text:
Chapter: 4 Governmental Roles and Responsibilities Related to Underground Injection and Induced Seismicity
« Previous: 3 Energy Technologies: How They Work and Their Induced Seismicity Potential
Suggested Citation:"4 Governmental Roles and Responsibilities Related to Underground Injection and Induced Seismicity." National Research Council. 2013. Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13355.
Governmental Roles and Responsibilities Related to Underground Injection and Induced Seismicity
Chapter 3 reviewed several instances of seismic activity that may have been induced by underground injection. Underground injection of fluids is a key component of enhanced oil recovery, development of some unconventional oil and gas resources such as shale gas, geothermal energy production, carbon capture and storage, and wastewater disposal, which is often a part of different kinds of energy technology development. Although seismic events induced by the underground injection of fluids have been recognized for many decades, few of these events have captured national attention. However, the recent debate concerning hydraulic fracturing has brought the issue of induced seismicity to a higher level of public attention. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is studying this topic1 concurrently with this National Research Council study and will publish its own report on this issue. It is important to note that, although this chapter deals mainly with induced seismicity caused by or likely related to the underground injection of fluid, induced seismicity can also be caused by the withdrawal of fluid from underground geologic formations.
Four federal agencies—the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—and different state agencies have regulatory oversight, research roles, and/or responsibilities related to different parts of the underground injection activities that are associated with energy technologies. Understanding these roles and responsibilities is important to the future development of energy technologies in ways that preserve public safety while allowing development of energy resources. This chapter provides a brief description of each agency's authority related to underground injection and induced seismicity. States' roles and responsibilities are also discussed; however, the committee did not perform a comprehensive review of all the states that are active in addressing the issue.
1 EPA has been facilitating a National Technical Working Group on Injection Induced Seismicity since mid-2011 and anticipates releasing a report that will contain technical recommendations directed toward injection-induced seismicity specific to Underground Injection Control (UIC) and Class II wells. See http://www.gwpc.org/meetings/uic/2012/proceedings/09McKenzie_Susie.pdf; P. Dellinger, presentation to the committee, September 2011.
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
More than 700,000 different wells are currently used for the underground injection of fluids in the United States and its territories.2 Underground fluid injection began in the 1930s in order to increase production from existing oil and gas fields and was used in later years to dispose of industrial waste, but it was unregulated until 1974 when Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The SDWA ensures safe drinking water for the public and establishes regulatory authority over the underground injection of fluids. In accordance with the act, the EPA is required to set standards for drinking water quality and to oversee all states, localities, and water suppliers that implement these standards. The EPA also regulates the construction, operation, permitting, and final plugging and abandonment of injection wells that place fluids underground for storage or for disposal under its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program.3 It is important to note that the SDWA gives authority to the EPA to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination due to underground injection and does not explicitly address the issue of seismicity induced by underground injection. UIC regulations requiring information on locating and describing faults in the area of a proposed disposal well are concerned with containment of the injected fluid, not the possibility of induced seismicity.
Developers applying for a permit to inject fluids underground must demonstrate to the EPA that the operation will not endanger any underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). This regulatory scheme allows for six classes of injection wells, which are classified by the type of fluid injected and the specific injection depth (e.g., above or below sources of drinking water). Under this program, oil and gas industry injection wells are regulated as Class II injection wells, which also generally cover enhanced oil recovery projects or projects involving the disposal of exploration and production wastes (NRC, 2010). Table 4.1 provides an explanation of the distinction among classes of wells regulated under the SDWA.
Although the number and distribution of the different classes of injection wells vary by state, Class V wells are by far the most numerous, accounting for almost 79 percent of the total number of reported UIC wells. Because Class V wells normally inject fluid into formations above USDWs, these wells are usually too shallow to be considered a source of induced seismicity. This does not hold true in all cases, however, because wells used for fluid injection associated with the extraction of geothermal energy are included in this class of injection wells and are often the source of seismic events. The total number of geothermal wells in the United States was estimated to be approximately 239 wells, with 153 of these wells located in California and 53 located in Nevada (EPA, 1999). Although Class VI wells
2 See water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/basicinformation.cfm.
TABLE 4.1 Classes of Wells in the EPA UIC Program
Class Use
I Injection of hazardous wastes, industrial nonhazardous liquids, or municipal wastewater beneath the lowermost underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) (650 wells).
II Injection of brines and other fluids associated with oil and gas production and hydrocarbons for storage. Injected beneath the lowermost USDW (151,000 wells).a
III Injection of fluids associated with solution mining of minerals beneath the lowermost USDW (21,000 wells).
IV Injection of hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above USDWs. Banned wells unless authorized by federal or state groundwater remediation project (24 sites).
V All injection wells not included in Classes I–IV. Generally used to inject nonhazardous fluids into or above USDWs and typically shallow onsite disposal systems (estimated 400,000–650,000 wells).b
VI Inject carbon dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage, also known as geologic sequestration of CO2 (estimated 6–10 wells by 2016).
aThe table provided by EPA describes Class II wells as "injected below the lowermost USDW." Although this is correct in most cases, injection below the lowermost USDW is not required for Class II wells, according to UIC regulations.
bMost Class V wells are unsophisticated shallow disposal systems that include storm water drainage wells, cesspools, and septic system leach fields.
SOURCES: water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells.cfm and water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class5/classv_study.cfm.
also inject into formations below USDWs, no commercial carbon sequestration facilities are operating at this time.
Texas, California, and Kansas have the highest number of deep injection wells4 (counting only Classes I through IV), and 15 states have no deep injection wells at all. Table 4.2 shows the number of UIC wells in each state, listed by well count.
As Table 4.2 shows, Class II injection wells represent 87 percent of the total number of Class I through Class IV wells. For this reason the oil-producing states of Texas, California, Kansas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma have higher numbers of deep injection wells than other states.
States, territories, and tribes can submit an application to the EPA to obtain primary enforcement responsibility, or "primacy," to implement the UIC program within their borders.5 Agencies that have been granted this authority oversee the injection activities
4 A deep injection well is a well that injects fluid below all underground sources of drinking water.
5 See water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/Primacy.cfm.
TABLE 4.2 2010 UIC Well Inventory Sorted by the Total Number of Deep Underground Injection Wells
State Class 1 Wells Class II Wells Class III Wells Class IV Sites Total UIC Wells Class I through Class IV
TX 108 52016 6075 4 58203
CA 45 29505 212 0 29762
KS 53 16658 145 0 16856
WY 41 4978 10552 0 15571
OK 6 10629 2 2 10639
IL 5 7843 0 0 7848
NM 5 4585 10 0 4600
NE 3 661 3913 0 4577
LA 37 3731 89 0 3857
KY 2 3403 0 0 3405
OH 10 2455 54 0 2519
IN 28 2091 0 0 2119
PA 0 1861 0 0 1861
MI 30 1460 46 0 1536
AK 29 1347 0 0 1376
MS 5 1110 0 0 1115
AR 13 1093 0 0 1106
MT 0 1062 0 0 1062
ND 4 1023 1 0 1028
CO 13 874 34 0 921
WV 0 779 21 0 800
NY 1 532 174 0 707
UT 0 428 16 8 452
MO 0 282 0 0 282
FL 212 58 0 0 270
AL 0 240 3 0 243
SD 0 87 0 0 87
VA 0 11 6 0 17
TN 0 18 0 0 18
NV 0 18 0 0 18
OR 0 9 0 7 16
AZ 0 0 15 0 15
NC 0 0 0 3 3
IA 0 3 0 0 3
WA 0 1 0 0 1
NOTE: Because fluid in Class I through Class IV wells are normally injected into formations below USDWs, these wells can be a cause of induced seismicity. Class V wells normally inject fluid above USDWs and are normally too shallow to create induced seismicity and are therefore excluded from this table. The 15 states not listed here have no deep injection wells. No Class VI wells are currently in operation; however, 6-10 are estimated by 2016.
SOURCE: EPA (2010).
TABLE 4.3 Status of EPA Regulatory Authority Across the United States
State Program
Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
EPA Program
American Samoa, Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virgin Islands, Virginia
State/EPA Program
Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Montana, South Dakota
Tribal/EPA Program
Fort Peck Tribe, Navajo Nation
SOURCE: EPA; available at water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/Primacy.cfm.
within their state. The EPA remains responsible for issuing permits in states that have not been delegated primacy and for the UIC programs on most tribal lands. Primacy for all classes of injection wells does not need to be granted to a state in order for a state to exercise regulatory authority over a single class of wells. For example, a state may exercise primacy over only Class II wells and no other class of injection wells. In this case the EPA would retain jurisdiction over all other well classes within the UIC program except Class II wells where primacy was delegated to the state. Currently, the EPA has granted primacy over all classes of injection wells in 33 states and 2 territories. The EPA shares jurisdiction for injection regulation in 7 states and has complete regulatory authority over underground injection in 10 states and 2 territories (see Table 4.3).
