 |
 |
|
This publication is your
opportunity to receive regular updates on
the work and the issues that I have been
involved with, both in Harrisburg and
throughout our community.
Please visit my website,
where you will find a comprehensive overview
of our work, various phone numbers and
contact information to assist you in solving
problems, opportunities to volunteer and
assist us in our programs and opportunities
to give your feedback. |


Marcellus Shale
The General Assembly returned to session this October and the issue awaiting
lawmakers with the most promise for results is Marcellus Shale. |
|
The legislature is now tasked with mapping a direction the state will take in developing the shale gas
play. While details are still sketchy on the final-form of the Marcellus Shale package, there is a general
consensus that some sort of impact fee will be established. It is generally accepted that the fee should be
robust, but also fair. The balancing requires that the fee generate sufficient revenue without squelching job
creation in the drilling industry.
There is also a consensus building to establish and impose the proper regulatory framework to ensure
environmental and public safety. Tough negotiations loom and action is pending on a variety of issues that
are part of a comprehensive shale package. To know where this negotiation may go, it is important to
examine how we got to this point. To do that, it is necessary to examine the proposals that have been
offered over the past few months.

Senate Democratic Proposal
Senate Democrats have developed
a fair, responsible and
comprehensive plan regarding
the development of a new
shale law. The proposal would:
Establish an impact fee, with
price and volume adjustment
factors, at an effective rate of
around 5 percent, the
national average amongst
gas producing states (see
chart attached). Based on a
price of gas of $4.50 per mcf,
this approach would raise an
estimated $250 million in
2011-2012 and grow
substantially in future years.
Establish a three-way
distribution of fee revenues,
split equally between local
governments, the environment
and infrastructure
initiatives. Examples of
allocations under this
distribution matrix include:
- Funding for environmental
(Growing Greener type)
projects as well as
weatherization, energy
efficiency and energy conservation measures as
part of the statewide
allocation;
- Funding for local communities
to repair roads and
bridges that are damaged
by drilling-related traffic
under the local
governments allocation;
- Funding to develop infrastructure
to complement
the use of natural gas as
a fuel for vehicles and
mass transit under the
infrastructure allocation.
Include an additional allocation,
separate from the three-way
distribution, for the state Fire
Commissioner to ensure that
the state can effectively respond
to emergencies caused by drilling.
Create new well drilling
regulations and enhance
existing standards to ensure
the safety of the public and
environment from degradation
from well drilling operations. These include:
- Create drilling notification
procedures to inform the public about drilling in their
areas;
- Mandate that proper
emergency contact
information is posted at
each well site;
- Ensure that data is
collected and records are
kept on the operations of
each well site;
- Establish appropriate
protective measures for
surface impoundments;
- Establish appropriate well
location restrictions and the
proper drilling setbacks from
surface water, drinking
water and existing
buildings;
- Update bonding requirements
to ensure that
neglected well sites can be
properly restored to their
original state;
- Strengthen civil penalties to
cut down on the frequency
of violations;
- Preserve local zoning
authority to safely and fairly
regulate the industry.

The Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission Report
On July 22, 2011, Gov. Corbett’s
Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission
issued its final report containing 96 recommendations for
the administration and legislature to
use in crafting new legislation. Most
notable among the recommendations
was the adoption of a local
impact fee to recoup costs
associated with drilling, such as
funding for the maintenance of
roads and bridges in areas where
drilling is occurring. However, the
rate of the impact fee suggested
was never disclosed, nor was its
structure.
The commission also made a
number of other notable recommendations
as suggested by its
various subcommittees. These
include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Improve coordination between
state environmental and
emergency response agencies;
Develop a unified command
center for responses to well
pad emergencies;
Develop comprehensive
training programs for local fire
and emergency responders;
Allow for forced pooling, which
requires land owners to have
gas extracted from their
property, even if they decline
permission;
Develop infrastructure to complement the use of natural
gas as a fuel for vehicles and
mass transit;
Develop an in-state pipeline
system to control costs,
avoiding the cost of interstate pipelines;
Expand the rail system to
maximize shale development;
Train and educate potential
workers from the primary
school level through college;
Require the Department of
Environmental Protection to
monitor drilling sites for soil
erosion, as it does construction
sites;
Require the Department of
Health to create a public
registry to monitor those who
live within a mile of gas drilling
sites.

