Microsoft Office Outlook - Memo Style - Montana Board of Oil and Gas
Microsoft Office Outlook - Memo Style - Montana Board of Oil and Gas
Microsoft Office Outlook - Memo Style - Montana Board of Oil and Gas
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
WesternEnergyAllianceCommentsNewrulesIthroughVregardingoil<strong>and</strong>gaswellstimulation<br />
June23,2011<br />
<br />
Page2<strong>of</strong>3<br />
a. Clarifythattheuse<strong>of</strong>estimatesinRuleI,paragraph3carriesthroughallthesubparts.<br />
Thisrulecouldbereadtoallowestimates<strong>of</strong>thetotalvolume<strong>of</strong>treatmenttobeused,<br />
but specifics <strong>of</strong> components. Such an interpretation would be problematic since<br />
volumescanchangesignificantlyfromwhenanAPDisfiledtowhenthetreatmentis<br />
done.<br />
<br />
b. The information requested in Rule I (3)(e), is difficult to provide this early in the<br />
process <strong>and</strong> is not related to chemical disclosure. The requirements for treating<br />
pressureshouldberemoved.<br />
<br />
c. The allowance for submission <strong>of</strong> generic design submission is important. Sections in<br />
RuleIunder(3)(e)(i)<strong>and</strong>(ii)shouldbeplacedinanewsection(4)inNewRuleI.Thisis<br />
vitaltoensurethatthisoptionmeetsthedisclosurerequirementstothe<strong>Board</strong>under<br />
theentireNewRule1<strong>and</strong>notjustsubpart3.<br />
<br />
WesternEnergyAlliancesuggeststhatthe<strong>Board</strong>makechangestoNewRuleItoensure<br />
thatitisclearthatestimates<strong>and</strong>/orgenericfilingswiththeAPDmeettherequirements<strong>of</strong><br />
therule.Aswrittentheruleleavestoomuchroomforinterpretationthatwebelievecould<br />
leadtoproblems<strong>and</strong>projectdelays.<br />
<br />
NewRuleII<br />
<br />
Paragraph1<br />
<br />
Underparagraph1(c)therequirementforrates<strong>and</strong>pressuresshouldbedeletedsincethe<br />
purposeistodisclosechemicalsnotrevealprocesses<strong>and</strong>methods.<br />
<br />
Paragraph2<br />
<br />
This provision generally would require the postfrac disclosure <strong>of</strong> only additivelevel<br />
information,includingadescription<strong>of</strong>the"additivetype"<strong>and</strong>the"rateorconcentration<br />
for each additive" as applied during the HF treatment. However, the draft rule also<br />
requires that the "chemical compound name <strong>and</strong> Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)<br />
number" be provided "for each additive used," even though additives generally do not<br />
haveuniqueCASnumbersonlytheconstituentswithinanadditivewouldtypicallyhavea<br />
CAS number. To clarify this provision <strong>and</strong> since the regulation generally requires only<br />
additivelevel information we recommend that the reference to "chemical compound<br />
name<strong>and</strong>ChemicalAbstractsService(CAS)number"bestricken.Theruleshouldinstead<br />
requireadescription<strong>of</strong>the"name<strong>of</strong>eachadditiveused"<strong>and</strong>notthecompoundname<br />
<strong>and</strong>CASnumber.<br />
<br />
Paragraph4<br />
<br />
Weagreewiththestatement<strong>of</strong>goals<strong>of</strong>feredbytheAdministratorattherulehearingas<br />
the reasons for the rule. Industry <strong>and</strong> government have spent significant resources
Change language