Primacy allows states to permit facilities, inspect wells, enforce against violations, and otherwise regulate underground injection activity within the state. States with primacy can disperse this authority through different state agencies. Some states regulate all classes of injection wells through one state agency (e.g., the Department of Health and Environment), and others divide the regulatory authority between several state agencies such as oil and gas commissions, health departments, and the local divisions of mining. However, regardless of how jurisdiction is divided, all state regulatory agencies are required to establish regulations that, at a minimum, conform to the EPA's UIC guidelines, which are outlined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 145.6
The authority delegated to the EPA by the SDWA is limited to technical issues involving well bore construction, allowable sources of injected fluid, and operational requirements such as maximum pressures and periodic testing that protect underground sources of drink-
6 Available at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/40cfr145_02.html.
ing water and the surface environment. The EPA, however, does not grant a contractual right to inject fluids or CO2 underground by their permitting process. In the case of fluid disposal or CO2 sequestration, this right is granted by the property owner via a "surface use agreement" with the injection well operator. These agreements may include fees paid to the property owner based on a monetary charge per barrel of fluid or ton of CO2 or a charge for land rental per month. These agreements can also include requirements on how fluid is delivered (by truck or by pipeline), how site security is handled, and what type of facilities will be used on the well site (tank, pits, and offloading facilities). Property owners can be private parties and/or governmental agencies such the BLM, the USFS, or state land management organizations. Underground injection for the purpose of secondary or tertiary recovery operations in an existing oil or gas field or injection to develop geothermal resources are usually allowed via an oil and gas or geothermal mineral lease.
Specific regulations governing the requirements of the UIC program are documented in 40 CFR, Parts 144 through 149. These regulations outline the general requirements of the UIC program, the requirements for state programs, and specific standards for well construction and testing. A comparison of these regulations is summarized in Table 4.4. This table includes only those classes of injection wells that are connected with energy technologies. These classes are Class II wells (associated with oil and gas production), Class V wells (associated with geothermal energy), and Class VI wells (associated with carbon sequestration). Although Class I wells have also been proven to induce seismic events, they are excluded from this study because they have no association with energy extraction.
In practice, the well construction requirements shown above are almost always met by using standard oil and gas well construction techniques, such as setting surface casing below all underground sources of drinking water and cementing casing high above all injection horizons. This method of setting and cementing casing strings at strategic depths ensures underground sources of drinking water are protected by at least two strings of steel casing (sometimes more) and at least two barriers of cement (Figure 4.1). The ability of the tubing or casing to contain pressure is required to be continuously recorded in a Class VI well and is tested every 5 years for Class II wells.
Other governmental agencies, in addition to the EPA or a state agency, may have jurisdiction over the injection permitting process. These additional agencies include the BLM, USFS, and USGS.
TABLE 4.4 Comparison of Regulations for Wells in the EPA UIC Program
Class II V VI
Use Injection of brines and other fluids associated with oil and gas production and hydrocarbons for storage. Injected beneath the lowermost USDWs (150,851 wells).a All injection wells not included in Classes I–IV. Generally used to inject nonhazardous fluids into or above USDWs and typically shallow onsite disposal systems (estimated 640,000 wells).b Of this number, approximately 234 wells are used for the injection of fluids in association with the recovery of geothermal energy for heating, aquaculture, and production of electric power (EPA, 1999). Permits for geothermal injection wells can be issued by the BLM in addition to state agencies or the EPA.c Inject carbon dioxide (CO2) for long-term storage, also known as geologic sequestration of CO2 (estimated 6–10 wells by 2016).
Siting All new Class II wells shall be sited in such a fashion that they inject into a formation which is separated from any USDW by a confining zone that is free of known open faults or fractures within the area of review (a confining zone is a formation that is capable of limiting fluid movement above an injection zone) (see 40 CFR 146.22(a)). Class V wells have no specific siting requirements. Owners or operators of Class VI wells must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the wells will be sited in areas with a suitable geologic system (see 40 CFR 146.83(a)). Confining zones free of transmissive faults or fracture and of sufficient areal extent and integrity to contain the injected carbon dioxide stream and displaced formation fluids and allow injection at proposed maximum pressures and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the confining zone(s) (see 40 CFR 146.83(a)(2)).
Construction All Class II wells shall be cased and cemented to prevent movement of fluids into or between underground sources of drinking water (see 40 CFR 146.22(b)). No specific regulations regarding well bore construction. Surface casing must extend through the base of the lowermost USDW and be cemented to the surface through the use of a single or multiple strings of casing and cement (see 40 CFR 146.86(b)(2)). At least one long string casing … must extend to the injection zone and must be cemented by circulating cement to the surface in one or more stages (see 40 CFR 146.86(b) (3)). All owners or operators of Class VI wells must inject fluids through tubing with a packer set a depth opposite a cemented interval at a location approved by the Director (see 40 CFR 146.86(c)(2)).
Required information At a minimum, the following information concerning the injection formation shall be determined or calculated for new Class II wells or projects: (1) fluid pressure, (2) estimated fracture pressure, and (3) physical and chemical characteristics of the injection zone (see 40 CFR 146.22(g)). Additional information that must be considered by the Director in authorizing Class II wells includes a map showing the injection well or project area for which a permit is sought and the applicable area of review. The map may show faults if known or suspected (see 40 CFR 146.24(a)(2)). Minimum federal UIC requirements are defined in 40 CFR 144–147. EPA Regional Offices administering the UIC program have the flexibility to establish additional or more stringent requirements based on the authorities in parts 144 through 147 (see 40 CFR 144.82(d)). A map showing the injection well for which a permit is sought and the applicable area of review; the map should also show faults, if known or suspected; only information of public record is required to be included on this map (see 40 CFR 146.82(a)(2)). The location, orientation, and properties of known or suspected faults and fractures that may transect the confining zone(s) in the area of review and a determination that they would not interfere with containment (see 40 CFR 146.82(a)(3)(ii)). Information on the seismic history including the presence and depth of seismic sources and a determination that the seismicity would not interfere with containment (see 40 CFR 146.82(a)(3)(v)).
Operational requirements Injection pressure at the wellhead shall not exceed a maximum which shall be calculated so as to ensure that the pressure during injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the confining zone adjacent to the USDWs (see 40 CFR 146.23(a) (1)). Injection between the outermost casing protecting underground sources of drinking water and the well bore shall be prohibited. No specific injection requirements are outlined for Class V wells except that "injection activity cannot allow the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of the primary drinking water standards … or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons" (see 40 CFR 144.82(a)). Except during stimulation, the owner or operator must ensure that injection pressure does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure of the injection zone(s) so as to ensure that the injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the injection zone(s) (see 40 CFR 146.88(a)).
Termination of permits The Director may terminate a permit during its term, or deny a permit renewal application for the following cause: a determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modification or termination (see 40 CFR 144.40(a)(3)). The Director may terminate a permit during its term, or deny a permit renewal application for the following cause: a determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modification or termination (see 40 CFR 144.40(a)(3)). The Director may terminate a permit during its term, or deny a permit renewal application for the following cause: a determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modification or termination (see 40 CFR 144.40(a)(3)).
bMost Class V wells are unsophisticated shallow disposal systems that include storm water drainage wells, cesspools, and septic system leach fields. Wells used for fluid injection in association with the recovery of geothermal resources are included in this class because they are an injection well "not included in Classes I-IV."
cA review of geothermal injection wells performed by the EPA in 1999 notes, "The permits [for Class V wells] are issued by state agencies, US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and/or the USEPA Regional Office, depending on the state and whether the well is located on state, federal, or private land. In general, the permits are similar to those issued for Class II injection wells" (EPA, 1999).
FIGURE 4.1 Typical construction of a Class II underground injection well. SOURCE: D. Dillon, used with permission.
The BLM has jurisdiction over onshore leasing, exploration, development, and production of oil and gas on federal lands in the United States.7 Certain contractual property rights and responsibilities governing resource development are created when BLM issues a lease to extract oil and gas resources or geothermal energy from federal lands (NRC, 2010). The BLM regulatory framework governing oil and gas extraction operations for federal and tribal lands is contained in 43 CFR Part 3160 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations).8 In the process of underground injection, the BLM normally has the role of a surface owner with jurisdiction over surface facilities and surface impacts. (For example, the BLM is required to take National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] provisions in its management of surface resources.) Permitting and construction considerations for these wells are reviewed and approved by the EPA or the appropriate state regulatory agency. The permitting and oversight of geothermal wells, however, can be an exception. The "Geothermal Steam Act" (43 CFR Parts 3200, 3210, 3220, 3240, 3250, and 3260) gives the BLM authority to regulate geothermal resources on federal lands administered by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, where geothermal resources were reserved to the United States. In these cases the BLM permits, approves, and regulates the development of geothermal resources (Box 4.1).
The USFS is primarily responsible for managing surface resources on national forest lands. The USFS cooperates with the Department of the Interior in administering exploration and development of leasable minerals, including the review of permit and lease applications and making recommendations to protect surface resources (USFS, 1994). As is the case with BLM, the USFS takes the role of surface owner in injection activities and exercises jurisdiction over surface facilities and surface impacts that are associated with injection operations. The USFS is also required to take into account NEPA provisions in its management of surface resources. The actual permitting and oversight of injection activities is exercised by the EPA, local state agencies, or the BLM.
