JAM 181994;
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
6 January 1994
ISSUING OF ERCB BATTERY CODES
Informational Letter BL 92-14, introduced changes to the manner in which ERCB battery codes could be obtained. This Infonnational Letter supersedes XL 92-14.
Section 7.001 and 7.002 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations stipulates that construction and operation of a battery must have prior ERCB approval. Currently the ERCB is reviewing tiie battery approval process. One result of this review process is that S-7 submissions will no longer generate an ERCB battery code.
For reporting purposes operators require a battery code for a new battery. To meet this requirement the procedures for obtaining the battery code are as follows:
• operators must advise the ERCB, either by telephone or by fax,
the information outlined on the attachment to this letter must be provided,
once verified by ERCB staff, the battery code will be issued and a letter sent to the operator on the next business day,
letters will be generated overnight for all requests made before 2:00 pjn. each business day, and win be mailed to operators on the next business day,
requests made after 2:00 p.m. will be treated as requests for the next business day.
This change in procedures is being done with the understanding that it meets die requirements for the issuing of the battery code. This does not relieve the operator of the obligation to file the appropriate information, when required, to obtain a battery approval.
Any questions or concerns to this matter may be directed to Baib Ramsay at 297-4613.
R. T. Bording / Manager Accounting Department
Attachment
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015
https ://arch i ve . org/detai Is/e nergy reso u rces 1 99411 4
ATTACHMENT TO IL 94-01
DATA REQUIRED FOR ISSUING A BATTERY CODE
Operator Code :
Operator Name :
Battery Name :
LSD SEC TWP RGE M
Battery Location : - - - W
Field/Area Code of Battery . . . . :
* Battery Type :
Identify Sour or Sweet :
** Operator Contact Name :
** Operator Phone Number :
Fax data to 297-7303 or leave data on Voice Mail at 297-4206.
Battery Type
|
CRUDE OIL |
GAS |
CRUDE BITUMEN |
||||
|
1 |
TEST |
7 |
TEST |
12 |
GROUP |
|
|
2 |
GROUP |
8 |
GROUP |
13 |
PRORATION |
|
|
3 TEMPORARY |
9 |
PRORATION - |
SE ALBERTA ONLY |
14 |
SINGLE |
|
|
4 |
PERMANENT SINGLE |
10 |
PRORATION - |
EFFLUENT MEASUREMENT |
15 |
TEMPORARY |
|
5 |
PRORATION |
11 |
SINGLE |
|||
|
6 |
FIELDGATE/SATELLITE |
For confirmation (if required) of data supplied.
Energy Resources 640 Fifth Avenue SW Conservation Board Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational IL 94-2
Letter
To: All Oil, Gas, and Oil Sands Operators
INJECTION AND DISPOSAL WELLS WELL CLASSIFICATIONS COMPLETION, LOGGING AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS
16 March 1994
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) issued Informational Letter IL 84-12 (IL 84-12) in November 1984 which specified surface casing and logging requirements for approval of injection or disposal wells. In administering these requirements it has become apparent that clarification is required in a number of areas. In addition, a system of classification of injection and disposal wells has been developed. This classification system, similar in nature to that used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, was developed by the ERCB in conjunction with Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP), disposal well operators and users, and certain special interest groups.
This informational letter supersedes Informational Letter IL 84-12 and introduces ERCB Guide G-51 which clarifies completion, logging, testing, monitoring and application requirements for injection and disposal wells. The intent of the guide is to specify procedures and practices designed to protect the subsurface environment, including all useable groundwaters and hydrocarbon-bearing zones, from the potential impacts of casing failure and zonal communication.
Wells used for injection or disposal service will be classified, based on the fluid injected or disposed as follows:
Class la — Wells used for the disposal of oilfield or industrial waste streams;
Class lb — Wells used for the disposal of produced water, specific common oilfield waste streams, and waste streams meeting specific criteria;
Class n — Wells used for the injection or disposal of produced water or brine equivalent;
Class in — Wells used for the injection of hydrocarbons, inert or other gases into a reservoir matrix for storage, enhanced recovery, or disposal purposes; and
Class IV
Wells used for the injection of fresh water or steam.
2
Wells used for solids disposal, into a rock matrix or to a salt cavern, are not included in the classification system or construction, operating and monitoring requirements outlined in this IL. Deepwell injection of solids is an emerging technology with the regulatory requirements currently under development.
Specific details particularly related to Class la. Class lb and Class 11 wells, including specific waste lists and criteria, are also included in Guide G-51.
With respect to casing and cementing requirements. Class la disposal wells will be required to have surface casing set and cemented to surface from a minimum of 25 metres (m) below the lowest usable groundwater zone. Wells that do not meet this criteria would not typically be approved for Class la service.
With respect to determination or verification of hydraulic isolation, the requirements presented in the guide represent a significant revision from IL 84-12 as it moves away from inferential techniques such as cement bond and cement evaluation logs towards direct measurements of flow behind casing. Evaluation of hydraulic isolation of the injection zone will therefore require a temperature survey plus a radioactive tracer survey, oxygen activation log, or cement bond/evaluation log. The ERCB believes that this combination of logs can provide a cost-effective alternative to standard cement logs while at the same time provide a more definitive evaluation of hydraulic isolation. The aforementioned logging requirements are based on evaluation of current economical and readily available logging options. The ERCB recognizes, however, that advances in technology may well yield new acceptable and economic alternatives which may include improved cement logging capabilities. It is not the intent to exclude such future logging options as they become available.
With respect to casing integrity, casing inspection logs are required for all wells converted to injection/disposal services. The ERCB expects these logs to be capable of supplying certain minimum information. Casing inspection logs (or a combination of logs) are expected to be fully interpreted, on a joint-by-joint basis, to determine the extent of both external and internal corrosion, remaining wall thickness, and to detect holes, pits, perforations or any other anomalies.
Industry is reminded that all injection and disposal wells shall comply with sections 6.101 and 6.120 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations. In summary, all injection into a well, except those fluids identified herein as Class IV, shall be through tubing. A packer shall be set as closely above the injection interval as practical. The tubing/casing annulus shall be filled with a corrosion inhibiting fluid and annual packer isolation tests shall be performed. Exemption from these requirements for a well or project may be granted by the ERCB where it is not feasible to use a packer in the wellbore completion.
Operators of approved injection and disposal wells will be notified by the ERCB within the next three months as to the classification assigned to each of their wells. Operators of waste disposal wells (Class la and lb) will be required to provide an assessment of each well to verify the proposed classification. This assessment must be submitted within three months of notification of the proposed well classification assignment and will be reviewed over the following twelve months. During this period the existing approval will remain in effect. Assessment of each waste disposal well should be based on the waste streams that are injected and the monitoring and testing that is currently conducted. The initial logging and testing requirements listed in the guide need not be conducted at this time.
3
Effective immediately, the minimum requirements for newly drilled or converted injection or disposal wells shall be as described in Guide G-51. The guide should be referenced for complete details and discussion of well classifications and related requirements.
Copies of Guide G-51 are available at the ERCB's Information Services Section for a fee of $10.
Questions or concerns regarding Guide G-5 1 should be directed to the ERCB Drilling and Production Department at 297-8474.
R. J. Cox^^TEng. Assistant Manager, Drilling Drilling and Production Department
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Lettei
IL 94-03
To: All Oil and Gas Operators
PRODUCnON FACILITY APPUCATION SWEET SINGLE WELL OIL BATTERIES
24 February 1994
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERGB) i^Vs^lrt^Wy^viewing its requirements with regard to oil and gas facility applications. This r^^aet^MS part of the ERCB's on-going efforts to improve, streamline, and in some cases, eluninate application requirements. It also includes input from public groups, mdustry representatives, and departments of the Alberta government.
While the broad review is still in progress, and may continue for some time, the ERCB has determined that revised requirements for one type of application can be acted upon immediately. Accordingly, the ERCB will no longer require an application under section 7.001 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations for single-well oil batteries where:
• the produced fluids contam less than 0.01 moles per kilomole (10 ppm) hydrogen sulphide,
the landowner/occupant and adjacent residents (withm 200 metres) do not object, and
there is no compression of the produced associated gas.
