydraulic fracture interconnection results in J2 joints draining to J1 joints and gas production wells. two regional. (2009) further discuss blowouts in the 3 .e.. northeast. NE. Natural fractures function as high-permeability gas pathways (Engelder et al. 1938 and Taylor. These geologists determined that most pervasive systematic joints hosted by Devonian black shale strike eastnortheast (J1 joint set) with younger cross-fold joints striking northwest (J2 joint set). and Lash and Engelder (2009). 9) Exploratory wells may target or have a high likelihood of penetrating vertical bedrock joints that have the potential of hydrologically connecting saline and freshwater horizons. are well documented by Evans (1994). joints of both sets cross-cut. maximize production) of the more densely spaced and more permeable E-NE oriented J1 joint sets by interconnecting them via horizontal drilling methods oriented perpendicular to J1 joints (i. as well as elsewhere throughout portions of New York State overlying the Marcellus and Utica shales (Figure 3). N-NW and S-SE).e. 2009). Exploratory and other wells have a high likelihood of intersecting these interconnected joint sets.” (Lash and Engelder. Recent drilling technology in the Marcellus Shale uses hydraulic fracturing to take advantage (i. The greater the fracture interconnectivity.. They concluded that “[B]oth sets were driven exclusively by fluid pressure generated as a consequence of hydrocarbon-related maturation supplemented by subsequent tectonic compaction during the Alleghanian tectonic cycle. vertical exploratory wells have been known to intersect high permeability gas-bearing fractures. (2009) and Lash and Engelder (2009) that illustrate dominant joint orientations throughout the Appalachian Basin. Faults. as well joint appearance in Formation MicroImager images of recent wells. and Blowouts 8) Jacobi (2002) documented numerous joints and faults (collectively termed fractures) present throughout the headwaters of the Delaware River Basin. (2009). For example. (2009) confirm that the more permeable J1 joint sets are found at depth in the Marcellus based on the presence of systematic J1 joints in Marcellus outcrops on either side of the deep central region of the Appalachian Basin.

blowouts must have tapped a reservoir of interconnected natural fractures.A. with a decreasing pressure gradient) for upward migration and release of methane. The low permeability of the Marcellus suggests that many.. rivers. Figure 3 of New York State counties north.” 14) Jacobi makes a case for repeated reactivation along faults in the Appalachian Basin. Clearly. gradients in gravity and magnetic data. and east of Wayne County. PA provides a conservative approximation of the actual number of joints and faults present throughout the area.. vertical exploration wells bear many of the same potential adverse environmental impacts as hydraulically fractured horizontal wells. In establishing a relationship between seismicity and faults. and even homes. even in the absence of gas well installations.e. Jacobi addresses his and Fountain’s identification of FIDs based on soil gas anomalies over open fractures: 4 . In the latter case. blowouts were one of the major attractions drawing Range resources to Washington County. provide open. interconnected joint sets pose a potential hydraulic pathway (i. and well logs. seismic reflections profiles. Gas-rich joints encountered by exploration well boreholes may interconnect and enhance preexisting joint pathways for methane. Jacobi (2002) examined Fracture Intensification Domains (FIDs: closely spaced fractures commonly with a frequency greater than 2/m and with a fracture frequency an order of magnitude greater than in the region surrounding the FID). blowouts were a common consequence of drilling vertical wells penetrating the Marcellus. some gas wells that tap unhealed and well-interconnected joint sets at depth are excellent producers. deep-seated saline water. Jacobi states: “In interbedded shales and thin sandstones in NYS. for contaminated LNAPL (Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids. (2009) document that. preserved unhealed joints are important to gas production because healed fractures and veins would otherwise serve as barriers to gas flow (Engelder et al. E97 lineaments (Fig. avenues for upward migration of methane. 12) Numerous joints in the Appalachian Basin. Therefore. personal communication).. where Range started targeting the Marcellus gas shale during 2004 (W.” 11) Engelder et al. e. wells. 2009). if not all. 13) Importantly. following development of horizontal gas wells. lakes. chemicals with a density less than freshwater. topographic lineaments. reservoirs. Thus. and importantly. even in the absence of stimulation. radioactivity and. Zagorski. In fact. Furthermore. such as benzene) fracture fluids to migrate to aquifers. northeast.Marcellus Shale after the Crandell Farm blowout: “Over the following half century. blowouts themselves may pose a means of catastrophically interconnecting brine-rich and freshwater geologic horizons. and commonly the frequency is an order of magnitude greater than in the region surrounding the FID. vertical exploration wells that intersect permeable. gas-rich. fractures within the FID that parallel the FID characteristically have a fracture frequency greater than 2/m. earthquake or micro-seismicity stemming from future hydraulic fracturing in the area may result in shearing of exploration well casing and the opening of inter-formational pathways. Beyond this. functioning.g. streams. especially in the event of casing or grout failure or stemming from seismic activity – whether natural or induced at some point later in time by hydraulic fracturing. Pennsylvania. 3).

pointing out that the region of the exploratory wells is seismically active. and adjacent states (see Addendum B and Addendum C). Figure 5 depicts historical earthquake epicenters. installing vertical exploratory boreholes into gas-rich joint sets should not occur until after full environmental review. may result in interformational mixing of groundwater along exploratory well boreholes or adjacent joints. it is likely that damage to casing grout and possibly well casings may occur – potentially compromising the integrity and physical isolation of different bedrock horizons. 1993.“Certain sets of FIDs are marked by soil gas anomalies commonly less than 50 m wide (Jacobi and Fountain. earthquake ground motions that have a common given probability of being exceeded in 50 years). the background methane gas content in soil is on the order of 4 ppm. It is a measure of ground motion that decreases the farther one is from an earthquake epicenter. PA area shows a peak horizontal ground acceleration of some 6-8% g with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (i. Clearly. Fountain and Jacobi. of unknown magnitude. While damage on the ground surface is slight. This. and Risk of Casing Shearing 15) The installation of exploratory wells that open borehole or nearby joint pathways between formerly separated geologic horizons pose an environmental risk. A 6-8%g roughly correlates with a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. particularly because the area is seismically active. but over open fractures in NYS. New York. may result in movement of heavy furniture.. Ground motion associated with seismic activity has the real potential of instantly shearing multiple well casings. The %g relates to the acceleration due to gravity. PA in 1929. degrading cement grout designed to isolate geologic horizons.” The fact that Jacobi and Fountain have successfully identified and measured methane seepage from fractures that most likely extend downward to gas producing shales shows that open vertical pathways already exist. Delaware. 16) Seismic activity in Pennsylvania and nearby states may result in significant ground motions that may compromise the integrity of well grout and casing. This intensity of an earthquake is likely to be felt by everyone. in turn. 2000). In NYS. and may damage house plaster and chimneys (DCNR.e. only some 50 miles 5 . and New Jersey. Sayre is located in Bradford County. the soil gas content increases to 40-1000+ ppm. 2006). Earthquakes. later in time. and thereby opening vertical joint and borehole vectors between formerly separated geologic horizons. Earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere (DCNR. Jacobi and Fountain’s work suggests that opening and expanding fractures that now naturally release methane from gas-rich shales will provide even greater gas and contaminant migration pathways if later interconnected and widened via hydraulic fracturing. as horizontal wells are hydraulically fractured. Figure 6 portrays USGS seismic hazard maps for Pennsylvania. The Wayne County. confirming the risk of increasing gas excursions as a result of exploratory boreholes penetrating joints or. New York. had an epicenter near Attica. As with environmental concerns attendant to completing hydrofracked horizontal gas wells. Seismicity. Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania. NY and is reported to have cracked walls in Sayre. documenting that significant portions of the Appalachian Basin are seismically active. 2006). One of the largest earthquakes. 1996.