7 BLM is primarily responsible for the regulation and development of federal oil and gas mineral resources under the following acts: the Mining Leasing Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 437; see BLM, 2007); the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1701-1782; see BLM, 2001); the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (101 Stat. 1330-256, an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920); the National Forest Management Act (16 USC 1600-1604); and the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research, and Development Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-479; 30 USC 1601-1605). Many of these acts are summarized in NRC (1989).
8 The BLM and USFS jointly prepared a manual, The Gold Book, which summarized surface operating standards and guidelines for oil and gas exploration and development (BLM and USFS, 2007).
BLM Regulation of Class V Geothermal Injection Wells: Seismicity Concerns
The BLM, through an informal agreement with the EPA, regulates the Class V geothermal injection wells in California. Under this arrangement the BLM has recently issued its "Conditions of Approval" for a proposed enhanced geothermal systems project that stipulated the specific procedures to be followed in the event that induced seismicity is observed to be caused by the proposed stimulation (hydraulic fracturing) operation.a As issued by the BLM, the specific procedures include the use of a "traffic light" system that allows hydraulic fracturing to proceed as planned (green light) if it does not result in an intensity of ground motion in excess of Mercalli IV "light" shaking (an acceleration of less than 3.9%g), as recorded by an instrument located at the site of public concern. However, if ground motion accelerations in the range of 3.9%g to 9.2%g are repeatedly recorded, equivalent to Mercalli V "moderate" shaking, then the hydraulic fracturing operation is required to be scaled back (yellow light) to reduce the potential for a further occurrence of such events. Finally, if the operation results in producing a recorded acceleration of greater than 9.2%g, resulting in "strong" Mercalli VI or greater shaking, then the active hydraulic fracturing operation is to immediately cease (red light).
aR.M. Estabrook, BLM, Conditions of Approval for GSN-340-09-06, Work Authorized: Hydroshear, The Geysers, January 31, 2012.
U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS provides scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect quality of life in the United States.9 It is the only federal agency with responsibility for recording and reporting earthquake activity worldwide, and it is often asked to aid state agencies in the investigation of possible induced seismicity. Its Earthquake Hazards Program serves as the USGS component of the multiagency National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which develops, disseminates, and promotes knowledge, tools, and practices for earthquake risk reduction that improve national earthquake resilience. The Earthquake Hazards Program also houses the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), which aims to determine the location and size of all destructive earthquakes worldwide and to disseminate this information to concerned agencies, scientists, and the general public.
The USGS is continuing to enhance its earthquake monitoring and reporting capabilities through the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). Since 2008 the USGS has
9 See www.usgs.gov/aboutusgs/.
installed approximately 300 new earthquake-monitoring instruments in the highest-risk areas. Full implementation of ANSS will result in 6,000 new instruments on the ground and in structures in at-risk urban areas (Box 4.2).
Seismic events that are thought to be induced are flagged in the USGS earthquake database. However, many or most events that USGS scientists suspect may be induced are not labeled as such, due to lack of confirmation or evidence that those events were in fact induced by human activity.10 This is often true with events in regions that have experienced natural earthquakes before any mining or extraction operations were established. The earthquake location accuracy provided by the NEIC depends primarily on the number and location of seismic stations recording the event. During the 2008-2009 Dallas–Fort Worth earthquake swarm, the accuracy of the initial NEIC locations was on the order of 10 km (6 miles), which made the events difficult to assign to a particular injection well (Frohlich et al., 2011). In areas of low historical seismicity, the NEIC network coverage tends to be sparser than in more seismically active areas, making the detection of small events (< M 3) and accurate hypocenter locations difficult (Box 4.3).
Although the concerns surrounding induced seismicity are relatively new, at least two states have now adopted, or are in the process of adopting, regulations or approval procedures to address the issue. Colorado and Arkansas are currently reviewing underground injection permits for possible problems with induced seismicity in the Raton Basin, Colorado, and Guy-Greenbrier area, Arkansas (Box 4.4). Recent seismic activity in the Raton Basin near a large coalbed methane field with active injection has prompted the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to initiate a policy requiring the Colorado Geologic Survey to review all Class II injection permits for geologic features that could result in seismicity due to injection. According to a statement released by the COGCC, "if historical seismicity has been identified in the vicinity of a proposed Class II UIC well, COGCC requires an operator to define the seismicity potential and the proximity to faults through geologic and geophysical data prior to any permit approval" (COGCC, 2011). Due to apparent instances of induced seismicity in Arkansas, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) proposed regulations to establish a "Moratorium Zone" covering over 1,000 square miles where no permit for a Class II well will be granted without a hearing by the Commission (AOGC, 2012). The proposed regulations also require no Class II permit will be issued within 5 miles of a "Moratorium Zone Deep Fault" without a hearing by the Commission.
10 Bruce W. Presgrave, USGS, personal communication, March 3, 2011.
Temporary Seismic Array Acquisition and Processing Cost Estimates
In the event of a felt induced seismic event, a temporary seismic network may be installed to augment the regional network or to record the events within the temporary network. This involves installing sensitive seismic instruments around the area of interest to record small earthquakes that are typically difficult to detect on more than a few instruments within a standard regional array. By augmenting the regional seismic stations with a dense temporary seismic network, seismologists can carry out detailed analyses on the earthquake waveforms and improve the earthquake location accuracy in the subsurface. Additionally, if the data and station coverage around an induced seismic event is appropriate, a better understanding of the earthquake's size and failure mechanism can be determined. The cost of a temporary seismic array including the array deployment, operation, and data analyses will depend on the number of stations, the location of the study area, the length of the study period, and the overall goals of the seismic monitoring project.
A variety of instruments is commercially available for recording small earthquakes. Broadband instruments specialize in recording a broad spectrum of waveforms from 120 to 175 Hz. Short-period instruments are equipped to record only high frequencies, in general > 1 Hz. A complete broadband station with recorder, geophone, and assorted auxiliary equipment costs around $25,000, and a short-period recorder is slightly less at approximately $20,000 (2011 cost estimates). Eight to 10 instruments are typically deployed for a small temporary seismic array, but as many as 20 instruments are deployed for more detailed earthquake surveys. The network sensitivity is often measured by how small an event can be recorded and located, and the array design will depend on sensitivity required for the study (for example, to record and locate an event down to M 0). Hence, for a temporary seismic array, instrumentation costs alone run from $120,000 to $370,000. The seismic instruments can be reused after the study is completed; some minor costs are associated with instrument maintenance and storage.
The expenditure associated with installing and running the temporary seismic array will depend on the location of the array and the length of the deployment. Estimated costs for a 150-day deployment are approximately $100,000, which includes the mobilization, demobilization, equipment setup, tie in with existing seismic network, and charges for data telemetry. The seismic instrumentation is very sensitive to ground motion, and geophones cannot be installed in areas with high background noise, such as freeways, busy urban areas, factories, etc., as they will be saturated with noise and unable to record seismic signal from small earthquakes. In noisy areas the seismic instruments may have to be placed in shallow boreholes (typically 200 to 400 feet deep), which will add additional cost to the array installation, which is not included in the price listed above.
Detailed analysis of the seismic data by qualified seismologists is required to determine earthquake hypocenters and magnitudes, estimate location errors, and determine the type of failure (focal mechanism or moment tensor inversion). The cost for the work will depend on the detail required; cost estimates for professional analysis for a 6-month seismic deployment is in the $200,000 to $300,000 range for a university-based project. Commercial companies—national laboratories, for example—are available to provide these types of services and prices will vary depending on the project scope. Thus the total cost, including purchasing seismic instruments and installing and operating the array for a 150-day deployment with 8 to 12 instruments is estimated at $400,000 to $800,000.
Less costly recording instruments are being developed that could significantly drive down the cost of an instrument to less than $1,000 to $3,000 per site (Hutchings et al., 2011); however, the type of instrumentation used will depend on the goal of the study. Overall instrumentation is a minor cost compared to the overall deployment and interpretation of the seismic data.
The National Earthquake Information Center
The NEIC,a headquartered in Golden, Colorado, is responsible for quickly determining the location and size of destructive earthquakes worldwide and disseminating in near real time the information to concerned national and international agencies, scientists, and the general public. NEIC produces a comprehensive catalog of earthquake source parameters and macroseismic effects for all M 4.5+ earthquakes worldwide and M 2.5+ earthquakes in the United States in coordination with USGS-supported regional seismic networks (see Figure for a map of magnitude sensitivity of the seismic network within the United States). The NEIC acquisition and processing system is designed for recording and analyzing seismic earthquakes on all scale lengths from near-real-time monitoring of aftershock sequences using dense local arrays to modeling of all damaging earthquakes worldwide.
For example, NEIC in 2011 simultaneously and seamlessly reported on the 2011 M 9.0 Japanese earthquake and its aftershocks and multiple earthquake sequences in the United States that included Guy, Arkansas; Mineral, Virginia; Prague, Oklahoma; and Trinidad, Colorado. In later cases, the existing seismic monitoring system was augmented by dense local seismic stations that enabled automatic detection and locations to magnitudes less than about 1.5.