Operators are required to inform the landowner/occupant and adjacent residents of the proposed development, and ensure that all parties understand the nature of the development and the equipment that is proposed to be installed for production. In the event that a concern or objection to the facility is raised, tiie proponent is expected to discuss and resolve the issues with the objectors prior to initiating construction of the facility. However, if reasonable efforts to address the concerns raised by the affected parties are unsuccessful, operators must file an application containing the technical and operational information as well as the details relating to the expressed objection(s) and the efforts made to resolve these matters.
The ERCB's expectations for the technical and environmental issues remam unchanged with regard to these facilities. However, it has been demonstrated historically that, in the majority of cases, operators construct these facilities and initiate production following good engineering practices and in full compliance with all pertinent regulations and guidelmes. Consequently, the current application requirement serves to confirm what is, essentially, a self-regulating process. It is due to tiiese facts that the ERCB is able to elimmate the requirement for applications for these specific facilities.
2
Operators are reminded that failure to comply with technical, environmental, public contact requirements and expectations will result in unmediate action by the ERCB which will include shutting in the facility until contraventions have been corrected.
Any questions regarding this matter may be directed to Barry Boyd at 297-3553 or Al Chare at 297-2429 Production Section, of the ERCB's Drilling and Production Department.
y. R. Nichol, P.Eng. Manager
Drilling and Production Department
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3G4
Informational '^-^ Letter
To: All Oil and Gas Operators
7 April 1994
All Salt Cavern Operators All Gas Storage Operators
CSA STANDARD CSA Z341-93
STORAGE OF HYDROCARBONS IN UNDERGROUND FORMATIONS
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), under Section 26(1 )(b) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, is responsible for approving schemes for the storage of hydrocart)ons in underground formations as they pertain to the wells and formations used for such storage. This informational letter (IL) addresses the ERCB's approach towards implementation and adoption of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard "CSA Z341-93; Storage of Hydrocarbons in Underground Formations" issued in July 1993.
BACKGROUND
CSA Z341-93 addresses three distinct types of underground storage of hydrocarbons (reservoir or aquifer, salt cavern, and mined cavern storage). Mined cavern storage is not currently practised in Alberta and is therefore not specifically referenced further in this IL.
The standard was developed in recognition of a need for a consistent regulatory approach towards underground hydrocarbon storage across Canada, and includes location, design and construction, operation, monitoring, integrity testing, and abandonment The standard was developed by a technical committee including regulatory, industry, and associate (i.e. consulting) members from across Canada and included the ERCB.
IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose and intent of the standard is to provide for pubUc and environmental safety in underground storage operations. The ERCB endorses both the intent and direction of the standard. The ERCB beUeves that current Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations (OGCR) meet or exceed the CSA standard. Exceptions to this are clauses 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.1.4 of the standard for open-hole logging requirements for reservoir storage wells. These clauses require logging for natural radioactivity, lithology, and hole size (clause 5.2.1.2), and porosity, fluid types and saturations, fluid contacts, and bottom-hole temperature (clause 5.2.1.4). Although this is a common logging suite, these requirements exceed those of section 11.140 of the OGCR which require a minimum of resistivity and spontaneous potential logs. The ERCB beUeves it appropriate to retain the minimum requirements of the OGCR, but would encourage operators to also consider clauses 5.2.1.2 and 5.2.1.4 of the standard when developing a logging program.
.../2
2
The ERCB expects all operators of underground hydrocait)on storage schemes in Alberta to be aware of the standard and to design, construct, operate, monitor, and abandon such facilities in a manner consistent with the standard. Notwithstanding this, the ERCB recognizes variances may be appropriate under certain circumstances and would be prepared to consider such variances where supported by appropriate technical data or operational history.
RETROACTIVITY
Existing storage schemes with acceptable operating histories are considered grandfathered as it relates to location, design, and construction but are expected to comply with the monitoring requirements by 1 June 1994.
REGULATORY MODIFICATIONS
The ERCB recognizes the current standard is a new document and addresses areas where comprehensive design and operating requirements have not been previously required, particularly relating to salt cavern storage. Accordingly, it is recognized that modifications may be needed to the standard over the next several years as it is implemented. The ERCB therefore believes it is appropriate to defer any regulatory revisions to the OGCR until after a 2-year implementation period in order to incorporate operational experience and input fi'om storage scheme operators over this period. Therefore, the current application requirements for scheme development, operation, and abandonment will remain in effect with the CSA Standard used as a baseline for evaluation of apphcations.
Questions or concerns related to salt cavern storage and reservoir storage should be directed to the ERCB's Drilling and Production Department (297-8474) and the ERCB's Gas Department (297-8553) respectively.
N.G. Bemdtsson, P.Eng. Board Member
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-5
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
7 April 1994 ^ANADUNa
WAY 25 1994
Changes in legislation concerning environmental and energy resource jurisdiction matters prompted a review of the existing reporting, surveillance, and enforcement responsibilities of Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). The attached Agreement between the Pollution Control Division of AEP and the Field Operations Department of die ERCB describes the policies, procedures, and roles of each organization regarding emergency response, investigations/inspections, and enforcement in the oil and gas sector.
This Agreement was developed to ensure consistent notification and reporting requirements and provide a "one-window" notification and reporting procedure for industry.
The highlights of this Agreement are as follows:
1. Both organizations will place inspection priority on facilities in sensitive areas, facilities and/or operators with poor operating histories, and situations with a significant potential to adversely affect the envkonment.
2. There is no longer a requirement for industry to notify the ERCB when situations of alleged non-compliance such as stack top temperature occur under AEP legislation. Industry must continue to notify AEP of all approval contraventions.
3. To optimize the efficient use of resources, both organizations may assist each other by responding to situations outside their respective jurisdictions. This may result in the two organizations conducting joint inspections/investigations, assisting each other with enforcement actions, and exchanging information.
4. The ERCB will contmue to be responsible for assuming the lead role in responding to complaints and will coordinate the government's response to all emergencies related to oil and gas facilities.
5. Unrefined product spills will continue to be the responsibility of the ERCB. Refined product and chemical spills are the responsibility of AEP. In keeping with the "one-window" approach, both organizations will ensure all other appropriate government organizations are notified.
2
6. In an effort to assist operators, a table was developed outlining many of the notification requirements. In addition to the notification table, a map is mcluded with the telephone numbers of the primary contacts. The left margin of the table can be used by the operators to identify the type and location of their various facilities.
This Agreement complements other existing agreements, including AEP/ERCB Informational Letter IL OG 72-20, Environmental Management and Pollution Control Gas Processing Operations, which outlines the two organizations' envkonmental management and pollution control responsibilities in the gas processing sector. IL OG 72-20 is listed for consideration in the present Regulatory Review Process and could be changed or updated.
Any questions regarding this Agreement can be directed to AEP's Pollution Control Division (427-6209) or to the ERCB's Field Operations Department, Edmonton Area Office (427-0200).
Alberta Environmental Protection Energy Resources Conservation Board
Deputy Minister Vice Chairman
Attachment
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY NOTinCATION REQUIREMENTS
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD
1 INTRODUCTION
Regulation of the oil, in-situ oil sands, sweet gas, and sour gas (the oil and gas industry) in the province is the joint responsibility of Alberta Environmental Protection (AEP) and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB).
AEP's mission is to protect, enhance, and ensure the wise use of our environment. The Pollution Control Division fulfils its mission by providing firm but fair enforcement of environmental legislation (acts, regulations, and operating approvals) in a timely and consistent manner. The Pollution Control Division relies on a variety of mechanisms including public complaints, spill response, and industry notification to assess compliance, initiate investigations, and take appropriate enforcement action.
The mission of the ERCB is to ensure development of Alberta's energy resources takes place in a responsible manner in the interests of Albertans. This is accomplished in part by effective application review processes, notification requirements, inspections, and enforcement programs that have been developed in consultation with the energy industry, government, and the public.
The role of the ERCB's Field Operations Department is to ensure the oil and gas industry understands and follows the requirements of the ERCB's approvals, regulations, and standards such that Albertans are confident oil and gas operations are bemg conducted m a responsible manner that protects the public, the envu-onment, and the resource. Although the ERCB has a number of enforcement options available, a cooperative but firm approach with industry to achieve compliance has been the most successful.