1998. is not known to have experienced an earthquake with magnitude greater than 4. or horizontal wells. Wikipedia provides an approximate energy equivalent in terms of TNT explosive force for a 5. many in recent time. Horálek et al. may occur. Because portions of Pennsylvania are seismically active. again documenting that the region is seismically active. Feng and Lees. but the historical record goes back only about 200 years. and such an earthquake could produce significant damage (intensity VIII) in eastern Pennsylvania.7. the state’s most seismically active region.4). 6 . 1998) (Table 2. as demonstrated by the earthquake of September 25.5. 17) Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania. No obvious reason exists to conclude that an earthquake of magnitude between 5 and 6 could not occur there also. 1998 (Armbruster and others. the decision to permit installation of exploratory wells.0 to 5. Lancaster County (to 4. 2009).0 and 4. should be extensively analyzed prior to any deep drilling efforts. in the case of hydraulically fractured horizontal wells. and Montgomery County (3. epicenter may have been in NJ). though unlikely.2. 2009. there is a reasonable probability that higher magnitude earthquakes. the potential impacts of seismicity. 1986.9 on the Richter or moment magnitude scales can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings. PA). Southeastern Pennsylvania. once the integrity of bedrock formations is breached. Clearly. whether from natural or man-induced activities. DCNR (2006) details this real possibility: “Earthquakes having magnitudes greater than 5 can occur in Pennsylvania.5).from Wayne County.6 in 1994). but the fact that such large earthquakes have occurred elsewhere in the East means that this possibility cannot be ruled out entirely for Pennsylvania. one with magnitude greater than 6. with a magnitude of 5. Bucks County (to 2. Crawford County). Some of those reasonably close to Wayne County include Berks County (to magnitude 4. occurred in New York City in 1884 (only about eighty miles from Wayne County. Another nearby New York State earthquake. While these earthquakes did not produce substantial damage. with related damage. An earthquake with magnitude greater than 6 is much less likely.0 Richter magnitude earthquake as being equivalent to the seismic yield of the Nagasaki atomic bomb. Monroe County (immediately south of Wayne County. is not impossible. For example. a real risk exists that earthquakes might instantly and catastrophically degrade casing grout integrity and shear multiple well casings.5). earthquakes of magnitude 5. 3. It should be noted that the risk to grout and casing integrity exists both from natural earthquake activity and. should be based on a comprehensive analysis of all environmental risks. from microearthquakes stemming from fluid-induced seismicity (Bame and Fehler.. resulting in the commingling of formation fluids and release of methane. Lehigh County (to 3. … The possibility that a magnitude 7 earthquake could occur having an epicenter near New York City cannot be completely discounted. with the largest recorded in 1998 with a magnitude of 5.” 18) Earthquakes of these magnitudes in Pennsylvania have the real potential of resulting in sufficient ground motion to shear well casings and degrade the integrity of grout designed to physically separate different geologic and hydrologic horizons. it will not be possible to restore degraded freshwater aquifers.3). 1996. LI. Therefore. … A large local earthquake. Unlike the recent British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.4. Shapiro and Dinske.

Grout and Casing Failure 20) The high risk of compromising the integrity of the physical separation of freshwater aquifers from deeper saline water-bearing bedrock formations may be compounded as a result of well grout and casing failures that occur A) as a result of poor well construction (e. where traces of sulfurous compounds can render the water non-potable. They conclude that: !" !" 7 Surface casings have little effect on gas migration.g. thus providing important supportive scientific rationale as to why both vertical exploratory wells and horizontal gas wells should not be permitted in advance of extensive environmental risk characterization: “Oil and gas wells can develop gas leaks along the casing years after production has ceased and the well has been plugged and abandoned (P&A). that currently leak gas to surface. as in the BP well failure). inactive. (2000) detail the underlying causes behind tens of thousands of grout failures in North America that likely compromise environmental security and zonal isolation while leading to contamination of freshwater aquifers. Much of this enters the atmosphere directly. has a great and very real potential of causing contaminants to migrate to aquifers and surface water from localized zones across and beyond county and watershed boundaries. confirms that the process of gas drilling activities. or C) due to differences in downhole bedrock conditions (e. Zhou et al. or where the methane itself can generate unpleasant effects such as gas locking of household wells. and high cement permeability. or active oil and gas wells. pressure differentials). shrinkage.” 21) Dusseault et al. These seismic events indicate that earth movement occurs from great depth along faults upward to aquifers and near the ground surface. there are literally tens of thousands of abandoned. Jacobi and Smith (2002) document the epicenters of three seismic events in eastern Otsego County. Explanatory mechanisms include channeling. Water-cement slurries generally placed at low densities will shrink and will be influenced by elevated pressures and temperatures encountered at depth. (2000) document the many reasons why oil and gas wells leak. which may interconnect naturally occurring faults and fractures.19) As an example of active seismicity in the Appalachian Basin.. . Dusseault et al. contributing slightly to greenhouse effects. poor cake removal. The reason is probably cement shrinkage that leads to circumferential fractures that are propagated upward by the slow accumulation of gas under pressure behind the casing. B) due to mechanisms including cement shrinkage.. and their visually observable connectivity with other faults. Some of the gas enters shallow aquifers.g. The great lateral extent of these faults. (2010) point out that casing pipes in well construction may suddenly buckle inward as their inside and outside hydrostatic pressure difference increases. or gas entering household systems to come out when taps are turned on. New York. The consequences of cement shrinkage are non-trivial: in North America. including gas storage wells.