In addition, NEIC and the Earthquake Hazards Program maintains a group of 32 portable seismic recording systems, designed for both strong (large earthquakes) and weak motion (events less than M 3), in order to respond to notable seismic sequences throughout the United States. This equipment is often loaned to
Figure Map of the minimum detectable earthquake magnitude within the lower 48 states using the ANSS array operated by the USGS/NEIC. Shading indicates the minimum-sized earthquake that can be detected and located by the NEIC, as indicated by the color bar on the right. Triangles mark seismic station locations. SOURCE: USGS/NEIC.
cooperating state geological surveys and regional seismic networks to address specific local seismic monitoring issues. NEIC's acquisition and processing system allows them to automatically integrate near-real-time and non-real-time waveform and source parameter data from regional seismic networks and portable seismic stations to develop complete seismic catalogs of earthquake sequences. As an example, NEIC is presently integrating its existing seismic bulletin for the 2011 M 5.8 Virginia earthquake with other non-real-time data from more than 40 stations deployed by multiple universities and/or state and federal agencies.
a See earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/neic/.
The 2010-2011 Guy Greenbrier, Arkansas, Earthquake Swarm and Arkansas Class II Injection Well Moratorium Area
A group of Class II wastewater disposal wells started operation April 2009 in central Arkansas, near the towns of Guy and Greenbrier, Arkansas. The wells were used to dispose of wastewater associated with gas development from the Fayetteville shale. A swarm of earthquakes (M ≤ 4.7) started in September 2010 between the towns of Guy and Greenbrier (Figure 1). The close spatial and temporal correlation between the seismicity and the wastewater injection wells suggests a link between injection and seismicity. All but 2 percent of the earthquake activity occurred in the vicinity of about a 6-km (3.7-mile) radius of three specific injection wells (labeled wells 1, 2, and 5 in Figure 1) (Horton, 2012). One injection well, number 5, appears to intersect a known fault, the Enders, which may allow fluid to travel down into deeper crustal structures (Horton, 2012).
Central Arkansas commonly experiences diffuse swarm seismicity, which is thought to be associated with the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), the largest seismic zone east of the Rocky Mountains. The NMSZ is located on the northeastern part of Arkansas, southeast Missouri, and northwest Tennessee (Figure 1). The Guy-Greenbrier area has a history of seismic activity, a series of earthquakes referred to as the Enola swarms, which occurred in the 1980s and in 2001, east-southeast of Greenbrier (Figure 2). The Enola swarms were not well located due to poor instrumentation; however, the activity tended to form elongated east-west trends from 3 to 7 km (9850–23,000 feet) in depth (Chui et al., 1984; Rabak et al., 2010).
The AOGC approved a moratorium for any new or additional Class II disposal on January 26, 2011. The injection moratorium area is approximately 5 miles surrounding the Guy-Greenbrier and Enola seismically active area and covers an area of over 1,150 square miles (AOGC, 2011).a Operators with existing Class II wells are required to report daily injection pressures and volumes to the AOGC director. The moratorium
Figure 1 Study area in Arkansas with Guy-Greenbrier seismic activity. Seismic stations installed by the Arkansas Geological Survey and the Center for Earthquake Research at the University of Memphis are marked by black squares; injection wells are marked by red dots; seismic events between October 1, 2010, and February 15, 2011, are marked by dark gray dots; and seismic events between February 16, 2011, and March 8, 2011, are marked by white dots. Named faults penetrate to the Precambrian basement (faults from AGS and AOGC). Right inset: First-motion focal mechanism for M 4.0 event on October 11, 2010, is consistent with right-lateral strike slip on a northeast-oriented fault. Left inset shows the location of the New Madrid Fault zone in northeastern Arkansas with historical earthquakes. SOURCE: Modified from Horton (2012); see also earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/poster/2011/20110228.php.
Figure 2 Map of the historical seismicity in the Guy-Greenbrier area 1976 to 2009, including the Enola swarm. SOURCE: Horton (2012).
was placed to allow time to investigate "a potential correlation between the seismic activity and disposal well operations in the Guy-Greenbrier, Arkansas area" (AOGC, 2011). In the surrounding Fayetteville shale development area outside the Permanent Moratorium Area, the AOGC director may propose additional requirements for any new disposal wells (AOGC, 2011).
a See AOGC (2011) for a detailed map of the AOGC's proposed Permanent Moratorium Area for disposal wells.
EXISTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR FLUID WITHDRAWAL
While the injection of fluid underground is regulated by the EPA, the BLM, and state agencies, the extraction of fluids is normally not regulated or is minimally regulated. The number of events of induced seismicity caused by the withdrawal of fluid is approximately equal to the number of events caused by the underground injection of fluids for both disposal and secondary recovery (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1), but fluid withdrawal is usually not curtailed due to induced seismicity. This is because the pumping of fluids from underground reservoirs can be divided among many different oil companies, and states only require permits to drill oil and gas wells, not to produce fluid from them. One method of controlling the withdrawal of fluids from an underground reservoir is through "unitization." Unitization is an order granted by the state oil and gas regulators that designates one oil and gas company to be the "unit operator" of the unitized oil and gas field, and profits and expenses from oil and gas operations are divided among operators as dictated by the unitization agreement (Box 4.5). This
Unitization
In 1892 Edward Doheny and Charlie Canfield discovered the Los Angeles City oil field. By 1895 the field had produced 729,000 barrels of oil, nearly 60 percent of California's production. The discovery was in a townlot area composed of small residential lots. Each townlot lot owner had both surface and mineral rights. California has the "Law of Capture," which means that a "liquid mineral" can move from one property to another. Because of this each owner had to drill a well or have their oil taken by their neighbor. This resulted in runaway drilling and very inefficient and expensive oil operations. Some producers would overproduce their wells and harm the productivity of their neighbors, resulting in inefficient and expensive development.
Early in the 1900s the State of California formed the Division of Oil and Gas (now called DOGGR). In the period from 1923 to 1926, Union, Shell and Associated Oil Company under a cooperative agreement developed the Dominguez oil field. This unit proved to be an efficient way to manage the field with almost no wastage. The Subsidence Control Act of 1958 encouraged voluntary pooling and unitization and provided for compulsory unitization if needed. The individual operators of an oil field would be combined into a Unit and the oil field would be operated by one party called the Unit Operator. The other participants are called Working Interest Owners. Unit documents would define the unit and the participant's share of the total, called the Equity Determination.
Unitization has proven to be an effective way to share the wealth and operations of oil fields fairly while protecting the environment and guaranteeing energy conservation. It is also easier to regulate because all parties share the profits and losses but one party, the Unit Operator, is in charge. DOGGR has used unitization to force efficient waterfloods and prevent environmental problems.
SOURCE: Rintoul (1990).
order is normally requested prior to initiating secondary recovery operations and is granted with the consent of the majority of the affected oil and gas operators. Because a unitization order is granted by a state's oil and gas governing body, it can also include requirements to limit fluid withdrawal for a variety of reasons. These might include conservation of the oil and gas resource, limited injection of fluid, or induced seismic events. Although many oil and gas fields have been unitized in the United States, we know of no instance where produced fluid volumes have been curtailed to limit induced seismicity.
Although the SDWA provides a regulatory framework for the underground injection of fluids, the act does not explicitly address the issue of induced seismicity or how induced seismic events should be investigated and regulated. Currently, many different agencies have oversight of the UIC program, such as the EPA, various state agencies, the BLM, and the USFS. To date, these various agencies have dealt with induced seismic events with different and localized actions, using input from additional government agencies such as the USGS and various state geologic surveys, as well as university researchers. These efforts to respond to incidence of perceived induced seismicity have been successful but are of an ad hoc nature and can vary widely depending on the different agencies involved.
AOGC (Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission). 2011. Proposed Permanent Moratorium for Disposal Wells in Certain Areas. Public Announcement—Docket No. 180A-2011-07. January 26. Available at stream.loe.org/images/110624/Proposed_Permanent_Moratorium.pdf (accessed October 2012).
AOGC. 2012. Final Rule H-1—Class II Disposal and Class II Commercial Disposal Well Permit Application Procedures. February 17. Available at aogc.state.ar.us/PDF/H-1%20FINAL%202-17-2012.pdf (accessed October 2012).
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2001. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as Amended. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf (accessed December 2012).
BLM. 2007. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as Amended. Retranscribed on August 9, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/mla_1920_amendments1.pdf (accessed December 2012).
BLM and USFS. 2007. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development: The Gold Book, 4th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.18714.File.dat/OILgas.pdf (accessed January 2012).
Chui, J.M., A.C. Johnston, A.G. Metzger, L. Haar, and J. Fletcher. 1984. Analysis of analog and digital records of the 1982 Arkansas earthquake swarm. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 74:1721-1742.
COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). 2011. COGCC Underground Injection Control and Seismicity in Colorado. January 19. Denver, CO: Department of Natural Resources. Available at cogcc.state.co.us/Library/InducedSeismicityReview.pdf (accessed December 2012).