2 PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement describes the approach and roles of each organization with regard to environmental matters in the oil and gas sector m an efibrt to:
• provide a "one window" notification and reporting procedure,
• ensure consistent notification and reporting requirements are placed on industry,
• optimize the efficient use of resources available to both organizations,
• ensure a coordinated response to complaints or emergencies,
• establish the framework for separate and joint inspections or investigations,
• ensure compliance with environmental regulations and standards,
• provide for good inter-agency communication, and
• reduce overlap between departments.
This Agreement does not override any existing acts, regulations, or approvals of either organization. This Agreement complements other existing agreements between AEP and the ERCB.
3 JURISDICTION
3.1 AEP/ERCB Approved Facilities
For the purpose of this Agreement, all oil and gas facilities that requure approval from AEP as well as approval from the ERCB are considered "AEP/ERCB Approved Facilities." These facilities typically include certain gas processing plants, compressor stations, designated and regulated (Class I) pipelines, disposal/injection wells, and heavy oil and oil sands projects.
2
NOTE: A Class I pipeline is any pipeline that has an index of 2690 or greater. A pipeline index is determined by multiplying the diameter of the pipeline, in millimetres, by the length of the pipeline, in kilometres (ie., 168.3 mm X 16 km = 2693).
3.2 ERCB Approved Facilities
The ERCB requires applications for a variety of other energy related facilities, such as oil and gas wells, produced water disposal wells, various production facilities, pipeline projects, and oilfield waste management facilities. No approval from Alberta Environmental Protection is normally required for these facilities.
4 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
In an effort to streamline current industry reporting requirements, a "one window" approach is desirable. When circumstances require notification to both the Pollution Control Division and the appropriate ERCB field office, the initial organization contacted will notify the other to ensure compliance with legislated requu-ements. The Pollution Control Division requures notification of alleged non-compliance with legislation and approvals which may include the following:
• contravention of au* and water approval conditions, and
• excessive ambient air readings.
NOTE: Some facilities have special limits for flaring incidents in their approvals which must be reported. Refer to the attached "Industry Notification" table.
4.1 Spills
The initial notification of a spill should be to the primary contact organization identified in the attachment entitied "Industry Notification". Spills of substances regulated by the ERCB (eg. unrefined products such as conventional crude oil, LPG, diluent, condensate, synthetic crude, and produced water) and incidents involving oilfield waste are to be reported to the ERCB pursuant to ERCB legislation and/or guidelines. AEP requires notification of refmed product spills that may cause an adverse effect as stipulated in the Release Reporting Regulation of the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
To provide the required notification to AEP and yet provide industry with a one-window contact for unrefined product spills, ERCB's Field Operations will notify AEP's Pollution Control Division of all reported spills in excess of 2 m^ on lease and all spills off lease. There is no notification requirement to AEP or the ERCB for on-lease spills less than 2 m^. The Pollution Control Division will in turn notify AEP's Land and Forest Service, or Agriculture, Food and Rural Development's Public Land Management Branch of all reported spills (for spills on public lands in the "Green Area" or the "White Area", respectively). In addition, the Pollution Control Division will notify the Fish and Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, and Alberta Public Safety Services if required.
4.2 Flaring
Both AEP and the ERCB regulate flaring. Notifications are as follows:
• Reporting to AEP's Pollution Control Division is required when an AEP/ERCB approved facility exceeds a licence condition or when flaring has occurred that has the potential to cause an adverse effect.
3
• Reporting to the appropriate ERCB Held office is required when flared volumes at ERCB approved facilities exceed approved limits or when flaring occurs that results in smoke, odours, or flaring events of a long duration (24 hours).
The Pollution Control Division is the primary contact for flaring at joint AEP/ERCB approved facilities. The Pollution Control Division will notify the ERCB's Field Operations Department.
The attached table outlines a number of the common industry notification requu*ements. In developing the notification requirements, the principles used were that AEP is responsible for licensed technical data; while the ERCB is responsible for respondmg to concerns regarding local impacts.
NOTE: When circumstances require notification to both the Pollution Control Division and the appropriate ERCB field office, the initial organization contacted will notify the other.
5 COMPLAINT AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
In an effort to ensure adequate response, both organizations have emergency response personnel and resources based throughout the province. In addition, both organizations utilize 24-hour response systems with telephone numbers published on the front pages of all Alberta telephone directories.
The ERCB's Field Operations Department is responsible for assuming the lead role in responding to complaints regarding all oil and gas facilities and coordinating the government response to emergencies from these facilities.
The Government of Alberta developed "An Emergency Response Plan for a Sour Gas Release" which is designed to protect the public and mmimize the hazards by ensuring a coordinated effective response to an incident. The ERCB is the lead agency overseeing government response to emergencies and is responsible for initiatmg the plan. AEP, through the Pollution Control Division, manages sour gas monitoring activities and provides technical expertise and logistical support on other environmental matters.
Where a call is received and the other organization requkes the information, the caller will be durected to the appropriate organization, or the mformation will be promptly forwarded. Prior to initiating the referral, a reasonable effort will be made to obtam as much relevant information as possible to allow for a tunely response. This may include:
• name (company and person),
• address and telephone number,
• date and location of the incident, and
• a brief description of the incident.
Recognizing the distribution of personnel throughout the provmce, upon request and by mutual agreement. Pollution Control Division and ERCB Field Operations staff will assist each other by responding to situations outside theu* respective geographic area and regulatory jurisdictions. It is not intended that the respondmg organization will assume the responsibilities of the other organization, but rather to assist each other where possible. If specific problems are noted, the organization with jurisdiction must be contacted and the responsible party is expected to respond.
4
6 INVESTIGATIONS/INSPECTIONS
The difference in the focus of AEP's Pollution Control Division and the ERCB's Field Operations Department is the distinction between "investigations" and "inspections". The primary focus of the Pollution Control Division is investigations; for Field Operations, it is inspections. As with other roles between the organizations, investigation and inspection activities sometimes overlap. Coordination of the two agencies' activities will minimize duplication of effort.
An investigation, performed by the Pollution Control Division, is conducted to gather evidence which substantiates or disclaims alleged contravention of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act or Regulations made under that act. It is initiated on reasonable beliefs that a contravention has occurred.
An inspection, performed by ERCB Field Operations, is an on-site review of a facility for the purpose of:
• reviewing information, checking equipment, and procedures,
• identifying problems and plans for resolution, and
• ensuring compliance with ERCB regulations and approvals.
Inspections are usually performed in cooperation with the facility operator during which time any deficiencies and appropriate remedial actions noted are discussed with the relevant facility personnel.
7 ENFORCEMENT APPROACH
The approach of AEP's Pollution Control Division is to ensure compliance with environmental legislation including acts, regulations, approvals, and orders. This is carried out according to AEP's enforcement principles and programs. All situations of non-compliance are followed up, emphasizing fact-finding investigations followed by compliance assessment, and determining the appropriate enforcement response. Under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Pollution Control Division has a number of enforcement options, including an educational component, in addition to orders and prosecution.
The approach of the ERCB's Field Operations Department is to work with operators to ensure they understand and routinely meet or better ERCB regulations and standards. Field Operations exercises a wide variety of measures to ensure compliance, including outlining the requirements for remedial action, setting deadlines, and suspending operations at facilities, depending on the severity of the problem and the remedial actions of the operator. As stated in the introduction, other enforcement options are available, such as orders, inquiries, and prosecutions.
The Pollution Control Division and Field Operations place priority on facilities in sensitive areas, facilities or operators with a poor operatmg history, and situations with the potential to adversely affect the environment. Both organizations will communicate with each other and the operator, and may conduct joint inspections/investigations and assist each other in their enforcement actions.
8 EDUCATION AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE
AEP's Pollution Control Division and the ERCB's Field Operations Department are committed to promote and enhance their relationship with industry, the public, and all interested and concerned parties by providing relevant information about each organization.
5
Upon request and by mutual agreement, Pollution Control Division and Field Operations staff will exchange information or data in areas of respective jurisdictions.
