ST0-136 exam Dumps Source : Symantec System Recovery 2011 Technical(R) Assessment
Test Code : ST0-136
Test denomination : Symantec System Recovery 2011 Technical(R) Assessment
Vendor denomination : Symantec
: 111 existent Questions
Extract ultra-modern total ST0-136 path contents in layout.
I cracked my ST0-136 exam on my first attempt with 72.five% in just 2 days of education. thank you killexams.com for your valuable questions. I did the exam without any worry. looking forward to pellucid the ST0-136 exam along with your help.
Questions had been precisely equal as I got!
I just required telling you that I even stand topped in ST0-136 exam. total the questions about exam table stand been from killexams. It is said to live the existent helper for me on the ST0-136 exam bench. total reward of my success is going to this manual. This is the existent purpose behind my success. It guided me in the right manner for attempting ST0-136 exam questions. With the assist of this test stuff I turned into proficient to attempt to total of the questions in ST0-136 exam. This study stuff publications a person inside the right way and ensures you one hundred% accomplishment in exam.
Less effort, mighty knowledge, guaranteed success.
that is the pleasant ST0-136 aid on internet. killexams.com is one I consider. What they gave to me is greater valuable than money, they gave me training. i used to live reading for my ST0-136 test when I made an account on right here and what I were given in return labored merely like magic for me and i was very surprised at how splendid it felt. My ST0-136 check appeared like a unmarried passed issue to me and i performed achievement.
where can i find ST0-136 trendy dumps questions?
ST0-136 exam modified into absolutely tough for me as i used to live now not getting enough time for the training. Locating no way out, I took alleviate from the dump. I additionally took assist from trustworthy Certification manual. The dump was exceptional. It dealt with total the topics in an smooth and friendly way. May additionally want to score thru maximum of them with miniature attempt. Responded total of the query in only 80 one minutes and were given ninety seven mark. Felt simply satisfied. Thanks lots to killexams.com for his or her treasured guidance.
Get these s and travel to vacations to prepare.
i am ranked very exorbitant amongst my magnificence buddies on the listing of extraordinary students however it besthappened after I registered in this killexams.com for a few exam assist. It turned into the tall ranking analyzing programin this killexams.com that helped me in joining the exorbitant ranks at the side of other extraordinary students of my class. The assets on this killexams.com are commendable due to the fact theyre unique and extremely useful for preparationthru ST0-136, ST0-136 dumps and ST0-136 books. I am joyous to build in writing those phrases of appreciation due to the fact this killexams.com merits it. thanks.
Did you tried this wonderful supply present day actual test questions.
I notably advocate this package deal to total people making plans to score ST0-136 q and a. test for this certification are tough, and it takes a lot of work to skip them. killexams.com does most of it for you. ST0-136 exam I got from this website had maximum of the questions provided at some point of the exam. with out these dumps, I suppose i would fail, and that is why such a lot of people dont pass ST0-136 exam from the primary attempt.
it's miles incredible to stand ST0-136 question bank and study guide.
I managd to finish ST0-136 exam utilising killexams.com dumps. identification wish to preserve in holds with you ever. identitytake this as a risk to plenty obliged yet again for this inspire. I were given the dumps for ST0-136. killexams.com and exam Simulator actually supportive and appallingly elaborative. identity better endorse your site in panoply of the nice connection ever for certificates checks.
Its confiscate to study books for ST0-136 exam, however perform inescapable your achievement with those .
Passing the ST0-136 turned into lengthy due as i used to live extraordinarily busy with my office assignments. however, when i organize the question & solution by means of the killexams.com, it certainly stimulated me to rob on the test. Its been truely supportive and helped pellucid total my doubts on ST0-136 topic. I felt very tickled to pass the exam with a large 97% marks. wonderful achievement indeed. And total credit is going to you killexams.com for this terrific help.
Real ST0-136 exam Questions to Pass at first attempt.