The Governor’s Plan
The Governor’s legislative proposal has three components:
Impact Fee: A county would
have the option of establishing
an impact fee that could begin
at a maximum of $40,000 for
each well in the first year of gas
production and fall by $10,000
per year. The fee would remain
at $10,000 in the 4th through
10th years for a maximum fee,
per well, of $160,000. Twentyfive
percent of the fee would be
allocated to six state agencies
that deal with drilling. The
majority of this allocation
would go to PennDOT for road
repairs in impacted areas.
Counties and municipalities
would split the remaining 75
percent. It is unclear how much
his impact fee proposal would
generate since it is completely
county-optional. If counties
chose to impose the fee, they
can offer a 30 percent fee
waiver to specific companies
drilling within their borders,
making fee revenue projections
even less clear.
Environmental protection: The governor called for
increasing well setbacks and
the amount required for well
bonds, increased penalties for
violations and providing more
latitude for the Department of
Environmental Protection to
revoke drilling permits.
Market growth: Corbett called
for fostering a shift to natural
gas by building natural gas
fueling stations along major
highways; in addition to helping
public vehicle fleets convert to
natural gas.

Senator Scarnati’s Proposal
Senator Scarnati’s proposal has
undergone a transformation since
it was originally introduced.
Details of those changes have yet
to be finalized. The components
of the original proposal include
the following:
Impact Fee: The impact fee
would have a base fee of
$10,000 per well and would
apply to vertical/horizontal shale
wells only. The base fee would
be adjusted independently for
increases in production volume
and the price of gas. The result
is that if production and/or
prices move substantially
higher, revenues will increase
as well. The fee would
generate an estimated $121
million by 2012.
Distribution of Impact Fee: Revenues from the impact fee
would be split two ways: 60
percent of the fee would be
earmarked for local
governments; 40 percent for
statewide environmental and
infrastructure impacts. A small
additional allocation, separate
from the distribution
mentioned, would also be
provided to county conservation
districts statewide.
Local Zoning: The proposal would establish a
model zoning ordinance to
impose uniform standards for
counties and municipalities to
adopt. The ordinance prohibits
a county or municipality that
adopts a zoning ordinance that
exceeds the model from
receiving funding from the local
impact fee.


Summary
The development of the
Marcellus Shale gas play has
created tremendous opportunities
and challenges. The opportunity
includes the managed
development of an industry that
has the potential to fundamentally
alter Pennsylvania’s economic
foundation. Through the sheer
number of jobs that may be
created over the next several
generations combined with the
access to low-cost, high-value
energy, Pennsylvania can sustain
long-term economic health. The
gas play provides a means to fund
local infrastructural improvements
while generating new dollars the
state can use to pay for safety
upgrades.
At the same time, there are a
number of great challenges that
must be faced. The development
of a fee or tax must be responsible
and reasonable. It cannot be so
high that it discourages job
creation. At the same time, the
state’s environment must be
protected. Laws and regulations
that serve to protect lakes, rivers,
aquifers and other ground sources
of water from pollution need to be
developed. Reasonable property
setbacks, zoning issues and other
variables that impact the
environment must be settled.
With various competing
interest, as illustrated by the
proposals discussed, and the
potential for so much economic
opportunity, lawmakers must use
a thorough and balanced
approach as they prepare to craft
a new shale law. The law must
produce sufficient revenue while still
allowing room for the industry to grow
and assure environmental protections
that will serve the citizens for years to
come.

Useful Links and Facts Concerning Marcellus Shale


The Utica Shale is a rock formation located a few thousand feet below the Marcellus Shale. This formation underlies most of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia and extends under adjacent parts of Ontario and Quebec in Canada and Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, and Virginia in the United States. Like the Marcellus Shale, the Utica Shale has the potential to become a significant natural gas resource. It is thicker than the Marcellus Shale, it is more geographically extensive, and it has already proven its capabilities to support commercial production. Drilling operators in Pennsylvania have already tapped into this formation, but its development in the commonwealth is slower to progress due to its depth. However, it is only a matter of time before extraction and production from this formation reaches and exceeds extraction and production from the Marcellus formation due to evolving drilling technologies and capabilities.

Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission Report
This report contains recommendations to “develop a comprehensive, strategic proposal for the responsible and
environmentally sound development of Marcellus Shale”. View Report →

Video of shale drilling process


Offices of State
Senator Vincent Hughes
www.senatorhughes.com |