9 LEGISLATION AND REVIEW
This Agreement between AEP and the ERCB may require modification or review on occasion depending on changes in legislation or other factors. Any proposed changes to legislation which may have an effect on this document will be routinely reviewed and discussed with industry by both organizations.
Peter G. Melnychuk Deputy Minister
Alberta Environmental Protection
J. P. Prince Vice Chairman
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Attachments
INDtBTRY NOTIFICATION
AEP/ERCB APPROVED FACILITY
Facilitv Type Location(B)
(For use by industiy to idendly the type and location of facilities)
Event
1 SPILLS/RELEASES
1.1 Unrefined product spill (e.g.) liquid hydrocaibon or produced water
1.2 Refined product spill
1.3 Contravention of AEP approvals
1.4 Planned or unplanned releases in accordance with ERCB approvals
Primary Contact
ERCB
AEP AEP ERCB
Phone Numbers
Local area office (see reverse)
422-4505
422-4505
Local area office (see reverse)
2 UNSCHEDULED/EMERGENCY FLARING
For flaring resulting in 1 or more of the following, contact the most appropriate organization and request referral. 2.1 Exceed AEP approval coiKlitions AEP 422-4505
2.2
Exceed ERCB approved volume limits or greater 1 24 hours in duration
2.3 Black smoke or potential adverse conditions
3 ODOURS/FUGmVE EMISSIONS
3.1 From unrefined products
3.2 From refined products
3.3 Sulphur dust/fires
4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
4.1 Blowouts/line failures (HjS release)
AEP ERCB
AEP
ERCB
AEP AEP
ERCB
Local area office (see reverse)
422-4505
Local area office (see reverse)
422-4505 422-4505
Local area office (see reverse)
ERCB APPROVED FACILITY
Facility Type Location(s)
(For use by industiy to identify the type and location of facilities)
Event
1 SPILLS/RELEASES
1.1 Unrefined product spill (e.g.) liquid hydrocarbon or produced water
1.2 Planned or unplanned releases in accordance with ERCB approvals
1.3 Refined product spill
2 UNSCHEDUUED/EMERGENCY FLARING
2. 1 Exceed ERCB approved volume limits or greater thai
24 hours in duration
Primary Contact
ERCB
ERCB
2.2
Black smoke or potential adverse conditions (e.g.) pubhc complaints
3 ODOURS/FUGmVE EMISSIONS 3.1 From refined/um^fined products
4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
4. 1 Blowouts/line failures (R^ release)
AEP
ERCB
ERCB
ERCB
ERCB
Phone Numbers
Local area office (see reverse)
Local area office (see reverse)
422-4505
Local area office (see reverse)
Local area office (see reverse)
Local area office (see reverse)
Local area office (sec reverse)
NOTE: When circumstances require notificatioa to Pollution Control Division and Field Operations, the initial organization contacted will notify the other.
•rt m
— 00
— m
00 00 >n
Os 0\ C\
(N <N (S
a-
c« O
2E
O
<N 52 ^
Tt ^
(S
00 w OO
c X •- 'c
o K o:
<^ X
HO.
GO 5
< <
s i
O >
9 S t- o
CO <^ O 3 00
00 ^ >n
^
ON rsl CT\
(N w <N
o
CO
CM
C3 O
U E Q
r
^' ffl
C/D Q
§ S s
«n cx . ' 3 Q O ^
8 &c
E 00 eg
< <
00 3 ^
m ^ <N
fS
P3
i I
P 2
^
8 |?2
Tt <N
1
6S
-I. c>0 iS
^ < <
00 J2 <N
m 3 00
— g m
m ^ >n
OO Tt 00
rg ro w m
> ^
00 'p Q
as
8
O a O P
m J2 2D
00 3 O c<-> ^ CO
Tt CTs
CM <N
m CI- «n
00
z la-
•o ?r < o.
3 00
ca gj
<
3 C
II
O
CQ < <
yn ^ yn
cn Ij^ cn
<=> ^ o
t-~ 3 CO
in Q m .c
S ^ ^
^ (SI 'T
OO w OO
— X)
<n o
j;^ *s ^
^ S oi
is ^ ^ I
.5 C/3 (N < <
lii
P CQ • H ™ C/3
^' E .1
m
-1 s «
sis
^ 2
o C- ^ CQ < <
oo »n 2i
- ° 5 ^ t
cs J>J (N (N
n- <N
8
^ »i
E U
3 •
z
.si
«= S .2 3 &
!« O O '>
5 ^ ^
peg
O e
III
O 2 ^ Ph £ Oh
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-6
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
24 March 1994
DISCHARGE OF PRODUCED UQUIDS TO EARTHEN STRUCTURES NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND EXISTING REGULATIONS
As of 31 December 1996, oil and gas operators will no longer be permitted to place or store produced liquids into earthen pits or structures. Produced fluids are considered to include crude bitumen, liquid hydrocarbons, process chemicals, and water produced from oil wells, gas wells, and associated batteries and other similar facilities regulated by the ERCB. To accomplish this, the ERCB intends to amend sections 8.010, 8.020, and 8.040 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations (Appendix A).
These changes are mtended to help ensure that oil and gas developments do not result m contaminated soils or groundwater. Pits and other earthen structures containing produced liquids are found to present a significant risk of such contammation. Operators who discover such contamination in the course of meeting these regulations must modify their existing facilities to prevent ongoing contamination and to initiate remediation appropriate to the level of envu-onmental risk.
For a description of current acceptable approaches to the storage and disposal of produced fluids, operators should refer to ERCB Informational Letter IL 93-8 and the ERCB's 1993 draft "Recommended Oilfield Waste Management Requirements". Earthen structures, if properly designed, will continue to be acceptable for purposes such as fire-walls, run-on and run-off control, and emergency containment (eg. tank dyking).
Flare pits will also contmue to be acceptable, provided that there is virtually no probability of produced liquids entering the pit. This can be accomplished through both good design (eg. flare knock-outs, oversized separators) and good operating practices. Because of the inherent risk of contammation, the Board would expect operators to consider various alternatives before selecting a flare pit.
It should be noted that the amended regulations will not ^ply to:
• oil and gas facilities where produced liquid storage is approved by Alberta Environmental Protection,
• drillmg sumps (see ID 93-1 and Guide G-50 for these requurements), and
shallow gas wells in southeastern Alberta (see BL 93-10 for these locations and associated requirements).
2
Should oil and gas operators continue to have concerns or questions as to how and when the Board intends to enforce these amended regulations, they are encouraged to contact the ERCB's Environment Protection D^artment at 297-3185 at their earliest convenience.
B. F. Bietz, Ph.D., P.Biol. Board Member
Attachment
APPENDIX A INTENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS
Effective 31 December 1996, the Energy Resources Conservation Board will amend the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations as follows:
Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regulation
1. The Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations (Alberta Regulation J5 1/71) are amended by this Regulation.
2. Section 8.010 is repealed and the following is substituted:
8.010 Earthen structures or excavations shall not be used as receptacles for crude bitumen, liquid hydrocarbon, process chemicals, or water produced from a well or associated facility either by design or normal operating practice without the written approval of the Board.
3. Section 8.020 is repealed. Amendments to section 8.010 now make this section redundant.
4. Section 8.040 is repealed and the following is substituted:
8.040 (1) The licensee of a well or the operator of a battery or processing plant or
associated facility shall store and dispose of all water produced from a well in a manner satisfactory to the Board.
(2) No water produced from a well shall be discharged into an earthen structure or excavation either by design or normal operating practice without the written approval of the Board.
(3)
All water produced to a battery, or produced at a well not connected to a battery, or produced at a processing plant, shall be disposed of in accordance with a scheme approved by the Board pursuant to section 26 of the Act.
26
1994
\ Energy Resources 640 Fifth Avenue SW
f ) Conservation Board Calgary, Alberta
Informational
Letter
TO: All Oil And Gas Operators 28 March 1994
CORIOLIS FORCE FLOWMETERS
This informational letter relates to flowmeters that operate on the principle of measurmg mass by coriolis forces (coriolis force flowmeters). These flowmeters meet the requirements of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) for liquid volume measurement and as product analyzers for test and trucked production measurement. The ERCB will not require further supporting data for use of coriolis force flowmeters at new facilities. In addition, the replacement of a meter and/or product analyzer with a coriolis force flowmeter will not constitute a facility modification. The following explains the criteria for acceptance of these devices.