Loss of this zonal seal can have negative effects. resulting in shrinkage of the annular cement sheath. and may lead to continuous gas leakage. In fact. 2000). and pressurized fluids present at depth. such as pressurizing higher strata. horizontal boreholes. Methane from leaking wells into freshwater aquifers is unlikely to attenuate. High salt content formation brines and salt beds lead to osmotic dewatering of typical cement slurries during setting and hardening. upward and outward from circumferential fractures back into bedrock formations (including those present in freshwater aquifers) where the pore pressure is less. Over time. unfracked vertical exploratory wells pose a greater environmental risk than do deep. early-set state.. Portland cements continue to shrink after setting and during hardening. (2000) (i. In turn.. high curing temperatures. Circumferential fractures develop and gas leakage typically increase over time. Free gas will serve to further degrade the casing-grout-rock interface. not in deep horizontal wells that have not been hydraulically fractured (Dusseault et al. and the concentration of the gases in shallow aquifers will increase with time.e.!" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" While cement is in an almost liquid. or leakage of brines and formation fluids into shallower strata causing contamination. Freshwater aquifers in 8 . the vagaries of nature and human factors will always contribute to grout failures. Wells that experience several pressure cycles are more likely to develop circumferential fractures. the greatest risk of this occurring is in vertical wells. methane entering formations from leaking circumferential fractures) is likely to be far greater than more limited contamination proximal to well heads. (2000). massive shrinkage can occur by water expulsion. increase gas flow into circumferential fractures. Other processes can lead to cement shrinkage. Circumferential fractures propagate vertically upward because of the imbalance between the pressure gradient in the fracture and the stress gradient in the rock. and Despite our best efforts. Initiation and growth of a circumferential fracture (“micro-annulus”) at the casingrock interface will not be substantially impeded because cement shrinks. gas leakage up circumferential fractures at the cement-bedrock interface may also enter and degrade freshwater aquifers. Contamination of Freshwater Aquifers and Loss of Aquifer Integrity 23) Contamination of freshwater aquifers via the mechanisms detailed above by Dusseault et al. Dissolved gas. differences in pressure favor driving gas. the real threat to the long-term integrity of our freshwater aquifers and quality of our surface waters is obvious. resulting in substantial shrinkage. When the above issues are considered within the broader context of documented regional seismicity. Thus. the excess pressure is large enough to fracture even excellent cement bonds and force flow outward into surrounding strata. and early (flash) set may also lead to shrinkage. 22) As detailed above by Dusseault et al. unfracked.

thereby broadly contaminating freshwater aquifers. While not physically observable on the ground surface. 2. it is likely that alternate groundwater flow paths will develop. naturally isolated groundwater flow systems then become accessible for commingling of formation waters.1 mi2). and turbid water discharge to the ground surface. 24) Understanding the cumulative impacts of natural gas drilling in the Delaware River Watershed is essential in order to determine how this activity should be regulated. and oversight has resulted in slow and catastrophic collapse of portions of Tully Valley from depths of 1. These flow paths will then provide avenues for migration of gas well related contaminants. so will LNAPLs rise upwards along fault and fracture pathways as more wells are drilled and developed. PA extend to at least 665 feet. more and more commingling of freshwater and contaminant-laden. saline. regulation. Upward fracture propagation eventually resulted in open permeable pathways where fresh aquifer and infiltrating meteoric water began to recharge formerly isolated groundwater flow regimes. thereby establishing new deep flow routes that now result in connate. By way of analogy. It continues to expand outward. for the unnatural and increased recharge of deeper formations.Wayne County. solution mining in Tully Valley. as new groundwater circulation pathways develop in response to repeated hydro-fracturing and newly available freshwater hydraulic/pressure heads. Thus.700 feet (518 m) to the ground surface. 2010). The Tully Valley example described below demonstrates the nature and consequences of disrupting a previously intact groundwater flow regime. using a somewhat different but worst case example. once even a few significant fracture interconnections (i. may have much broader and far reaching impacts. conducted under NYSDEC mining permits. 26) As illustrated in the Tully Valley example. and Onondaga Creek (see Figure 7). for transmission of contaminants.e. Permitting the installation of vertical exploration wells needs to be considered in the broader environmental setting where these wells may ultimately be completed as hydrofracked horizontal production wells. as observed at the Matoushek #1 well (Stiles. This analogy is especially applicable to adverse environmental impacts likely to occur with additional well drilling. water is likely. The resulting settlement area is in excess of 550 hectares (~1. saline. and potentially interconnected with Fracture Intensification Domains) are established between target shale beds and the ground surface. vertical fractures extending into overlying bedrock formations may result in the disruption and alteration of natural groundwater flow. 2002) will provide pathways and release avenues for methane and any Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids that may be present. particularly low density or gaseous ones. New York. extensive natural fractures present throughout the Delaware River 9 . demonstrates how alteration of a previously isolated and intact freshwater aquifer was compromised via anthropogenic activities. and for the establishment of new groundwater flow routes. Much as methane can be released upward to lower pressure formations from exploration wells. Pre-existing joint sets that are already open to gas-rich shales (Jacobi. the adverse environmental impacts of gas production throughout large portions of the Appalachian Basin.. Rubin et al.360 acres. (1992) document the structural failure of portions of the valley overlying and adjacent to brine cavities where salt was removed. laterally extensive. planer. Should natural ground motion from earthquakes (and possibly from seismically induced earthquakes from future hydrofracked wells) occur. Then. 25) Deep solution mining of salt beds in Tully Valley. In this way.

To a large degree. drilling chemicals. it will be impossible to restore the integrity of adversely impacted freshwater groundwater flow systems. followed by increased groundwater circulation between formerly isolated hydrologic horizons. it is not prudent to ignore the overall physical setting within which exploration well installations may ultimately fit. methane (and hydro-fracturing chemicals as gas production is permitted) will move with groundwater flow.g. high permeability pathways).Basin and broader Appalachian Basin may provide vectors for new interconnected groundwater circulation pathways. Colorado where a three-year study used sophisticated scientific techniques to match methane from water to a deep gas-rich bedrock layer stating: “The Garfield County report is significant because it is among the first to broadly analyze the ability of methane and other contaminants to migrate underground in drilling areas. Lustgerten (2009) references scientific work conducted on methane gas excursions in Garfield County. and hydrofracking chemicals are migrating upward along hydro-fractured fracture pathways to freshwater aquifers and homeowner water supplies. these new circulation pathways will resemble those illustrated in the Figure 7 Tully Valley example – albeit fracture aperture width may be narrower and associated catastrophic collapse less likely. 29) Cumulative impact studies must address potential adverse environmental impacts associated with both exploratory wells and the overall long-term plan for the installation of hundreds or thousands of horizontal hydraulically fractured wells throughout the Delaware River Basin. and plugging and abandonment procedures of gas production wells will have little impact on retarding water quality degradation throughout irreparably compromised aquifer systems. While gas field fracture aperture may be narrower than the disrupted Tully Valley example. Texas – the likely tip of the iceberg. For example. Areas with higher groundwater flow velocities are likely to develop groundwater circulation patterns along Fracture Intensification Domains (i. for example. thereby pointing out the likely increased risk associated with repeated hydro-fracturing. references a hydro-fracturing induced earthquake in Cleburne. The combination of excessive pressure associated with hydro-fracturing and lubricated fault planes may lead to increased faulting and seismicity. 27) With time. toward zones of lower hydraulic head. Since it has been shown above that many of the environmental risks normally attributed only to horizontal gas wells directly relate to unfracked vertical exploration wells (e. particularly valley bottoms. contaminant migration and dispersal will expand. Northrup (2010).e. major streams. and principal aquifers. it is important to recognize that the hydraulic transmissivity of fractures increases by the cube of the effective fracture width. grout shrinkage. seismic risk. it is prudent to at least cursorily review broader gas production based environmental considerations. Once these new groundwater circulation pathways are established. and to find that such contamination was in fact occurring. vertical flow pathways into freshwater formations). Recent studies are now beginning to confirm that methane. down valley. 28) While the focus of this testimony does not directly extend to horizontally hydraulically fractured gas production wells.. Naturally occurring excursion of methane gas via faults and fractures has long been recognized.. especially where hydro-fracturing has opened elongate fracture pathways that have high hydraulic gradients between watershed uplands and valleys. It examined more than 10 .