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. The Class V Underground Injection Control Study. Volume 17: Electric Power Geothermal Injection Wells. EPA/816-R-99-014q. Washington, DC. Available at www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/classv/pdfs/volume17.pdf (accessed November 2012).
EPA. 2010. 2010 UIC Well Inventory. EPA Underground Injection Control Program. Available at water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/upload/UIC-Well-Inventory_2010-2.pdf (accessed February 2012).
Frohlich, C.F., C. Hayward, B. Stump, and E. Potter. 2011. The Dallas–Fort Worth earthquake sequence: October 2008 through May 2009. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(1):327-340.
Horton, S. 2012. Disposal of hydrofracking-waste fluid by injection into subsurface aquifers triggers earthquake swarm in central Arkansas with potential for damaging earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 83(2):250-260.
Hutchings, L.J., B. Jarpe, K.L. Boyle, B.P. Bonner, G. Viegas, H. Philson, P. Statz-Boyer, and E. Majer. 2011. Near-real time, high resolution reservoir monitoring and modeling with micro-earthquake data. Presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall 2011 Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December 5-9.
NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Land Use Planning and Oil and Gas Leasing on Onshore Federal Lands. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2010. Management and Effects of Coalbed Methane Produced Water in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Rabak, I., C. Langston, P. Bodin, S. Horton, M. Withers, and C. Powell. 2010. The Enola, Arkansas, intraplate swarm of 2001. Seismological Research Letters 81:549-559.
Rintoul, W. 1990. Drilling Through Time, 75 Years with California's Division of Oil and Gas. Division of Oil and Gas Publication TR40. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Conservation.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1994. Forest Service Manual, Title 2800—Minerals and Geology. Amendment No. 2800-94-2. Available at www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2800/2820.txt (accessed December 2012).
Next: 5 Paths Forward to Understanding and Managing Induced Seismicity in Energy Technology Development »


text:
Facebook founder honoured by The Economist
By Patrick Goss 2009-10-19T11:52:00.291Z Internet
Innovation award handed to Zuckerberg
Facebook - a bit popular
The Economist has awarded Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg with its 'No Boundaries' Innovation Award.
Zuckerberg has been handed the award for his work in popularising social networks – although you could suggest that the lion's share of his work in this area happened years ago.
Nonetheless, Zuckerberg has been handed the accolade for creating a site in 2004 that now boasts over 300 million active users.
Zuckerberg will be handed the gong at an event at the end of October, following in the footsteps of the likes of prior winners Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Challenging convention
"Challenging conventional thinking to solve problems in bold new ways has been an important part of Facebook's success, and I'm honoured and humbled to receive this reward in recognition," said Zuckerberg.
"We'll continue to build on our hacker culture to push technical boundaries and create new and elegant solutions to make the world more open and connected."
See more Internet news

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


How should the effectiveness of social stories to modify the behaviour of children on the autistic spectrum be tested? Lessons from the literature.
Mercury, lead, and zinc in baby teeth of children with autism versus controls.
Parental stress associated with caring for children with Asperger's syndrome or autism.
Patient report: autism spectrum disorder treated with camel milk.
Supporting students with autism spectrum disorders in inclusive settings.
Enhancing learning for children with autism spectrum disorders in regular education by instructional modifications.
Effects of a standardized pamphlet on insomnia in children with autism spectrum disorders.
Topography-versus selection-based responding: Comparison of mand acquisition in each modality.


I want to put my thinking about my work in context. I think of this context as a series of frames that my art operates within.
The first frame is one of values. The context here is that doubt is good. Uncertainty is helpful. To develop a better understanding of the world, we first have to accept that we don't know everything, that our thinking and ideas are fallible.
The second frame is one of substance. The world is not permanent or immutable. Everything and every moment is constantly passing away. Conversely, and on the bright side, there is a future full of new potential.
The third frame is aesthetic. Its a belief that art communicates in ways that are beyond what can be put into words. Art has to speak without words.
There are of course many more frames of reference than these, both conscious and unconscious. There's everything from culture and history to media and materials. The three frames I describe situate my work within a larger universe of art.


Campaigners are hoping to stop the demolition of a 300-year-old pub by getting the building listed.
Residents in Frindsbury are unhappy about plans to knock down the Royal Oak pub in Cooling Road to make way for six three-bedroom houses.
A petition started by Joe O'Donnell calls on Medway Council to issue a building preservation notice to prevent the Georgian pub being demolished. It has already been signed by almost 1,000 people.
Agent Nicholas Taylor and Associates, acting on behalf of a developer, has sent people living in the area a letter informing them of their plans to replace the 18th century building with a terrace of six homes.
The letter stated Medway Council's initial response to the plans had been very positive.
The pub, which dates back to the 1700s, closed in September last year when it was sold by Enterprise Inns.
The building is unlisted and not in a conservation area, so no planning permission is needed to pull it down. Permission is only needed to build the houses on the site.
Mr O'Donnell, who lives in Cooling Road, set up the campaign to urge Medway Council to issue a building preservation notice due to its architectural and historic interest. Supporters say the building could be listable and needs closer inspection.
Mr O'Donnell, 32, said: "I have many happy memories of the Royal Oak.
"It could use some investment but it is a great pub which has been at the heart of the community for hundreds of years.
"This historic building deserves better than demolition.
"Medway Council must back our call for a building preservation notice or its commitment to our heritage will be in doubt.
On Wednesday the pub will be open from 6pm until 7.30pm so people can go look at the plans and talk to developers about the project.
A formal planning application has not yet been submitted to Medway Council.


text:
FMC Newsletter #53 | February 16, 2007
FMC Wants to Know More About YOU - Fill Out A Quick Survey
Policy Update: Media Ownership
Policy Update: Payola
The Latest Fact Sheets
Digital Rights Management Debate Grows
FMC's Walter McDonough to Keynote at Millennium Music Conference, February 17
Continuing the Net Neutrality Discussion at Freedom 2 Connect conference
FMC Takes Its Show on the Road to New York and Memphis
We're hoping you, our loyal newsletter subscribers, can take a few minutes today to fill out a quick survey and tell us a little about yourselves, what issues are important to you, how you feel about our policy positions, and how our website can be more useful to you.
The survey is both confidential and anonymous and you're free to skip any questions along the way. The whole survey takes less than 5 minutes and would be enormously helpful to us. After all, the more we know about you, the better we can give you the information you need. Thanks!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=226543196894
The FCC continues to debate potential changes to existing media ownership rules, including the rules that govern how many radio stations any one company can own in a given market. In December 2006, FMC issued a major report entitled "False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry" which examined the impact of radio consolidation on the music community.
http://www.futureofmusic.org/research/radiostudy06.cfm
Radio study's most recent press:
Bad Radio Hurts Musicians
Cara Jepsen, Illinois Entertainer, January 31, 2007
Rogue Waves; A new report cuts through the static on the radio industry
John Nova Lomax, Houston Press, January 11, 2007
10 Years Later, Radio's Business as Usual
Paul J. McLane, Radio World, January 17, 2007
On January 16, FMC filed the entire report as part of our reply comments in the current media ownership proceeding. Our reply comments also vigorously questioned the arguments for further deregulation, represented primarily in comments by the NAB and Clear Channel. You can read our reply comments here:
FMC Reply Comments in FCC Media Ownership Hearing 06-121
http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/FCCreplycomments07.cfm
FMC also continues to participate in the public debate. One of the oft-cited arguments against media consolidation revolves around a night in January 2002 when a train derailed in Minot, ND and discharged a cloud of poisonous anhydrous ammonia. Clear Channel, which owned six of the local radio stations, had neglected to maintain an off-hours contact for their stations, which led to the failure of the local emergency communication system to warn citizens about the disaster. Author Eric Klinenberg starts off his new book "Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America's Media" with a recounting of this story and its fatal results, where one person died and dozens were injured.
On January 10, Slate.com's Jack Schafer questioned whether the tragedy in Minot recounted by Klinenberg was a result of media consolidation.
FMC's Peter DiCola responded swiftly to Shafer's article, posting a fact-filled rejoinder that was posted at Slate.com on January 10, 2007:
http://www.slate.com/?id=3936&m=18686383
Peter then expanded his response for The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dicola/the-debate-over-minot-rad_b_38421.html
We've also been tracking Congress' interest in the ongoing media ownership debate. With a leadership change in Congress, the FCC has recently been called up to Capitol Hill to account for their actions on a variety of issues. On February 1, all five FCC commissioners appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee, where a number of leading senators questioned the current process for reviewing media ownership rules and expressed concern about the potential for further relaxation of current ownership regulations.
Senate Dems Push FCC for Tighter Controls
Senate Democrats pressed the Republican-controlled FCC to place tighter controls on media ownership, public-interest broadcasting and television violence.
Charles Babington, Washington Post, February 2, 2007
Senate Democrats badger FCC boss on Net neutrality
A much-anticipated face-off Thursday between a key Democratic-dominated U.S. Senate panel and the Republican-controlled FCC confirmed lingering tensions over the government's role on issues like Net neutrality and media ownership.
Anne Broache, CNET, February 1, 2007
The commissioners will appear before the House Commerce Committee in the coming weeks, where chairman John Dingell is expected to have similarly tough questions for the commissioners.