Liquid Volume Measurement
The ERCB has concluded that a properly installed, maintained, and calibrated coriolis force flowmeter can measure liquid volumes within the uncertainties specified in Schedule 9 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations (the Regulations). The coriolis force flowmeter is therefore acceptable for volume measurement under the same requirements as positive displacement and turbine meters. The ERCB reminds industry that these requkements are:
• The operator must calibrate meters according to sections 14.090, 14.110, 14.120, and 14.140 of the Regulations for condensate, test oil, total oil, and water measurement respectively. Any applicable standard in the American Petroleum Institute Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards (API-MPMS) should also be referenced for proper calibration procedures.
• The operator must mstall meters for test oil or test water measurement according to section 14. 180 of the Regulations. However, an operator may use either a throttiing type or a snap acting control valve with a coriolis force flowmeter.
Product Analyzer for Test or Trucked Production Measurement
The ERCB considers the use of a coriolis force flowmeter as a product analyzer to be acceptable for test or trucked production measurement. Such a device must be maintained in accurate calibration as required by section 14.140 (6) of the Regulations. It is very important to have quality density determinations for both the liquids used in calibration and all liquids to be measured with these meters. For accurate calibration of coriolis force flowmeters, the ERCB considers the following to be necessary.
• When used for test production, the operator must determine the oil and water densities at the time of initial installation and periodically thereafter including whenever operational factors have caused changes. The ERCB prefers the determination and input of oil and water
2
densities for each well, but grouping of wells known to have very similar densities is acceptable. For example, all wells producing from one pool to a satellite can use average densities from samples of at least three wells.
• When used for trucked production, the operator must determine the oil and water densities for each battery delivermg production to the facility. The operator must also redetermine the densities whenever operational factors have caused changes.
Questions or concerns regarding this matter should be directed to Mr. Kelly McLean of the ERCB's Drilling and Production Department at 297-5341.
R. J. Willard, P.Eng. Assistant Manager, Production Drilling and Production Department
^ ?.5 1994
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-8
TO: All Oil, Gas, Oil Sands, Pipeline, Coal, Hydro and Electric Operators
5 April 1994
APPLICATION FEES
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (Board) has reviewed its application fee schedule and concluded that no adjustment of application fees is needed at this time. Through its review however, the Board realized that certain application types were inadvertently not included in the current fee structure. To ensure consistency of the user-pay approach, the following types of applications have therefore been added to the attached schedule of fees which is effective 15 April 1994.
• Applications pursuant to section 7.001 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations for approval to construct or modify a battery or compressor station. With respect to section 7.001 note that the Board no longer requires applications for approval of sweet, single-well batteries that meet the criteria set out in ERCB Informational Letter IL 94-03.
• Applications for approval of waste processing and disposal facilities.
• Applications pursuant to section 3.010(1 )(e) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations for approval to resume drilling operations.
• Applications pursuant to section 15.080 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations to change the name of the holder of an approval given under section 26 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act.
The Board will continue to review its application fee structure on a regular basis and make adjustments as necessary. The Board has rescinded Interim Directive ID 92-5.
J. D. Dilay Executive Manager — Operations
Attachment
Attachment to ERCB Informational Letter IL 94-8
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD APPLICATION FEES EFFECTIVE 15 APRIL 1994
The ERCB is authorized by section 17 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, section 60 of the Oil Sands Conservation Regulation, section 76 of the Pipeline Regulation, section 1 8 of the Gas Resources Preservation Act, section 86 of the Coal Conservation Regulation, and section 20 of the Hydro and Electric Energy Regulation to collect application fees as follows:
APPLICATION TYPE FEE A. Pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Regulations
1. Well licence
• single well $ 550*
• wells included in a scheme or program of drilling
- per scheme or program of up to and including 5 wells $ 550*
- plus, per well for each additional well $110*
• resume drilling operations $ 550*
• well to obtain gas for use solely on a farm, ranch, or for other domestic $ 55* uses of the applicant or to supply water where the water well is drilled
to a depth of greater than 150 metres
• licence transfer or name change $ 55*
2. Approval to construct or modify a battery or compressor station $ 550*
3. Registered applications for approvals and amendments for, but not limited to: $1 100
• concurrent production
• enhanced recovery
• experimental scheme
• gas processing
• underground storage
• water disposal
• waste processing and disposal
Application fee must accompany these applications.
2
APPLICATION TYPE
FEE
4.
Registered applications for orders and amendments for, but not limited to:
$1100
• compulsory pooling
• commingling
• common purchaser, carrier, processor
• rateable take
• spacing
5. Registered applications for permits and amendments for industrial development $1100
6. Applications for the granting of: $1100
• good production practice
• gas-oil-ratio penalty relief
7. Change name or transfer an approval or permit $ 55
B. Pursuant to the Oil Sands Conservation Act and Regulation
1. Registered applications for, but not limited to: $1100
• an order designating an in situ or mining operation or prescribing official names for oil sands sites
• approval, or amendment of approval, of a scheme to recover oil sands or crude bitumen
• approval, or amendment of approval, to construct and operate a processing plant
• permit, or amendment of permit for industrial development
• preparation of a scheme to maximize recovery of oil sands or crude bitumen in the area at or adjoining boundaries of an oil sands site
• approval of a waste disposal facility
2. Approval to construct or modify a central processing facility $ 550
3. Change name or transfer an approval or permit $ 55
3
APPLICATION TYPE FEE
C. Pursuant to the Pipeline Act and Regulation
1 . Combined permit and licence for an installation on a pipeline or for a $ 550 * pipeline of 5 kilometres in length or less
2. Combined permit and licence for a pipeline longer than 5 kilometres $1 100 *
3. Pipeline licence or amendment $ 275 *
1
4. Change name or transfer a permit or licence $ 55 *
D. Pursuant to the Gas Resources Preservation Act
1. Permit or amendment to remove from Alberta greater than $1 100 3 billion cubic metres of gas or having a term longer than 2 years
2. Permit or amendment to remove from Alberta not more than $ 550 3 billion cubic metres of gas over a term of not more than 2 years
E. Pursuant to the Coal Conservation Act and Regulation
1. Permit or amendment to drill holes more than 150 metres in depth or to $ 275 develop an adit, tunnel, shaft, trench, bulk sample pit, or other excavation
in connection with an exploratory or experimental program for coal
2. Permit or amendment to develop, licence to operate or consent to abandon $ 275 a small mine or experimental mine site
3. Consent to suspend operations at or to abandon a mine, mine site, coal $ 550 processing plant, or other major facility
4. Permit or amendment to develop a mine site or mine $1 100
5. Licence or amendment to operate a mine or discard site $1 100
Application fee must accompany these applications.
4
APPLICATION TYPE FEE
6. Approval or amendment to construct or operate a coal $11 00 processing plant or connected major facilities
7. Permit for industrial development $1100
8. Change name or transfer an approval $ 55
F. Pursuant to the Hydro & Electric Energy Act and Regulation
1. Permit and licence for a transmission line up to 5 kilometres long $ 550
2. Permit and licence for: $1100
• a transmission line longer than 5 kilometres
• a substation
3. Amend a permit or licence for a transmission line or substation $ 550
4. Approval or amendment of: $ 550
• power plant up to 2500 kilowatts
• pilot project
• distribution system
5. Approval or amendment of a hydro development or power plant larger $1 100 than 2500 kilowatts
6. Authorization to discontinue operation of: $ 550
• hydro development
• power plant
• transmission line
• distribution system
7. Order to connect or interconnect facilities $ 550
8. An order under section 17(2) of the Act $1 100
9. Change name or transfer permit or licence $ 55
Energy Resources 640 Fifth Avenue SW I m^£^^ ume^^a^ ^^^S I conservation Board Calgar^Aib-^ I mOrmailOnai
I , , ADDENDUM TO
Letter «l
To: All Oil and Gas Well, Pipeline 4 AprU 1994
and Gas Plant Operators, Gas Utility Companies and NOVA Customers
PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
NOVA PIPELINE APPUCATIONS - INDUSTRY REVIEW
In accordance with Item J of Informational Letter EL 90-8, a notice for objection has been issued by the ERCB for each NOVA pipeline application with a capital cost in excess of $10 million. Since the issuance of the IL in June 1990, approximately 30 such notices have been routinely published. To date only one objection, which related to the Pacific Gas Transmission Expansion Project, has been filed.