This can accelerate the impact of saturated brines and acid gases on drilling at greater depths. Other geo-hazards that may pose challenges to drillers in the Marcellus Shale include: (1) disruption and alteration of subsurface hydrological conditions including the disturbance and destruction of aquifers. (2010).700 methane samples from 292 locations and found that methane. the effect of higher temperature on cement setting behavior. For example following a recent report by residents of Dimock. Conditions that could be responsible include vertical upward flow along natural openfracture pathways or pathways such as well-bores or hydraulically-opened fractures …” 30) What we are just beginning to understand is the fact that repeated fracturing at each well will further amplify all of these risks. recently cautioned about the particular challenges still unresolved about drilling in tight shale formations: “The control of well bore trajectory and placement of casing become increasingly difficult with depth…At the Marcellus Shale.300 in this decade. Wilhelm. In addition. including those already aggravated and potentially opened in the first fracturing cycle. potentially allowing contamination to occur…. As the number of gas wells in the area increased from 200 to 1. attributing fault for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion to 11 . This will necessarily result in multiple wellheads and multiple fracturing operations in close proximity. of natural gas in their water supplies.S. and (3) triggering of small scale earthquakes. fractures will be integrated into the area influenced by each production well. more effective. they may turn to the new. more toxic contaminants are introduced into subsurface formations. U. The study found that natural faults and fractures exist in underground formations in Colorado. it is highly likely that new. This may cause shallow gas blowouts and underground blowouts between subsurface intervals. there is a slight risk of hitting permeable gas reservoirs at all levels.During drilling into the tight Marcellus Shale. multilateral drilling technology to selectively tap multiple target zones in adjacent areas. as gas companies expand their operations. EPA Region III. was making its way into drinking water not as a result of a single accident but on a broader basis. inspectors from the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection (PADEP) discovered that the casings on some gas wells drilled by Cabot Oil & Gas were improperly cemented. 2010). and unexpected subterranean conditions. poor mud displacement and lost circulation with depth makes cementing the deep exploration and production wells in the Marcellus Shale quite challenging. temperatures of 35-51°C (120-150°F) can be encountered at depth and formation fluid pressures can reach 410 bar (6000 psi) (8). and that it may be possible for contaminants to travel through them. See also the BP internal report reported September 9. as well as wastewater from the drilling.” 32) With each additional well and well activity. Reaping maximum gas production from horizontal gas wells commonly requires repeated hydro-fracturing of wells (see discussion by Northrop. 31) David Kargbo et al. In addition. previously unconnected. all of the “challenges” noted by Kargbo. (2) severe ground subsidence because of extraction. PA. drilling. methane levels in nearby water wells increased too. 2010. Through these processes. With each successive hydro-fracturing event. and Campbell of necessity multiply and increase.

They point out the importance of measuring the stress state of casing pipe. they will and most probably have already. Thus. Zhou et al. as may “disruption and alteration of subsurface hydrological conditions including the disturbance and destruction of aquifers” (Kargbo et al. Unlike the British Petroleum well that was finally plugged. Most deeply buried casings are difficult to repair or replace and. (2010) assessed casing pipes in oil well construction and the risk that they may suddenly buckle inward as their inside and outside hydrostatic pressure difference increases. 34) Repeated hydraulic fracturing may activate pre-existing faults or induce shifting or settlement along lubricated fractures. 36) Homeowner wells do not need to be near gas production wells to be adversely impacted from the upward migration of methane gas and Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid contaminants from gas-rich shales. Consideration should be given to evaluating cost-effective and reliable sensing technologies and installation techniques for long-term monitoring and evaluation of casing pipe before issuing gas well related regulations. or future horizontal hydraulic fracturing of gas-rich shale beds. and formation waters have commingled. many of the real risks attendant to vertical exploratory well installations. in some cases. Even a small percent casing or grout failure can be effectively irremediable at deep depths and irreparably harm ground and surface water sources. fractures enlarged by hydrofracturing will provide lower 12 . 2010). Nor have studies or plans been developed for remedial action should the casings and joints fail at extreme depth. and unexpected subterranean conditions”. in turn. Neither discussion of known fracture frequency nor existing maps depicting massive fracturing throughout the Delaware River Basin appear to have been incorporated into the well permitting review process. once the structure of the bedrock has been compromised by faulting and/or hydraulic expansion of joints. Pre-existing old and poorly abandoned oil and gas wells may also provide additional contaminant migration pathways. provided a hydraulic avenue where methane is released upward into and throughout these well-integrated Fracture Intensification Domains. drilling. aquifer restoration will not be possible. as such. 33) Risks of casing failure are further compounded by the frequency (or spacing) of casing couplings which may be on the order of every 100 feet or less. have not been addressed. may result in catastrophic shearing of production well boreholes and casing strings even in the absence of natural seismic activity. Parts of Pennsylvania and New York State within and near the Delaware River Basin are seismically active. can lead to aquifer contamination. bolstered by repeated hydrofracturing episodes. “Severe ground subsidence” may occur “because of extraction.. 35) The risk of ground collapse as a result of repeated fracturing cycles should also be studied prior to issuing regulations. may result in fault activation and bedrock settlement. Excessive lubrication of faults and fractures with highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing fluids. As some vertical fractures are widened and opened via hydrofracturing.unexpected cementing problems at pressures less than those of the average shale gas frack. This. As such. complete with real-time monitoring and state-of-the-art warning system installations. Studies have not yet been done regarding the effect of depth and pressure on casing failure rates in tight shale formations nor on the repeated fracturing re-pressurization under such temperature and depth conditions on cement casings and joints.