Meanwhile, the media ownership rulemaking process marches on. The FCC has committed to holding an additional 4 formal hearings, and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein will be appearing at unofficial hearings across the country throughout early 2007, including an official hearing in Harrisburg, PA on Friday, February 23 and an unofficial hearing with Commissioners Adelstein, Copps and McDowell in Columbus, OH on March 7. To learn more about how you can participate in this event and others, visit http://www.stopbigmedia.com.
For seven years, FMC has worked to document and combat the practice of payola. Now, in the wake of Eliot Spitzer's investigations in New York State, the FCC may finally take action in an attempt to resolve these widely acknowledged problems, in the form of a brokered agreement between the agency and the commercial broadcasters. FMC is very concerned that any Consent Decree negotiated by the FCC and the broadcasters will be a failure unless it includes:
A basic framework for how the local independent music community can interact with the commercial radio industry to gain access to commercial airplay;
A credible oversight plan that ensures the negotiated framework can be enforced in a way that will lead to true reform; and
Serious penalties that hold the broadcast industry responsible for years of abusive practices that have so damaged the music community and the public.
FMC applauds the ongoing leadership of FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and Senator Russ Feingold, among others, as this issue reaches a major decision point. A formal announcement from the FCC is expected any day.
FMC's full statement on a potential payola settlement can be found at:
http://www.futureofmusic.org/news/FCCpayolaconsentdecree07.cfm.
Senator Feingold Calls of Strong Consent Decree on Payola
FMBQ, January 31, 2007
What Can Money Buy?
Anonymous sources have suggested that the FCC will soon announce a settlement with four major radio broadcasters over payola.
Dan Mitchell, New York Times, January 27, 2007
Ever wonder what an orphan work is? Want to know why HD Radio should matter to you? Can't understand why we're talking about media ownership AGAIN?
Here's your chance to get answers to all those questions as well as a brief, no frills overview on the following topics:
The Upcoming Full Power Non-Commercial Radio LIcense Window
Low Power FM Radio
If you have suggestions for additional fact sheet topics, let our Outreach Director Jean Cook know jean [at] futureofmusic [dot] org.
What began as a regulatory headache for Apple - multiple European nations urging Apple to make their iTunes system interoperable with others - has become a full-blown debate about how the digital music world should function.
As has been widely reported, Steve Jobs recently posted an open letter on the Apple website calling for the four major labels to sell their music without DRM restrictions.
Open Letter from Apple's Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Music
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
The RIAA and a number of major record labels responded:
Music Industry Group Fires Back at Apple
Alex Viega, Associated Press, February 8, 2007
PC World, February 10, 2007
EMI May Sell Recordings Online With No Anti-Copying Software
Jeff Leeds, New York Times, February 9, 2007
Here's an excellent analysis of Steve Jobs' meta-strategy in calling for an end to DRM:
Jobs Plays Pragmatic Politics
Digital Music News, February 7, 2007 (free registration required)
A recent report that captures music industry opinions on DRM:
Music execs criticise DRM systems
Jupiter Report finds that almost two-thirds of music industry executives think removing digital locks from downloadable music would make more people buy the tracks.
BBC News, February 15, 2007
Interestingly, the Jobs letter is just one of the elements in an ongoing debate about DRM.
On January 7, Senator Dianne Feinstein reintroduced the PERFORM Act. On its face, this bill attempts to address concerns voiced by the recording industry about new devices being marketed by satellite radio companies - Sirius and XM - that permit subscribers to record their digital radio programming. The recording industry is worried that consumers would use these devices to automatically search for, record, and store individual songs, all neatly tagged with metadata, thus reducing the likelihood that they would buy an artist's album.
The PERFORM Act would require satellite and Internet radio providers to restrict the ability of listeners to record and play back individual artists or songs. If passed, all audio services—webcasters included—would be obligated to implement "reasonably available and economically reasonable" copy-protection technology aimed at preventing "music theft" in order to use the blanket compulsory license. This means webcast stations that make use of the statutory license would not be able to stream in the streaming MP3 format, which is today's standard.
There are two problems with this. First, imposing a DRM regime on webcasters and satellite radio providers ignores the remarkable growth of digital radio on an open platform, and the new licensing revenue streams they have created for recording artists, songwriters and labels. To date, SoundExchange has paid out over $53 million to thousands of artists and record labels. How many internet radio stations would cease webcasting if they were required to implement a copy-protection technology, and what would this mean for future digital performance royalties?
Second, it negates artist choice. If some artists want to release their songs with copy protection, they should be allowed to do so. If other artists do not like DRM, they are free to distribute it without restrictions. But the PERFORM Act would remove this choice by requiring a DRM standard be applied to an entire mode of digital performances.
FMC believes artists and labels are better served when we choose licenses over locks. At a moment when the recording industry is debating the efficacy of any DRM system, we think artists, the recording industry, and the consumer technology groups would be better served by working together towards a licensing solution that ensures the compensation of creators and the continued growth of innovative technologies, not one that would stifle an emerging marketplace and curtail new licensing revenues for creators.
Sen Feinstein's press release on PERFORM Act
http://feinstein.senate.gov/07releases/r-perform0111.htm
Senators aim to restrict Net, satellite radio recording
Music industry backs the effort, but digital rights groups say it would erode users' music-listening freedoms.
Anne Broache, CNET, January 12, 2007
Will the Perform Act Kill Online Radio?
WFMU's Beware of the Blog, January 22, 2007
The 11th Annual Millennium Music Conference will be held February 15-18, 2007 at the Radisson Penn Harris Hotel & Convention Center in Camp Hill, PA. The three day conference will feature panels, clinics, workshops, mentoring & demo listening sessions as well a music business trade show. And the four nights will be crammed with showcases by original acts.
Walter McDonough, one of FMC founders and general counsel (and heart-broken New England Patriots fan) will be giving the keynote address on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 5:15 pm. If you happen to be near Harrisburg, PA that weekend, it's a great opportunity to hear him speak and attend an exciting conference.
http://musicconference.net/mmc11/
We at FMC believe that network neutrality is the most important issue that musicians will face in 2007. Because it's such a vital issue to the future livelihoods of musicians, we're pleased to be participating in the ongoing debate during the Freedom to Connect conference in Washington, DC on March 5 & 6, 2007.
The goal of Freedom to Connect is to frame government telecom and Internet policy initiatives - such as the Network Neutrality debate - in terms of freedoms, rights innovation and the public good rather than incentives for big companies, and how much competition is too much.
This year, Freedom to Connect features sci-fi author Bruce Sterling, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas explaining his Vermont e-State initiative, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, Musician Howard Levy (founding member of The Flecktones), Yale Law Professor (and FMC advisory board member) Yochai Benkler, and two dozen other leading thinkers from technology, law, public advocacy, the arts and peer creativity applications like Second Life.
Learn more at http://freedom-to-connect.net
Take advantage of the special FMC discount by registering at the following link by Wednesday, February 21: http://tinyurl.com/29m82t
Did you miss us at the International Association for Jazz Education, Chamber Music America and Association of Performing Arts Presenters conferences in New York? Not to worry! We recorded most of the sessions, and are hoping to post them on the website in the coming months. In the meantime, check out the blog we put together for APAP on how creators and presenters can better use new technologies like Flickr, YouTube, MySpace and RSS feeds to connect with audiences: http://apapcreatingculture.blogspot.com.
FMC was also excited to send a delegation to Memphis this January to attend the third annual National Conference for Media Reform, organized by Free Press. In addition to meeting tons of amazing and inspiring activists from every corner of the globe, FMC's Jenny Toomey and Michael Bracy appeared on panels addressing payola, media ownership, and effective advocacy.
MP3's of these panels are available here:
http://www.freepress.net/conference/=full_schedule07
FMC enjoyed the programming-packed three days, connecting with fellow activists, and the great barbeque, and we're looking forward to the next conference.
Fans, labels are split on unlocked music plan
by Alana Semuels and Michelle Quinn, Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2007
Indie Music Takes on the Majors
Indie labels are forging new alliances to set better prices in the digital marketplace and to advocate for a payola solution.
by Eliot van Buskirk, Wired, February 5, 2007
Radio & Records' Publisher's Profile on FMC's own Jenny Toomey
by Erica Farber, Radio & Records, January 19, 2007
Sony settles with FTC in rootkit case
Proposed agreement includes barring Sony BMG from installing copy protection software on CDs without users' consent.
by Dawn Kawamoto, CNET News.com, January 30, 2007
With Arrest of DJ Drama, the Law Takes Aim at Mixtapes
by Kelefa Sanneh, New York Times, January 18, 2007
What the Canadian Government Really Things About Net Neutrality
by Michael Geist, February 7, 2007
Jenny Toomey
Michael Bracy
Walter McDonough
Brian Zisk
Kristin Thomson
Jean Cook
Chhaya Kapadia
Donate to the Future of Music Coalition!