NOVA has reviewed the merit of this procedure and has consulted members of the Facilities Liaison Committee, the CAPP/NOVA Committee and the Board staif . They have concluded that the current practice of routine Publication of Notice provides little added value and its elimination would have no adverse impact on mdustry awareness of, and opportunity to object to, major NOVA facility applications. There would be the advantages of reducing application processing tune and savings on costs of advertising. Consequently, NOVA has made a request to the Board to discontinue this practice.
The Board has reviewed the matter, noting the agreement of the affected parties, and has decided to grant this request. Therefore, the last sentence in Item J of the IL "The notice for objections would typically be issued for an application with a capital cost in excess of $10 million" is deleted effective immediately.
Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 297-8133.
Manager
Pipeline Department
GANAD3ANA
86 1994
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Infornnational Letter
IL 94-9
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
5 AprU 1994
UCENSEE CRITERIA FOR FRONT COMPANIES
The implementation of Interim Directive ID 93-2 (ID 93-2), "Requirements for the Issuance of a Well Licence or Approval of Well Licence Transfers", has created administrative problems at the Energy Resources Conservation Board (the Board) with respect to issuing well licences to front companies. A front company is occasionally used by industry to apply for and obtain a well licence in order to provide anonymity for the true company drilling the well. This practice is intended to disguise a company's interest in a particular area from its competitors for a period of time. In the past, the Board has accommodated this type of transaction provided that the true company submitted an indemnification to the Board for the front company.
Notwithstanding the importance of the front company to industry practices, the Board believes that ID 93-2 must be applied uniformly to all companies applying for and holding well licences. The full application of licensee criteria to front companies has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada. A front company submitting a well licence application will be reviewed for compliance with ID 93-2 and will be required to fulfil any deficiencies before the well licence is issued. The Board will no longer accept indemnification by tiie true company, the front company will be expected to stand on its own in meeting the criteria of the interim durective. Any existing front companies with well licences that do not presently meet the criteria are requu*ed to remedy the situation by 30 September 1994.
Any questions respecting this matter should be du-ected to Mr. Ken Hunt of the ERCB's Drilling and Production Department at 297-6486.
N. G. Bemdtsson Board Member
ISI-
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-10
TO: All Oil and Oil Sands Operators
27 April 1994
CANADlAlNJA
PROGRESS REPORTS FOR IN SITU OIL SANDS PROJECTS REDUCED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
MAY 25 1994
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has reviewed progress report requirements for in situ oil sands commercial and experimental schemes. The ERCB has concluded that the progress report requirements for commercial schemes can be immediately eliminated except where special tests are conducted. Further, it has concluded that initial reporting requirements can be reduced for newly approved experimental schemes and data reported routinely on S-Reports should not be included. During its review the ERCB solicited industry's views and believes that the changes reduce the burden both on industry and the ERCB and streamlme reporting requirements. However, as the proposed changes will mean that the ERCB will be reducing its surveillance, added responsibility will fall upon industry to ensure that operations are carried out in accordance with regulations and approval conditions.
REPORTING FREQUENCY Commercial Schemes
Commercial schemes are exempt from further reporting under section 47 of the Oil Sands Conservation Regulation (OSCR). In lieu of annual progress reports, regular meetings will be held with operators to exchange information on an as needed basis. In cases where special tests are being conducted at commercial operations, separate reporting may be required. Operators will be advised of these cases m due course.
Experimental Schemes
For experimental schemes, the ERCB has relaxed the reporting frequency and eliminated the current requirement for semi-annual progress reports for the first 2 years of operation. Instead only annual reports and a final scheme report will now be required.
Rq)ort Content Revisions
Upgrades to the ERCB reportmg systems allow ERCB staff to retrieve production, injection, water use and casing failure data automatically, and consequently, this data can be eliminated from the reports.
Operators are reminded that progress reports should continue to include an interpretive discussion of scheme performance with specific reference to how performance relates to the experimental objectives.
2
Amendments to Regulations
The ERCB will issue an amendment to section 47 of the OSCR to accommodate these changes in reporting requirements.
Questions may be directed to the In Situ Section of the ERCB's Oil Sands Department at 297-2887.
R. N. Houlihan, P.Eng. Manager
Oil Sands Department
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-11
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
GOOD PRODUCTION PRACTICE CONVENTIONAL CRUDE OIL POOLS
canadiana
JUL 26 1994
1 June 1994
As part of its continuing effort to streamline allowable administration in conventional oil pools, the Board has conducted an mtemal review of pools subject to maximum rate limitations (MRLs) to identify those which could be placed on good production practice (GPP). The review focused on pools which contain wells incapable of producmg their penalized MRL and have limited potential for future development or enhanced recovery. Consideration was also given as to whether solution gas was being conserved and, if not, whether gas conservation would be economical. Therefore, effective 1 July 1994, the 370 pools listed on Attachment 1 will be granted GPP status unless written objection is received by 15 June 1994.
Operators are advised that the Board may rescind GPP where there is evidence that conservation is compromised or, upon request, where an operator believes that correlative rights are being violated. If it is determined that an off-target well in a GPP pool should be penalized in accordance with ID 94-2, the Board will assign a well rate to which the off-target penalty would be applied. Operators are further cautioned that pressure-testing requirements are independent of GPP status and any requests for change to survey requirements, pursuant to Guide G-40, should be addressed separately.
Any questions regarding this letter should be directed to the Board's Oil Department at 297-8566.