and streams – not solely via pathways stemming from poor casing grouting. Dimock. With time and successive hydrofracturing episodes conducted in individual wells. Once vertical and lateral fracture pathways are open. This will increase upward migration of methane to aquifers. Because of the physical nature of existing fractures systems. This mechanism also explains why many of the gas contamination incidents reported to date are far removed from individual gas production wellheads (e. natural gas and LNAPLs will migrate extensively throughout formerly isolated upper bedrock and freshwater aquifer groundwater flow systems. in the gas industry. 37) Some of the contaminated groundwater in areas now undergoing hydraulic fracturing is far removed from gas production wellheads. uncontrolled. and undocumented upward and lateral migration of formerly isolated methane gas into and through freshwater aquifers. homeowner homes. distant from potential poor wellhead grout jobs or casing failures. streams. However. and wellheads. 39) As in the Tully Valley example above. Pennsylvania provides an excellent case in point. 38) It is likely that contaminant dispersal along fault. the loss of natural geologic and hydrologic integrity throughout formerly isolated geologic formations poses an enormous threat to the existing and future way of life in planned gas exploitation areas. PA area. Initially. are likely to degrade freshwater aquifers such that 13 . even a limited number. Repeated hydraulic fracturing within numerous individual wells will serve to expand and extend these existing fractures through freshwater aquifers. homeowner wells will provide a final open fracture and cased pathway to the ground surface from methane contaminated aquifers. Because horizontal components of gas wells extend may thousands of feet and may intersect numerous planar vertical pathways..g. it is far preferable to invoke any gas leak mechanism other than that of widespread. up to 1. thus strongly indicating that groundwater contamination is already occurring along vertical fault and fracture pathways. and along future hydrofractured boreholes and their interconnected fractures. joint. large-scale aquifer degradation is possible. This contaminant dispersal mechanism also strongly accents why gas companies would much prefer to admit that poor or failed casings or poor grout integrity is the root cause of gas excursion problems. Certainly. the disruption of the geologic strata presented in the Tully Valley Figure 7. aquifer degradation can be expected above and adjacent to boreholes with poor grout seals. Fractures extend from gasrich shales to the ground surface and naturally leak methane gas. COP 2009). This topic is discussed here because understanding the cumulative impacts of natural gas drilling in the Delaware River Watershed is essential in order to determine how this activity should be regulated. and fracture pathways will be the more common mechanism whereby natural gas and LNAPL excursions find their way into aquifers. As methane is released upward along vertical borehole pathways. well houses. these excursions. has occurred in an area far smaller in areal extent than what is planned extensively throughout the Delaware River Basin and much of the Appalachian Basin. even a few in an area. Gas excursions are likely to occur throughout the Appalachian Basin.pressure gas release points or routes. methane and LNAPLs that are released upward through fault planes and related fractures will widely contaminate freshwater aquifers and surface water receptors. wherever there are mapped and as yet undocumented fractures.300 feet in the Dimock. homes. Repeated hydraulic fracturing is likely to exacerbate this situation. while having wider fracture apertures and relatively great vertical offset of geologic beds.

and waterways. Radioactive radium present in the Marcellus may also be mobilized in fluids and thus become available for transport in the groundwater flow system. connate water) and/or radioactive fluids with freshwater aquifers is great. wetlands. 43) There is a growing catalog of hydro-fracking related accidents in other gas-field plays (see e. This appears to be particularly true of uranium that University of Buffalo researchers recently determined is released during the hydraulic fracturing process (presented at a GSA meeting on Nov. If gas can migrate to the surface. drilling fluid chemicals and radon.existing and new homeowner well installations will be degraded. with or without hazardous fracking fluids is unacceptable. In addition. whether via rupture. less dense hydrocarbons) inclusive of benzene. the risk of interconnecting deep saline-bearing formations (i.g. Any commingling of deep-seated waters. leakage. 42) Artificially enlarged and expanded hydrofracked fractures may provide vertical pathways for light.. it is 14 . Even if all fracking fluids were composed of non-toxic chemicals. or overflow poses a real threat to surface water quality. principal aquifers.. Hazen and Sawyer. increased upward migration of radon is likely to occur. especially to moderate and high yield unconfined aquifers situated in stream valleys that receive their base flow recharge from up-gradient groundwater aquifers. These contaminants may then also migrate to down gradient wells. Accidental spills of fracking fluids and flow-back water has the potential of contaminating ground and surface water. can reach freshwater aquifers. waiting to be further expanded and laced with toxic chemicals. it is highly likely that hydrocarbon and contaminant-rich Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids will also reach aquifers and surface water resources. low density. ponds. along with chemically bound hydrocarbons. especially under pressurized conditions. lateral and upward migration of hydro-fracturing chemicals pose a real risk to Delaware River Basin aquifers. 2010). once mobilized vertically along fault planes and joints. 40) Because permitting of vertical exploration wells may result in numerous adverse environmental impacts (discussed above). and waterways poses an immediate water quality and ecosystem concern that should be fully evaluated prior to issuance of draft regulations. and ecosystems. Overland flow of flow back fluid chemicals to streams. 41) Fracking contaminants.e. a known carcinogen. it is important to fully consider the broader gas field development picture and related environmental impacts. 45) In the broader context of fully examining all potential adverse environmental impacts. 2009). Documented gas excursions near existing gas fields demonstrate that vertical pathways are open. 44) Excursion of drilling fluids and produced fluids from breached flow-back wastewater containment structures. thereby making it available for groundwater transport.particularly Light Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (i. 2..e. Some fracking related contaminants will migrate upwards via fractures into freshwater aquifers . uranium tainted flow back water poses the risk of contaminating streams. In addition. The pathways are already there and functioning. wetlands. Tracy Bank and her colleagues determined that hydrofracking forces toxic uranium into a soluble phase and mobilizes it. Similarly.

may not be possible. The mechanisms involved are detailed by Dusseault et al. Excursion of frack fluids from breached flow-back wastewater containment structures. inclusive of in caves. or overflow. and freshwater aquifers.g. and remedial action. even if cost were not an issue. poor grouting. air quality. groundwater clean-up. NYSDEC and PFBC. may lead to new. Should methane or other gas field contaminants (e. such as the federally endangered Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta hereroden). in turn. methane. groundwater flow regimes. it will move down gradient of its initial release avenues until an open release pathway is encountered (e... Potential commingling of deep connate waters. water quality. As methane enters and accumulates in freshwater aquifers. springs. A risk that requires further research is that to Dwarf Wedge Mussels and other species present in streamways of the Delaware River Basin. 48) Excursions of gas field related contaminants may lead to degradation or loss of endangered and other species. leakage. health. wetlands. Slow infiltration of frack fluid chemicals to groundwater and its potential degradation need to be fully addressed prior to issuance of draft regulations. or other locations.g. explosive. Carbonate formations in portions of the Delaware River Basin are recognized among karst 15 .. 2010). 46) Poor or failing exploratory and production well construction (e.necessary to not only look at impacts associated with vertical exploration wells. whether via rupture. 2010. at this time. full-scale. one in the mainstem of the upper Delaware River. altered. hydrofracking fluids. and endangered species concerns regarding gas exploitation below carbonate beds. result in the formation of new aquifer discharge locations that effuse methane and other contaminants to streams. Apparently. hydrogeologic characterization. gas field contaminant excursions are not being treated as outward expanding contaminant plumes that warrant expensive. one is found within the Neversink River.. Altered flow regimes may. The potential exists for such contaminants to degrade surface water quality and sensitive ecosystems that support threatened or endangered species (Tzilkowski et al. increased gas well installations will also increase the number of failed wells and resultant contaminant migration. Endangered Species 47) Methane that is released up vertical annular pathways between outer casing walls and bedrock formations almost certainly enters freshwater aquifers. corroded casing) may provide vertical pathways for contaminant excursions from deep shale beds upward into freshwater aquifers. and another within a small coldwater tributary of the middle river (Playfoot and Snyder. but also planned future horizontal hydrofracked wells. they may compromise surface water quality and jeopardize the survival of an endangered species. 2010). Of the few remaining populations of this species. Dwarf wedge mussels are protected under the Endangered Species Act. While this has already been documented. 49) There are real environmental. LNAPLs) bubble up and be released into surface streams.g. open joints). It is critically important that pristine water quality conditions be maintained to protect this species. The importance of this must be underscored because aquifer restoration on a gas field scale. as a result of disrupted bedrock strata. (2000) and pose a risk of groundwater contamination stemming from vertical exploration wells. benzene. poses a real threat to groundwater quality.