Secure online donations are accepted at any level at https://www.futureofmusic.org/donate.cfm
Digital Rights Management (DRM)
Low Power FM (LPFM)
Payola
FMC Newsletter | March 10, 2016
Future Music Newsletter: August 2015
FMC Newsletter #129 | April 27 2015
FMC Newsletter #125 | October 24, 2014
FMC Newsletter #124 | Sept 17, 2014


More cards from the Wal-Mart Combo I purchased last month. This post we'll look at the 2017 Topps Series 1, Series 2 and Update cards I received. There were five packs of each series. My series 1 cards were pretty good highlighted by Red Sox all-time great Dustin Pedroia in a nice looking card. There were other stars as well including Albert Pujols, Kris Bryant and Dallas Kuechel. The 2017 Topps is a design I like. These series 1 packs didn't wow me but they were still fun.
The Topps Series 2 cards offered up personal favorite Yadier Molina. I also pulled World Series Champion David Price as well as current, and what feels like forever, free agent Manny Machado. This series puts a focus on younger players in their first years so I was happy with my pull of some of the big stars of the league.
The Update series always give me some all-star game cards. I'm an all-star game guy so these are always fun for me. George Springer. He and the Houston Astros of course would go in to win their first World Series. That team is still young and stocked so they should contend for years to come. Are the Blue Jays dabbing? Or something else this old man doesn't get? Still a fun card. Overall I enjoyed the 2017 packs but I can't say they blew me away. All the Wal-Mart combos I've put up so far can be seen here.
After seeing these cards... I love 2019 Topps that much more. I don't think 2017 Topps looks terrible, but I just can't handle all of the zoomed in photography.
I hadn't looked at these cards like that but I get what you are saying.


Mindfulness as an approach in psychological therapy originated in the 1970s and has developed into a well researched and evidence based technique (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009). It uses a combination of cognitive therapy and meditation practices (Germer, 2005) and seeks to equip people with a range of skills to cope with unpleasant or adverse experiences in a constructive way. It enables them to be aware of thoughts, feelings and sensations without automatically responding to cues.
Mabel Thomas (not her real name), aged 78, attended a shared care alcohol clinic at her GP surgery. She initially attended with her daughter as they were both concerned about her use of alcohol. Mrs Thomas said she was drinking up to three bottles of wine per day, well above the recommended safer drinking level. We initially started with motivational interviewing, a technique to enable people to become ready for change.
When I next saw Mrs Thomas she had stopped drinking alcohol completely with the help of medication from her GP. However, she was extremely anxious, experiencing panic attacks which prevented her going out and doing things, such as visiting busy places or the hairdressers. I taught her a short meditation technique called the three minute breathing space to enable her to "centre herself" at times of panic.
I next saw Mrs Thomas after two weeks and she remained abstinent from alcohol. She said she had been practising the new technique and found it helpful, but she was very anxious in the session. We discussed anxiety with the help of diagrams, exploring the cycle and how it is maintained and perpetuated. Mrs Thomas described "butterflies in the stomach" with a sense that something terrible was going to happen. Her anxiety usually started half an hour after getting up in the morning, and she had recently started antidepressant medication prescribed by her GP. We discussed mindfulness and Mrs Thomas said she would like to try it.
We practised a 20 minute guided seated meditation focusing on sounds, breath and body. I could hear Mrs Thomas often gulping for breath and moving about, although she said she felt calmer afterwards. I suggested she practise a guided body scan meditation daily, a progressive exercise focusing on areas of the body in order to focus on present sensations and reduce worrying about the past or future. I asked Mrs Thomas to practise this once a day and return to the clinic in a week.
When she attended our next session Mrs Thomas was still abstinent from alcohol but experiencing intense feelings of anxiety. We started the session with a 20 minute guided seated meditation practice. Again, she was noticeably anxious during the practice but was able to see how feelings ebbed and flowed, a key element in this therapy.
Mindfulness enables people to see that thoughts and feelings are not permanent and that trying to suppress them rather than accepting them usually makes them worse (Segal et al, 2002). We agreed to meet again in two weeks with Mrs Thomas practising a seated meditation and body scan meditation daily on separate occasions.
A our next appointment Mrs Thomas was visibly much calmer and more relaxed, and was able to perform a seated meditation practice without signs of anxiety. She said she had been able to practise daily at home and spontaneously encapsulated the essence of mindfulness by saying she was able to view thoughts with some detachment and able to let go of worries. We agreed she would continue with daily practice and attend for review.
Mrs Thomas attended two weeks later; she had remained abstinent from alcohol and was feeling much calmer and more relaxed, with a renewed interest in life. She now had the confidence to go to the hairdressers and help out at an after school club. We agreed to conclude her treatment at this point and I encouraged her to continue with her therapy at home. Interestingly, she revealed she had initially been sceptical about meditation but had been pleasantly surprised.
Mindfulness can be a useful approach with clients with anxiety and depression. It can offer a range of practices to enable people to detach from extreme thoughts and feelings and experience them as transient. Mrs Thomas was open to the approach and willing to practise between sessions, a key element for success. She had also reached a point where she was ready for change, which is important for any long term maintenance of behaviour. While there is no doubt that antidepressant medication had an effect, mindfulness is a useful self help technique to enable people to maintain long term change.
Mindfulness is an evidence based approach in treating anxiety and depression.
Sustained practice is essential for producing positive long term results.
It is a useful technique that can be used alongside medication to enable people to maintain long term change.
AUTHOR Stewart Miller, BSc, DipHE, RGN, is primary care liaison alcohol nurse, Wakefield Alcohol Team, Spectrum Health community interest company.
Germer CK (2005) Anxiety disorders: befriending fear in mindfulness and psychotherapy. In: Germer CK et al (eds) Mindfulness and Psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Depression:The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults. London: NICE.
Segal ZV et al (2002) Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy For Depression: A New Approach For Preventing Relapse. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
"Study … found that Dry January leads to healthier drinking habits," the Mail Online reports. Dry January involves giving up alcohol for the month. There is limited evidence about whether taking part in the challenge could lead to long-term changes in patterns of drinking.
Is there really a middle-class drinking 'epidemic' in over-50s?
"Middle-class over-50s have become a generation of problem drinkers," the Mail Online reports – a headline that actually has little basis in fact.
Health secretary Jeremy Hunt said he had a "great deal of sympathy" for the idea of charging alcohol-related admissions money if they end up in A&E units.
Children with congenital heart disease are more at risk of developing heart focused anxiety as adults if they have overprotective parents, a Canadian study has suggested.
Two common antidepressants could be used by people who suffer from anxiety after tests showed they reduced the condition within three hours, a new study has claimed.


text:
Jotun est une entreprise norvégienne spécialisée dans la production de peinture. Elle possède environ .