T. M. Hurst Assistant Manager Oil Department
Attachment
ATTACHMENT 1 TO IL 94-11 POOLS TO GPP - 1 JULY 1994
Acheson Detrital E
Acheson Wabamun B
Aerial Mannville B
Alderson Upper Mannville XX
Alderson Lower Mannville N
Alderson Lower Mannville XX
Alderson Lower Mannville MMM
Alderson Lower Mannville V2V
Alderson Lower Mannville E3E
Alderson Lower Mannville F3F
Alliance Blairmore C
Altario Bakken A
Amber Keg River P
Amber Keg River Q
Amber Keg River S
Amber Keg River T
Amber Keg River BB
Amigo Keg River C
Amigo Keg River F
Badger Upper Mannville D
Bantry Mannville MM
Bassano Upper Mannville E
Belloy D-1 K
Belloy D-1 M
BeUoy D-1 O
Belloy D-1 S
Belloy D-1 T
Berry Upper Mannville M
Bigoray EUerslie B
Black Muskeg C
Bonanza Doig B
Bow Island Sawtooth E
Brazeau River Belly River Q
Brazeau River Belly River V
Brazeau River Belly River RR
Brazeau River Belly River ZZ
Brazeau River Cardium C
Brazeau River Cardium G
Brazeau River Viking A
Byemoor Viking A
Caroline Cardium F
Caroline Cardium K
Caroline Second White Specks B
Caroline Basal Mannville N3N
Carrot Creek Cardium GG
Carrot Creek Cardium PP
Carrot Creek Cardium QQ
Carrot Creek Lower Mannville M,
Jurassic O, P, V & W Carstairs Blackstone A Cessford Mannville GGG Chauvin South Colony R Chicken Cardium A Chicken Chinook B Chigwell North D-3 B Countess Upper Mannville JJ Coimtess Lower Mannville V Craigmyle Banff R Crossfield Second White Specks B Crossfield Viking F Crossfield Rundle C Crystal Viking H Crystal Viking I Crystal Viking K Cygnet Glauconitic B Cygnet Glauconitic C Cygnet Pekisko A Cyn-Pem Cardium U Cyn-Pem Cardium W Cyn-Pem Viking A Dawson Slave Point H Deer EUerslie A Drumheller Upper Mannville A Drumheller Lower Mannville P Drumheller Lower Mannville U Eaglesham D-1 A Eaglesham North D-1 C Eaglesham North D-1 F Eaglesham North D-1 G Eaglesham North D-1 M Edson Cardium U Edson Cardium RR & ZZ Edson Cardium EEE Edson Rock Creek B Elnora Lower Mannville D Enchant Upper Mannville S Enchant Upper Mannville AA Enchant Arcs B Enchant Arcs I Enchant Arcs M & AA Entwistle Banff A Erskine Blairmore J Erskine Glauconitic I Evi Gilwood BB
2
Fairydell-Bon Accord Upper Mannville B Fenn West D-2 C Fenn West D-2 E
Fenn-Big Valley Upper Mannville L
Ferrier Viking H
Ferrier EUerslie C
Garden Plains Upper Mannville K
Garrington Cardium V
Garrington Viking Q
Garrington Mannville R & Lower Mannville ZZ
Garrington Lower Mannville P
Garrington Lower Mannville CC, DD & EE
George Kiskatinaw E
Ghost Pine Upper Mannville RR
Ghost Pine Upper Mannville WW
Ghost Pine Lower Mannville L
Ghost Pine Lower Mannville LL
Gilby Nisku C
Gilwood Gilwood F
Goodwin Basal Quartz A
Gordondale Oiarlie Lake C
Grand Forks Lower Mannville W
Grand Forks Sawtooth A2A
Grand Forks Sawtooth P2P
Halkirk Lower Mannville Q
Hanlan Belly River A
Harmattan East Viking C
Harmattan East Viking J
Harmattan East Viking K
Harmattan-Elkton Cardium A
Hays Lower Mannville Q
Hays Lower Mannville V
Hayter Upper Mannville A
High Prairie Gilwood G
Highvale Cardium D
Highvale Lower Mannville T
Huxley Lower Mannville B
Huxley Lower Mannville C
Hythe Halfway E
Jayar Dunvegan C
Joarcam Viking C
Joffre Viking D
Joffre Viking E
Joffre Blairmore O
Jumpbush Upper Mannville B
Jumpbush Upper Mannville Q
Karr Nikanassin A
Kaybob South Second White Specks A Kelsey Lower Mannville A
Knopcik Charlie Lake B Knopcik Charlie Lake D Lait Lower Mannville G Lanaway Viking B Lame Keg River OO Lathom Upper Mannville J Lathom Upper Mannville P Lathom Lower Mannville D Leahurst Viking E Leduc-Woodbend Blairmore RR Leo Upper Mannville H Little Bow Upper Mannville UU Lloydminster Colony V Lloydminster Sparky HI Lochend Cardium J Majorville Upper Mannville O Malmo D-2 B Manir Charlie Lake G Manyberries Sunburst II Manyberries Sunburst CCC Manyberries Sunburst HHH Markerville Jurassic A McLeod Gething K Medicine Hat Glauconitic C Medicine Hat Lower Mannville K Medicine River Viking P Medicine River Jurassic S Michichi Banff A Mikwan D-2 A Mikwan D-3 A
Minnehik-Buck Lake Belly River F Minnehik-Buck Lake Viking C Minnehik-Buck Lake Ostracod B Minnehik-Buck Lake Ostracod H Minnehik-Buck Lake Ostracod I Minnehik-Buck Lake Jurassic B Momingside Ellerslie A Nevis D-2 B Niton Rock Creek G Normandville D-1 E Normandville D-1 G Northville Cardiimi A Panny Keg River O Parflesh Lower Mannville E Peco Cardium D Pembina Belly River BBB Pembina Belly River A2A Pembina Belly River M3M Pembina Belly River 030
Pembina Lea Park A
Pembina Cardium V
Pembina Cardium W
Pembina Cardium X
Pembina Second White Specks B
Pembina Viking H
Pembina Glauconitic Z
Pembina Glauconitic DD
Pembina Glauconitic KK
Pembina Ostracod Q
Pembina Jurassic G
Pembina Jurassic K
Pembina Jurassic N
Pembina Jurassic V
Pembina Jurassic Z
Pembina Jurassic NN
Pembina Jurassic QQ
Pembina Jurassic RR
Pembina Nisku X
Penhold Lower Mannville D
Penhold Lower Mannville K
Pine Creek Cardium Q
Pine Creek Cardium U
Pine Creek Second White Specks A
Prevo Viking E
Prevo Upper Mannville B
Progress Charlie Lake M
Provost Upper Mannville U2U & Lloydminster T
Provost Upper Mannville P6P
Provost Lloydminster TT
Provost Cummings EE
Provost Cummings BBB
Provost Cummings EEE
Rainbow Muskeg LL
Rainbow Keg River P
Rainbow Keg River Q
Rainbow Keg River TTT
Rainbow Keg River D2D
Rainbow Keg River Q2Q
Rainbow Keg River S3S
Rainbow South Muskeg G
Rainbow South Muskeg S
Red Earth Slave Point FF
Red Earth Granite Wash UU
Red Earth Granite Wash PPP
Red Earth Granite Wash RRR
Red Earth Granite Wash ZZZ
Red Earth Granite Wash 121
Red Earth Granite Wash 020
Retlaw Mannville Y
Retlaw Mannville KKK
Retlaw Mannville RRR
Ribstone Sparky B
Richdale Upper Mannville L
Ricinus Cardium D
Ricinus Cardium II
Ricinus Cardium UU
Ricinus Cardium WW
Ricinus Cardium BBB
Ricinus Cardium JJJ
Ricinus Cardium MMM
Rings D-1 A
Ronalane Sawtooth DD
Rowley Upper Mannville O
Rowley Viking D
Rycroft Halfway E
Rycroft Halfway H
Seal Slave Point C
Seal Slave Point E
Senex Keg River BB
Shadow Gilwood Q
Shekilie Keg River U
Shekilie Keg River EE
Shekilie Keg River QQ
Shekilie Keg River AAA
Shekilie Keg River MMM
Shekilie Keg River PPP
Shekilie Keg River K2K
Shouldice Glauconitic O
Simonette Gething C
Slave Slave Point T
Sousa Keg River M
Spirit River Charlie Lake G, H & I
Spirit River Charlie Lake J
Spirit River Charlie Lake L
Spring Coulee Second White Specks A
Sullivan Lake Banff B
Swimming General Petroleum B
Sylvan Lake Cardium E, Second White
Specks B & Ostracod L Sylvan Lake Second White Specks C Sylvan Lake Viking M Sylvan Lake Lower Mannville 11 Sylvan Lake Elkton K Sylvan Lake Elkton L Sylvan Lake Elkton-Shunda G Sylvan Lake Pekisko A Sylvan Lake Pekisko Z
4
Taber Taber F
Taber North Taber K
Taber South Glauconitic E
Tangent D-1 D
Tangent D-1 HH
Tangent D-1 JJ
Tangent D-1 PP
Tangent D-1 YY
Tangent D-1 AAA
Teepee Charlie Lake A
Three Hills Creek Viking B
Tomahawk Ostracod G
Tomahawk Ostracod I
Tomahawk Nordegg C & Banff D
Travers Bow Island B
Trout Keg River K
Trout Keg River Z
Trout Keg River CC
Trout Keg River EE
Utikuma Lake Keg River Sand II
Valhalla Doe Creek O
Valhalla Charlie Lake C
Valhalla Charlie Lake L
Valhalla Charhe Lake P
Valhalla Boimdary J
Valhalla Halfway E
Virgo Muskeg V
Virgo Keg River K
Virgo Keg River NN
Virgo Keg River 040
Virgo Keg River V4V
Wanyandie Cardium A
Wanyandie Cardium C
Watts Lower Mannville D
Watts Banff H
Watts Banff O
Watts Banff X
Watts Banff AA
Wayne-Rosedale Basal Quartz CCC Wembley Charlie Lake D Wembley Halfway V Westerose South Glauconitic C Westpem Belly River B Wildmere Sparky G Wildwood Basal Quartz A Willesden Green Belly River I Willesden Green Belly River J
Willesden Green Belly River OO
Willesden Green Belly River TT
Willesden Green Second White Specks I
Willesden Green Viking G
Willesden Green Viking R
Willesden Green Viking T
Wimbome Glauconitic B
Windfall Gething D
Windfall D-3 C
Windfall D-3 F
Wood River D-2 B
Wood River D-3 B
Worsley Charlie Lake H
Yekau Lake D-3 A
Zama Muskeg WW
Zama Keg River VV
Zama Keg River N3N
Zama Keg River R3R
Zama Keg River N6N
Zama Keg River Y6Y
Zama Keg River DTD
Zama Keg River E7E
Zama Keg River F7F
/5f
CANADIANA
JUL 26 1994
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-12
To: All Oil, Gas, and OH Sands Operators
20 June 1994
ABANDONMENT FUND - 1994 ABANDONMENT FUND LEVY
The 1994 abandonment fund levy will be $55 per inactive well with assessment through the Energy Resources Conser\^ation Board's (ERCB) Administrative Lev>' System as a separate invoice on a licensee's inactive wells. For the purpose of this levy, an inactive well was defined as any well which recorded 12 consecutive months of nil production or mjection in the 1993 calendar year, excluding abandoned wells, observation wells, and domestic wells. Wells placed on production strictly for testing purposes are considered to be inactive wells.