from below or above. and filtering is virtually non-existent. the Utica shale of the Trenton Group). State of New York) purchased Surprise Cave.g. 2010) further decimated by gas field related contaminant excursions. 16 . This could lead to their deaths via inhalation or via explosions similar to those that have occurred at wellheads above gas plays. would quickly degrade groundwater and surface water quality. 50) Carbonates of the Onondaga Formation and Helderberg group outcrop in portions of the Delaware River Basin (Figure 10.e. rapid exposure risk. and cave-dwelling fauna.. These carbonate formations are recognized among karst hydrologists as being karstic or cave/conduit bearing in nature. NY (Sullivan County) some years ago. If methane or LNAPLs were to seep or flow into caves (from below or from leaking surface holding pits) situated above gas-rich shales. including the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). from below or above. caves might in effect become "confined spaces" toxic to breathe in with great and. overlie other shale beds that are gas rich (e. the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (i. it would be prudent to characterize the environmental risks to them prior to conducting drilling activities.. There may be other bat hibernacula within the Delaware River Basin. People and bats in caves may potentially be overwhelmed by the build up of methane and other toxic chemicals. Water in solution conduits can travel up to several kilometers per day. USGS. An important aspect of karst is its effect on water supply and contaminant transport. cave scientists.e. Methane or drilling-related contaminants that may enter karstic solution conduits.. The build up of methane and other toxic chemicals in caves and mines may pose both an explosive and health risk to cavers. via White-Nose Syndrome. 51) Gas drilling activities may pose a health risk to cave-dwelling species and cavers. This poses serious problems when monitoring for water quality. possibly. such as bats (Figures 8 and 9). Even small solution conduits can transmit groundwater and contaminants hundreds of times faster than the typical unenlarged fracture network.hydrologists as being karstic or cave/conduit bearing in nature. Contaminants enter the ground easily through sinkholes and sinking streams. Because karst aquifers are extremely vulnerable. Contaminants that may enter karstic solution conduits. To protect these bats. 52) The endangered Indiana bat has one or more hibernacula in the Delaware River Basin stratigraphically above the Utica Shale. Importantly. These carbonate formations. and contaminants can move at the same rate. 2002). would quickly degrade groundwater and surface water quality. might have their already stressed populations (i. located near Mamakating. Contaminants that may migrate into areas inhabited by the Indiana Bat would constitute unauthorized taking of the bats under the Endangered Species Act. while stratigraphically lower than the Marcellus shale. Veni. cave dwelling animals.

as well as future hydro-fracturing and enhancement of gas-bearing fractures may significantly increase gas excursions to formerly isolated geologic formations. seismic hazards. earthquakes may instantly destroy the integrity of hundreds of gas wells. based on incomplete data. and adjacent states. pointing out that the region of the exploratory wells is seismically active. faults. Review of reports and news articles indicate that significant environmental contamination has occurred in geologically similar settings. may result in fracturing and loss of integrity of well casing cement designed to isolate freshwater aquifers from deep saline waters. freshwater aquifers). and the ground surface. multiple studies indicate the presence of pervasive natural fracturing that will allow for migration to freshwater aquifers of methane.Conclusions 53) Significant natural seismic activity is well documented in and adjacent to the Delaware River Basin over an extended period of time. its tributaries. contaminant hazards. This puts the Delaware River. there are significant health and environmental risks associated with advancing exploratory gas wells in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the Appalachian Basin. and watershed at substantial risk of pollution and degradation. As such. Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Pennsylvania. On the contrary. drilling fluids and materials. Restoration of contaminated freshwater aquifers is probably not possible. may catastrophically shear numerous gas exploration and well casings or. Existing information does not sufficiently address pre-existing contaminant (i. Vertical exploratory wells. Ground motions from even one significant earthquake. Although gas producers have asserted publicly that these zones are physically isolated. gas and fluid) pathways that extend from the Marcellus shale to aquifers. particularly because the area is seismically active.. degrading cement grout designed to isolate geologic horizons (i.. 55) Vertical exploration wells and related surface activities have the potential to permanently and irreparably harm ground and surface water resources in the Delaware River Basin. and naturally occurring hazardous materials including deep saline waters and NORMs. As a result. thus well failures from any single or combination of mechanisms is likely an irrevocable commitment of natural resources. at the very least. and thereby opening vertical joint and borehole vectors between formerly separated geologic horizons. surface water bodies. 54) The installation of exploratory wells that open borehole or nearby joint pathways between formerly separated geologic horizons pose an environmental risk. 17 . including explosive hazards and groundwater and surface water contamination.e. other hydrocarbons and their constituents. thereby forever and irreparably compromising the hydrologic integrity of geologic formations that formerly protected freshwater aquifers. Ground motion associated with seismic activity has the real potential of instantly shearing multiple well casings throughout gas fields. Extensive existing fracture and fault networks throughout the Appalachian Basin may provide upward pathways for contaminant and gas migration through geologic zones believed to be physically isolated. and methane soil gas in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the Appalachian Basin is not adequate to address potential adverse environmental impacts. casing and grout failures. 56) The characterization of vertical fractures. to date there are no publicly available studies to prove this claim.e. New York. among many that occur over time.