Notes et références

Entreprise de peinture
Entreprise fondée en 1926
Entreprise ayant son siège en Norvège

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/aizenay/ 30% Daily 2017-05-17 13:51
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/angles/ 30% Daily 2017-09-20 14:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/apremont/ 30% Daily 2018-09-28 03:54
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/aubigny-les-clouzeaux/ 30% Daily 2017-08-14 07:48
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/bazoges-en-pareds/ 30% Daily 2018-07-19 08:08
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/beaulieu-sous-la-roche/ 30% Daily 2018-09-22 11:19
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/beauvoir-sur-mer/ 30% Daily 2018-02-26 14:13
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/bournezeau/ 30% Daily 2018-03-14 18:30
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/breuil-barret/ 30% Daily 2018-05-10 07:48
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/chaille-les-marais/ 30% Daily 2017-06-22 10:03
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/challans/ 30% Daily 2017-08-17 04:36
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/champ-saint-pere/ 30% Daily 2017-05-18 07:31
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/chantonnay/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 17:46
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/chateau-d-olonne/ 30% Daily 2018-01-26 15:02
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/chateau-dolonne/ 30% Daily 2018-03-10 08:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/cheffois/ 30% Daily 2019-02-21 06:20
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/commerquiers/ 30% Daily 2018-08-17 09:58
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/cugand/ 30% Daily 2017-06-13 09:24
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/dompierre-sur-yon/ 30% Daily 2017-05-29 12:30
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/fontenay-le-comte/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 08:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/fromentine/ 30% Daily 2018-08-27 12:33
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/ile-dolonne/ 30% Daily 2017-06-13 14:32
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/lepine-noirmoutier-en-lile/ 30% Daily 2017-06-01 05:32
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-barre-de-monts/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 09:54
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-chapelle-achard/ 30% Daily 2018-01-26 15:00
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-chataigneraie/ 30% Daily 2017-09-05 10:29
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-ferriere/ 30% Daily 2019-05-15 02:50
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-flocelliere/ 30% Daily 2017-05-22 02:03
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-guyonniere/ 30% Daily 2017-06-19 10:19
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-mothe-achard/ 30% Daily 2019-05-26 07:20
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-roche-sur-yon/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 10:45
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-tranche-sur-mer/ 30% Daily 2019-03-17 09:19
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/la-verrie/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 10:33
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/le-boupere/ 30% Daily 2018-03-11 06:57
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/le-champ-saint-pere/ 30% Daily 2019-03-12 09:46
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/le-chateau-dolonne/ 30% Daily 2017-05-16 05:30
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/le-langon/ 30% Daily 2017-05-18 06:11
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/le-perrier/ 30% Daily 2018-08-31 04:54
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/les-brouzils-grasla/ 30% Daily 2018-03-02 15:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/les-landes-genusson/ 30% Daily 2017-06-02 06:35
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/les-sables-dolonne/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 10:38
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/longeville-sur-mer/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 07:44
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/lucon/ 30% Daily 2018-11-05 10:08
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/mareuil-sur-lay/ 30% Daily 2019-01-30 18:29
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/martinet/ 30% Daily 2018-04-26 04:03
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/montaigu/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 10:28
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/montaigu-parc-des-rochettes/ 30% Daily 2017-05-14 06:05
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/mouilleron-le-captif/ 30% Daily 2019-02-22 12:54
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/moutiers-les-mauxfaits/ 30% Daily 2017-05-28 16:26
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/nesmy/ 30% Daily 2017-10-18 08:18
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/neuil-de-dolent/ 30% Daily 2019-02-24 10:47
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/nieul-le-dolent/ 30% Daily 2018-09-22 11:23
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/noirmoutier-en-lile/ 30% Daily 2017-05-14 13:14
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/notre-dame-de-monts/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 08:27
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/olonne-sur-mer/ 30% Daily 2019-01-06 14:17
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/passage-du-gois/ 30% Daily 2017-05-30 15:35
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/poiree-sur-vie/ 30% Daily 2018-12-06 07:05
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/pouzauges/ 30% Daily 2018-12-12 13:30
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/reaumur/ 30% Daily 2017-06-22 04:32
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/rives-de-lyon/ 30% Daily 2017-05-17 14:04
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/rocheserviere/ 30% Daily 2018-04-16 12:38
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-andre-goule-doie/ 30% Daily 2017-05-31 09:39
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-andre-treize-voies/ 30% Daily 2019-02-11 07:24
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-denis-la-chevasse/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 07:15
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-florent-des-bois/ 30% Daily 2017-06-15 13:20
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-georges-de-pointindoux/ 30% Daily 2017-06-09 14:18
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-germain-de-princay/ 30% Daily 2018-02-25 16:04
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-gilles-croix-de-vie/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 10:26
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-hilaire-de-loulay/ 30% Daily 2017-06-19 10:45
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-hilaire-de-riez/ 30% Daily 2017-09-12 06:26
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-hilaire-du-bois/ 30% Daily 2018-05-21 05:04
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-jean-de-monts/ 30% Daily 2019-01-25 09:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-martin-des-noyers/ 30% Daily 2017-10-02 04:34
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-michel-en-lherm/ 30% Daily 2019-01-30 18:25
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-georges-de-montaigu/ 30% Daily 2018-03-02 15:37
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/saint-jean-de-monts-vendee/ 30% Daily 2018-12-12 13:53
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/sainte-flaive-des-loups/ 30% Daily 2017-08-11 06:57
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/sainte-hermine/ 30% Daily 2018-06-07 12:49
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/sallertaine/ 30% Daily 2017-05-18 17:12
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/sigournais/ 30% Daily 2018-06-18 05:15
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/soullans/ 30% Daily 2019-05-08 08:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/tallud-sainte-gemme/ 30% Daily 2018-02-21 16:46
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/talmont-saint-hilaire/ 30% Daily 2017-09-05 06:53
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/treize-vents/ 30% Daily 2017-05-29 06:41
https://www.vendee1.eu/event-location/vaire/ 30% Daily 2017-06-02 10:36


Image processing applications have been growing rapidly in real world. The term fusion means an approach to extract the useful information from several modalities. Image fusion (IF) is used to integrate the complementary information obtained from multisensor, multiview and/or multitemporal and get an image of more information and the quality of which cannot be achieved from any individual image. Different fusion algorithms are useful in many applications like medical diagnosis of CT, MRI and/or PET images. Particularly in brain medical imaging, fusing various modalities like MRI and CT images into a single image with in depth anatomical information and high spectral information is needed in clinical diagnosis. This process not only helps for better diagnosis, it also helps to reduce the storage space of medical images. Image fusion can be possible at three different levels viz., pixel level, feature level and decision level. This paper discusses pixel level based fusion algorithms like Averaging fusion, Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) based averaging fusion and DWT maximum approximation algorithms. The algorithms are implemented using LabView and simulation results are obtained for various fusion techniques applied on two different data sets of MRI and CT scan images were compared using the quality assessment parameters Mean Squared Error(MSE), Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), Entropy and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM). It is observed that DWT maximum approximation fusion technique yields better result compared to other implemented algorithms.
Medical Imaging; Pixel level fusion; averaging; maximum approximation method; PSNR; Structural Similarity Index.
Surya Prasada Rao Borra, Rajesh K Panakala and P.Rajesh Kumar, "Hybrid Image Fusion Algorithm using DWT Maximum Selection Rule and PCA,Internsational Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, Volume8 , Isuue 8, August 2017, pp. 814-820.
Aishwarya N, Abirami S and Amutha R, "Multifocus Image Fusion Using Discrete Wavelet Transform And Sparse Representation", IEEE WiSPNET 2016 conference, pp. 2377-2382.
B.surya Prasada Rao, Rajesh K Panakala and P.Rajesh Kumar, "An Exposure towards performance of Image Fusion Strategies" International Conference on innovations in information, Embedded and Communication Systems (ICIIECS- 2016), pp. 451-454.
M.D. Nandeesh and Dr.M. Meenakshi, "Image Fusion Algorithms for Medical Images-A Comparison', Bonfring International Journal of Advances in Image Processing, Vol. 5, No. 3, July 2015, pp. 23-26.
B.surya Prasada Rao, Rajesh K Panakala and P.Rajesh Kumar, "Contrast Enhancementof Low Dose CT Scan Images", International Journal of Control Theory and Applications, 8(5), 2015, pp. 2415-2422 © International Science Press.
Lukka Sirisha, A.Geetha Devi and B. Surya Prasada Rao, "An Effective Method of Denoising of 2-D Data Using Adaptive Kernel Bilateral Filter", International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 11, November-2016, pp. 565-571.
Bhavana. V and Krishnappa. H.K, "Fusion of MRI and PET Images using DWT and Adaptive Histogram Equalization", International Conference on communication and Signal Processing, April 6-8, 2016, India, pp. 795-798.
Wencheng Wang, Faliang Chang," A Multi-focus Image Fusion Method Based on Laplacian Pyramid", journal of computers, vol.6, no. 12, december 2011.
Tapasmini Sahoo, Sankalp Mohanty and Saurav Sahu," Multi-Focus Image Fusion Using Variance Based Spatial Domain and Wavelet Transform" International Conference on Multimedia, Signal Processing and Communication Technologies, 978-1-4577-1107-7.IEEE 2011.
G. S., M. Z. Kurian and H. N. Suma, "Fusion of CT and PET Medical Images Using Hybrid Algorithm DWT- DCT-PCA," 2015 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Security (ICISS), Seoul, 2015, pp. 1-5.
J. M. Headlee, E. J. Balster and W. F. Turri, "A no-reference image enhancement quality metric and fusion technique," 2015 International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ), Auckland, 2015, pp. 1-6.
L. Wang, J. Du, S. Zhu, D. Fan and J. Lee, "New region- based image fusion scheme using the discrete wavelet frame transform," 2016 12th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA), Guilin, 2016, pp. 3066- 3070.


text:
J.D., magna cum laude, 2010
Notes and Comments Editor, Brooklyn Law Review
Moot Court Honor Society
M.M., 2005
B.A., cum laude, 2003
E.D.N.Y (2011)
S.D.N.Y. (2011)
Selected as "Super Lawyer"
by Thomson Reuters
rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
Ross Shikowitz focuses his practice on investigating, analyzing and prosecuting complex securities matters on behalf of institutional investors.
For nearly a decade, Ross has been advising many of the world's largest and most sophisticated institutional investors concerning their rights and potential legal claims arising out of securities-related matters. He is a senior member of the firm's Client Monitoring and Case Evaluation Group in which he, together with a team of attorneys and financial analysts, develops and recommends legal strategies to the firm's clients. For his dedication to investors, Ross has consistently been named by Super Lawyers as a New York "Rising Star" in the area of securities litigation.
Prior to joining the firm, Ross was an associate at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP where he was a senior member of its New Matter Department. Ross was also an instrumental member of the litigation teams responsible for recovering hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors that were misled when purchasing residential mortgage-backed securities. He also served as a member of the litigation team prosecuting the securities fraud class action against Volkswagen, which resulted in a recovery of $48 million for investors in Volkswagen American Depositary Receipts. Ross also served as a member of the team litigating the securities class action concerning GT Advanced Technologies, which has resulted in $36.7 million in recoveries to-date.
While in law school, Ross was a research assistant to Brooklyn Law School Professor of Law Emeritus Norman Poser, a widely respected expert in international and domestic securities regulation. He also served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Brian M. Cogan of the Eastern District of New York, a legal intern for the Major Narcotics Investigations Bureau of the Kings Country District Attorney's Office, and a summer associate at a prominent defense firm.