Legislated revisions to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act resulted in a change in nomenclature with respect to the terms "Orphan Well Fund" and "Orphan Well Levy" and those changes are reflected in the title block of this informational letter. As in previous years, the ERCB expects that licensees will resolve payment of the levy with its working interest partners and submit the total amount owing to the Board. Invoices for the abandonment fund levy will be mailed on 8 July 1994.
Any inquiries pertaining to this fee should be directed to Yasmin Jamal of the Board's Financial Accounting Dep^^ment at 297-6990.
CANADIANA
JUL 26 1994
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-13
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
20 June 1994
ERCB PROGRESS REPORT REQUIREMENTS CONVENTIONAL ENHANCED RECOVERY SCHEMES
The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has concluded that progress reports in their current format and filing frequency are no longer required for most conventional enhanced recovery schemes.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Effective immediately, the operators of all waterflood and immiscible gas flood schemes are no longer required to file progress reports, unless specifically requested by the ERCB. Sections 12.120 and 12.130 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations will be amended to reflect this change.
REASONS FOR THE CHANGE
Progress reports were required for enhanced recovery schemes to provide the ERCB, the industry, and the public with a record of scheme operations and performance. The ERCB has used these reports to focus its discussions with operators respecting matters of performance, compliance, and operational strategy.
Until recently, the tabular and graphical data provided in progress reports was time-consuming and expensive to generate. However, computer systems (both ERCB internal and commercial) make it possible to generate much of this information on demand. Although the discussion portion of the reports was always important to the ERCB for understanding scheme performance, there was a wide variance in the quantity and quality of information submitted. Direct communication with the operator has proven to be the best way to confirm scheme operations and performance.
SELF-SURVEILLANCE BY OPERATORS
The elimination of regular reporting does not change the responsibility of operators to monitor their schemes and to keep the ERCB informed of significant events. The areas that the ERCB expects operators to be prepared to address on short notice include:
• scheme performance,
• compliance issues (i.e. approval clauses, pressure survey requirements),
• safety issues (e.g. over-pressuring, over-injection),
• corrective measures implemented or being evaluated,
• future plans and timing of changes.
2
Scheme ownership is of particular interest due to increasing concerns about orphan wells and facilities. Operators are expected to immediately apply to the ERCB to change the holder (operator) of an approval.
PRIORITIES FOR SURVEILLANCE
Until recently, the ERCB staff reviewed schemes on the same frequency as the progress report categories presented in Informational Letter IL 88-16. These categories no longer reflect changing priorities and resources. Therefore, the ERCB surveillance priorities for conventional enhanced recovery schemes will be as follows:
• new schemes,
• high productivity schemes,
• schemes with chronic problems or history of non-compliance,
• problem schemes brought to the ERCB's attention.
As noted previously, the ERCB may request operators to submit special reports for their schemes on an as-needed basis. These requests will be specific with respect to:
• why the report is required,
• what the report must address,
• data required and format if necessary,
• submission date and/or report frequency.
These changes should address several of the problems with existing progress reports. First, the burden of unnecessary reports for both operators and the ERCB will be eliminated. Second, they will provide the flexibility for scheme specific reports, which address only the unique concerns or issues for a given scheme. Third, surveillance effort will be prioritized and optimized, and fourth, the correspondence between operators and ERCB staff will deal with outstanding concerns or issues on a timely basis.
On the last point, the ERCB will expect timely action from operators given that routine progress reports have been eliminated.
REVIEW OF MISCIBLE FLOOD SCHEME PROGRESS REPORTS
The ERCB is currenUy reviewing its reporting requirements for some 50 miscible flood schemes in Alberta. The ERCB considers miscible floods high on its priority list because of the displacement mechanism, the size of the floods, and the special royalty relief program under which they produce. A decision on reporting requirements for these schemes will be issued under a separate letter.
Questions on these changes may be directed to Cheryl Adolf of the Oil Department at 297-8561.
R. A. Purvis, P. Eng.
Manager
Oil Department
fl[^(Di
JUL 26 1994
Energy Resources Conservation Board
640 Fifth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P3G4
Informational Letter
IL 94-14
TO: All Oil and Gas Operators
20 June 1994
PRIDE FORMS - IMPLEMENTATION NOTICE
The Partner Regulatory Information Data Exchange (PRIDE) project is a collaborative industry and multi-government mitiative. PRIDE convened m May of 1992 to analyze the information flows relating to the production and revenue accounting processes in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The scope includes both partner and regulatory reporting. PRIDE strives to eliminate . redundancy and to develop standardized reportmg processes which promote use of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
PRIDE has developed a data and a process model to document information flows relating to Production / Revenue Accounting. PRIDE is working towards the integration of the model with those of regulatory agencies. A new suite of volumetric reports has been developed by PRIDE to replace 'S' and 'GV reports in Alberta and corresponding documents m other jurisdictions. The Owner Activity Statement (OAS) was implemented effective January 1994 in Alberta in conjunction with Alberta Gas Royalty Simplification. The OAS is the standard volumetric facility allocation document for reporting to partners for gas and byproducts and industry is encouraged to use it for partner reporting in all tiiree western provinces.
PRIDE is currently nearing completion of the Well and the Facility Activity Statements (WAS and FAS) to replace S reportmg. The documents are standard for all three provinces but specific reporting requirements and implementation dates will vary among jurisdictions. EDI standards are also being developed and mdustry is encouraged to use EDI to report the WAS and FAS.
The ERCB has been involved in PRIDE from inception and will implement the Well and Facility Statements for all products effective with January 1995 production. Over the next few months, the ERCB will issue further details regardiug its own specific business rules, data exchange requirements and hnplementation needs for the WAS and FAS. Please start planning now for changes required to your systems for the Well and Facility Activity Statements.
pride's report detailing the standardized formats and reporting requirements is currently in draft form and is expected to be issued by July 15, 1994. PRIDE has recently established a help desk at (403) 260-7124 to handle industry queries. Please call if you would like more information.
K. E. Holyoke PRIDE Co-Chair
K. Gerig PRIDE Co-Chau-
Board Member
PRIDE
Tuesday, July 5, 1994
The PRIDE team has published Release #4 of the Re-engineering Design Report. This release contains the Well Activity Statement (WAS) and Facility Activity Statement (FAS) documents.
One copy of each document is available for each operator or royalty client for pick-up on Friday, July 15, 1994 at the Murphy Oil Office, which is located at:
Suite 2100 555 - 4th Avenue, SW Calgary, AB. T2P 3E7
Any further questions or concerns can be addressed to the PRIDE Office which is located at:
5th Floor 355 -4th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 0L4
Help Desk Phone Number: (403)260-7124 FAX: (403)260-4114
The PRIDE Registration Directory is required to be completed and presented to Murphy Oil upon pick-up of the documents.
WAS/FAS Documents
PRIDE Registration Directoiy
Company Name:
Company Address:
City:
Province or State:
Postal Code:
Contact Person:
Contact Phone Number:
Contact FAX Number:
(
(