60) It is important to recognize that once our natural resources have been compromised as a result of an operator error. some of which extend laterally for miles and are closely linked with others formed under similar structural conditions. and 4) it makes little sense to jeopardize the quality of surface and groundwater by intentionally introducing vast quantities of toxic contaminants into the environment. a major contaminant excursion. and various forms of operator error. albeit it may take many years to occur (i. 2) new groundwater circulation pathways are likely to develop in response to repeated hydro-fracturing and newly available freshwater hydraulic/pressure heads. intentional illegal disposal. If fracture and fault networks are intersected by vertical exploratory well completions and/or integrated and enlarged via hydro-fracturing processes.. The presence of confirmed fractures and faults that extend from gas-rich geologic beds to the ground surface. even deep groundwater flow systems discharge to surface water. have contaminated ground and surface waters. LNAPL. Reasons for this include poor containment of fracturing fluids. grout and/or casing failure. especially where gas-conducting fractures and faults are known to extend from gas-bearing formations to the ground surface. even under the best planned conditions. 59) Because the density. reservoirs. it would not be prudent to risk placement of numerous gas wells within sub-basins that contain lakes and reservoirs used for public water supplies. Failed confining beds and contaminated natural resources often represent an irrevocable commitment of our lands. mixing of different formation waters (e. and length of all fractures (often present and not visible beneath a soil mantle) are not known. brine and fresh water). analogous to a slowly ticking time bomb). including the Marcellus and similar formations throughout the country. inadequately grouted casing. 18 . or an unforeseen breaching of geologic beds. failed grout. Gas production in the Delaware River Basin and elsewhere in the Appalachian Basin would almost certainly result in contaminant excursions. From a water quality standpoint four facts stand out: 1) there is a point at which the actual total number of toxic contaminants introduced into a groundwater flow system no longer matters because the water is unlikely to ever be potable again no matter how much money is spent attempting to remediate it. 3) eventually.e. it is likely that methane. The opinions expressed herein are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific and professional certainty. even in the absence of deep hydro-fracturing in the Marcellus shale. and radioactive gas excursions will increase. Our decision to risk natural resources in the Delaware River Basin must weigh all the health and environmental risks against exploitation of relatively short-lived gas reserves and financial gain. 58) The reality is that methane gas extraction from tight shale formations. spills of flow-back water. resulting in commingling of freshwater and contaminant-laden waters. aperture width. seismic activity..g. spills. location. and freshwater aquifers. pose potential contaminant pathways to surface waterways. that it may be impossible to remediate and restore them to their pre-existing conditions.57) Documentation by Jacobi of Fracture Intensification Domains based on methane soil gas anomalies over open fractures reveals evidence that naturally occurring fractures and faults provide upward gaseous migration pathways.

Evans. Scharnberger. Dusseault. second edition.A. New York: U. 447-460. Paper prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing. Joint sets that enhance production from Middle and Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin. and Pepper.S. 2009. Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.!Rubin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! References Bame. Yates. Educational Series 10. issues 1-3. 106. Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed. AAPG Bulletin. Geophysical Research Letters. and parts of the adjacent counties. 2006. no. and Fehler. Nov. and fracture in the Coso geothermal field. Bradley. May 2003. 13. 68. 2009. 2009. Sept. J.N. M. COP – Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Consent Order and Agreement with Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation. 19 .__________________________________! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Paul!A. slightly revised June 2006.. evidence for multiple deformation events in the central Appalachian Plateau: geological Society of America Bulletin. 1994. and Lees. Observations of long period earthquakes accompanying hydraulic fracturing. 1998. J. China 7-10 November 2000. v. Structure and gas possibilities of the Oriskany Sandstone in Steuben. 899-A. 4. 93. Microseismicity.. Why oilwells leak: cement behavior and long-term consequences. M. W. p. and Uzcátegui.. California. T. July 2009: v. p. p. p. a polluting substance. DCNR (Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. and Nawrocki. (SPE 64733). 857-889. M. from entering groundwater. Engelder. 1. p. Order addresses failure to properly cement casings and failure to prevent the unpermitted discharge of natural gas. Lash. v. M. 7. Rapid Impact Assessment Report.G.. Gray. Hazen and Sawyer. v. 2009.. D..F. First edition.H.. G. 289. 149-152. 2000. stress. Geological Survey Bulletin. no. 1938. Q.B. Earthquake hazard in Pennsylvania.. v. Tectonophysics. Author: Charles K. 221-238. 1986.A. Joints and decollement zones in Middle Devonian shales.M. Prepared for NYCDEP. June 1989. PA Geological Survey. Feng. P.

K. E. 11. Penn State School of Forest Resources. Kargbo.. 23 August 2002. v. Natural Gas Plays in the Marcellus Shale: Challenges and Potential Contaminants.. ½.J. p.C. Report of Otsego 2000 prepared for September 2010 public hearing. Tracking the burial and tectonic history of Devonian shale of the Appalachian Basin by analysis of joint intersection style.. G. Monitoring. Northrup. 2002. 45 pp. Ohio. A.. T. 2010. Authored by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.The Denver Post http://www. LI. and stratigraphic cross-sections based on previous investigations. Solution mining and resultant evaporite karst development in Tully Valley. Jechumtálováa.L. and Engelder... K. Wilhelm. Tectonophysics... Ayers. 9. 121. p. Z. Genetic relationships among Federally-endangered Alasmidonta heterodon within the Delaware River Basin.. In: Jacobi. no. (Eds. Environmental Science and Technology. Nashville. and Smith. 75-113. 353. 2010. Source mechanisms of microearthquakes induced in hydraulic fracturing experiment at the HDR site Soultz-sous-Forêts (Alsace) in 2003 and their temporal and spatial variations. Lustgarten. 2010. 2010. R. R.C.J. 1991).G. faults and lineaments. and Campbell. Part I. Jacobi. P. Playfoot. Basement faults and seismicity in the Appalachian Basin of New York State. L. 4-22-09. K. R. and Šilen!. v. EGU2009-14008. Recommended improvements to the flexible flow management program for Coldwater Ecosystem protection in the Delaware River Tailwaters. no. 313-328. June 2. 44. Jan/Feb 2009. 2010. 2000.D.D. Microearthquake analysis for hydraulic fracturing process. Rubin. pp. and Grady.S..D. 265-277. 5679 – 5684. Lash. 377-387. Dec. v.).. 3. Eastern New York State: Final Phase One Report to Millennium Natural Resources Development. NYSERDA.L. Article references work conducted by S. v. J. Ecology.A. Geophysical Research Abstracts. Dublin.M.. Billman. Jacobi. Papadopulos and Associates. v. and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terranes Conference (3rd.. J..A. D. Y-P. The Unique Environmental Impacts of Horizontally Hydrofracking Shale.. Cruz.M. National Ground Water Association. Issues 1-4.M.com/news/ci_12195167#ixzz0ywZqfVcB. D. 20 .. New York. Hydrogeology. J. surface structure. NYSDEC and PFBC. Geologic Investigation of the Gas Potential in the Otsego County Region.denverpost. Digging at mystery of methane in wells .G. 1996.Horálek. 2009. Proceedings.. 1992. 2009. NY. 9 p.. Core and cutting analyses. and Snyder. Acta Seismologic Sinica. R. GSA Bulletin. Albany. D. L. G. p. p. Dorbath. J. Tenn.

2010. 45-50. Zhou. Taylor. and Dinske. Oil. In Advances in Civil Engineering. Fluid-induced seismicity: Pressure diffusion and hydraulic fracturing.usgs. . S. 2002. Marshall.fort.. oil and more oil: http://www. K. Z. no. 2010. 57. J.com/Riverkeeper/ Figure 1: Watersheds of the Delaware River Basin Figure 2: Bedrock Geology of Delaware River & Susquehanna River Headwater Watershed Areas Figure 3: Lineaments and Faults of NYS Figure 4: Joint Orientation Throughout the Appalachian Basin Figure 5: Earthquake Epicenter Map of Pennsylvania Figure 6: Seismic Hazards Maps Figure 7: Modification of Groundwater Flow Routes – Structural Collapse of Tully Valley. v. A. 64. 2009..A.HTM (accessed by Engelder et al. v.. Figure Listing Available at http://hydroquest. K. Web page information from Fort Collins Science Center: http://www. E-mail dated 1-25-10 to David Kovach detailing drilling summary of Matoushek #1 well. G. Casing Pipe Damage Detection with Optical Fiber Sensors: A Case Study in Oil Well Constructions. 2010. M. v.January 31. 2009) Tzilkowski. 301-310. Natural Resource Data Series NPS/ERMN/NRDS – 2010/029. USGS. White-Nose Syndrome Threatens the Survival of Hibernating Bats in North America. C.. Huang. J. Callahan. M. p.S. Integrity of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the upper Delaware scenic and recreational river.org/usa/ny/county/allegany/OILCOUNTY/OIL-OIL-MORE%20OIL.gov/wns/ Veni. Eastern rivers and mountains network 2008 summary report. C.. and Chen. He.Shapiro. Article ID 638967. 2009.K. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies. 2010. Revising the karst map of the United States.usgennet. Geophysical Prospecting.....R. DRBC data request.. 2010.. R. NY Figure 8: Range of Endangered Bat Species Figure 9: Spread of White-Nose Syndrome in Bats in Eastern US Figure 10: US Karst Map 21 .J. G. Stiles.G.. 9 pages. p. He. 1. and Weber.

Addenda Listing Available at http://hydroquest.com/Riverkeeper/ Addendum 1: Paul Rubin Resume Addendum 2: Pennsylvania Earthquake History Addendum 3: New York Earthquake History! 22 .

D. 2010 1    .Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Consolidated Administrative Hearing on Grandfathered Exploration Wells Report to: Delaware Riverkeeper Network And Damascus Citizens for Sustainability Prepared by: Daniel Thau Teitelbaum.P.. M. November 19.C.

Colorado. This is necessary before drilling proceeds in the Basin in part because the Delaware River supplies water to more than 15 million people. As a result of this study.As a toxicologist and physician specializing in environmental medicine and public health. Colorado ( http://www. but such studies have not been done in the significantly more densely populated northeastern United States. In preparation for our September 2010 Health Impact Assessment (HIA) report on Battlement Mesa in Garfield County. In addition to the potential toxicological effects from exposure to water contaminated by pollutants released from gas drilling activities. It is imperative that a similar study be performed for the Delaware River Basin before any gas development – including the grandfathered wells – is allowed to proceed. before drilling begins. including certain “grandfathered” exploratory wells. The necessity for such a study. especially in the Battlement Mesa area of Garfield County. due to the multiple known risks to human health from exposure to such chemicals and substances. In Garfield County we found in 2008 that there was a total lack of research into the health effects from gas development activities.garfield2    . I have been asked by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Damascus Citizens for Sustainability to provide my professional opinion on the potential toxicological effects that may result from exposure to chemicals and substances that may be released from natural gas wells. a comprehensive Health Impacts Assessment was commissioned by Garfield County and completed in September. has been established in our research and in that of others in the western United States. In my professional opinion. Only through anecdotal reports can impacts to human health in the Delaware River Basin be presumed as no epidemiological or environmental health studies have been done in the Basin. 2010. such exploratory well drilling should not be done until the consequences of such exposure are thoroughly examined in a comprehensive health effects study for the Delaware River Basin. We have studied these potential water and air pollution issues in certain areas in the western United States. there are significant air pollution issues which also may become water pollution issues due to downwash. One of the most glaring omissions of the gas drilling process has been the exclusion of consideration of human health impacts. that have been or may be drilled in the drainage area of the Special Protection Waters of the Delaware River Basin.

I 3    . However. As part of the 2008 preliminary review that led to the 2010 HIA.com/index. radioactivity of the underlying layers. We offered specific recommendations and produced a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) which involved several defined steps. the unique population of that area. of course. a copy of which is being submitted with this report. Therefore it is imperative to study these issues before allowing gas drilling and development to proceed. This study must precede permits. water resources in proximity and downstream or down gradient from gas development areas and. in 2008 my colleagues and I reviewed previously completed studies from the general area of Garfield County and concluded that there were major gaps in public health information. the Colorado School of Public Health (working in conjunction with the Garfield County Health Department) undertook a public health impacts assessment of the gas development activities underway or planned for this area. to a greater or lesser degree.aspx?page=1408 and copy attached). Our results are in the HIA report. The general conclusions of this HIA can be extrapolated from the study of the Battlement Mesa area to other areas with similar gas development activity across the county. exposure. depending on the unique population and geology of the potentially affected areas of the Delaware River Basin. it is necessary to additionally look at the unique characteristics of any particular area. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of existing environmental. including any “test” or “exploratory” wells. such as the Delaware River Basin including its geology and subsurface faulting and jointing. Therefore a study similar to the HIA should be done for the Delaware River Basin before exploratory drilling and gas development occurs and in preparation for any issuance of regulations. my colleagues and I undertook an extensive review of the professional literature on the toxicology of the types of chemicals being used by the gas development industry and the substances being brought to the surface by gas drilling activities. health and safety data for the Battlement Mesa community. As part of this report and my professional opinion in this matter.county. not the other way around. and perhaps additional ones. The HIA looked at health stressors specific to gas development and rated them. The health effects on the Battlement Mesa residents were based on a careful study of the area population and the locations of gas development activity. At the request of the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. including the northeastern United States. These wells will include all the stressors we found.

am incorporating that 2008 literature review.D. Everything else in the Literature Review is relevant to the issues involved in this hearing. The toxicology assessment in this literature review is just as relevant for the Delaware River Basin as it is for western Colorado.” into this report. The one exception to the applicability of the Literature Review to this hearing is that the portion of that Review related to chemicals used exclusively in fracking operations would not be relevant to this hearing related only to the drilling of exploratory wells. I have attached as appendices the 2008 White Paper and Literature Review Appendices listing all of the professional publications that were included in the literature review. M. The same sorts of chemicals and substances are involved in gas drilling and development activities in the Delaware River Basin as are involved in such activities in western Colorado.C. Garfield County Colorado.” or “production” are essentially interchangeable as related to toxicity of chemicals and substances that may be released into the environment anywhere during these activities.” The opinions provided in this report are stated to a reasonable degree of scientific and professional certainty.. entitled “Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A Literature Review (2003-2008). I have also attached for completeness the 2010 report entitled. “Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa. references throughout the Literature Review to natural gas “exploration.” “extraction. P. Attachments: Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A Literature Review (2003 – 2008) Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A Literature Review Appendices 4    . /s/ Daniel Thau Teitelbaum Daniel Thau Teitelbaum. For this same reason. Moreover. the toxicological effects of exposure to these various chemicals and substances do not change based on the location where the exposure occurs.

Potential Exposure-Related Human Health Effects of Oil and Gas Development: A White Paper Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa. Colorado 5    . Garfield County.