Preparing for ST0-136 books can live a tricky job and nine out of ten chances are that you will fail if you accomplish it without any confiscate guidance. Thats where best ST0-136 engage comes in! It provides you with efficient and groovy information that not only enhances your preparation but likewise gives you a pellucid carve haphazard of passing your ST0-136 download and getting into any university without any despair. I prepared through this terrific program and I scored 42 marks out of 50. I can assure you that it will never let you down!
right here is right source of current dumps, remedy answers.
ive recommended about your objects to numerous companions and partners, and theyre total extraordinarily fulfilled. much obliged killexams.com Questions & answers for reinforcing up my profession and assisting me plan nicely for my severe test. a lot appreciated over again. I stand to snort that i am your greatest fan! I want you to realise that I cleared my ST0-136 exam nowadays, contemplating the ST0-136 route notes i bought from you. I solved 86/ninety five questions within the exam. you are the mighty schooling provider.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA--(Marketwire - 04/04/eleven) - Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ:SYMC - information) these days announced its manner to provide groups of total sizes with a tailored strategy to remedy their records, system and utility recovery challenges to greater meet stringent recovery time ambitions and hold their enterprise up and operating. As a portion of its broader downtime remediation strategy, Symantec is additionally delivering current healing updates and platform usher to Symantec system recuperation 2011, formerly Backup Exec system recuperation, for both physical and digital environments.Symantec's downtime remediation manner comprises an greatest blend of solutions to pellucid up consumers' healing challenges:
click on to Tweet: Symantec device recuperation offers springy recovery of actual and digital techniques: http://bit.ly/ftlofu"Symantec presents confirmed know-how to aid their customers ameliorate records, techniques and applications to avoid disruption to their business," mentioned Amit Walia, vice president of product administration, Symantec. "Symantec system restoration shortens the restoration time window with current elements such as the capacity to seriously change a USB paraphernalia right into a recuperation disk and further flexibility to the customizable recuperation disk wizard."Symantec analysis suggests that mess ups can stand a major stand an repercussion on on a company and businesses of total sizes are at risk of downtime. Symantec's 2011 SMB disaster Preparedness Survey discovered that almost total of small organizations surveyed are nevertheless unprepared to contend with a disaster and fifty four percent of SMB customer respondents stated they've switched SMB vendors because of unreliable computing methods. in a similar fashion, Symantec's 2010 disaster healing Survey, which surveyed commercial enterprise companies, organize that the time required to score well from an outage is twice provided that respondents understand it to be.attainable now, Symantec paraphernalia recovery 2011 provides the following current facets:
join with Symantec
About Storage from Symantec Symantec helps agencies secure and maneuver their assistance-pushed world with storage management, email archiving and backup & recuperation solutions.About Symantec Symantec is a worldwide leader in proposing protection, storage and programs administration options to alleviate consumers and groups comfortable and maneuver their tips-driven world. Their utility and capabilities give protection to towards greater hazards at extra facets, extra absolutely and effectively, enabling self faith at any spot suggestions is used or saved. extra suggestions is available at www.symantec.com.observe TO EDITORS: if you want additional info on Symantec business enterprise and its items, tickle consult with the Symantec information margin at http://www.symantec.com/information. total costs noted are in U.S. bucks and are legitimate only within the u.s..Symantec and the Symantec brand are logos or registered trademarks of Symantec organization or its affiliates in the U.S. and other countries. different names may live emblems of their respective owners.Technorati Tags Symantec, Backup Exec, paraphernalia recovery, VMware, backup and healing, small agencies
commercial enterprise backup home paraphernalia assist corporations modernize backup infrastructures, accelerate virtualization initiatives.observe: ESJ’s editors cautiously pick seller-issued press releases about current or upgraded items and services. they stand edited and/or condensed this unlock to highlight key facets but perform no claims as to the accuracy of the dealer's statements.
Symantec Corp. has launched Backup Exec 3600 and NetBackup 5220 enterprise backup appliances to support groups modernize their backup infrastructures and speed up current initiatives round virtualization with enhanced reliability. Symantec backup home paraphernalia can live deployed in as miniature as 30 minutes and assist businesses protect tips completely, in physical or virtual environments, and deduplicate statistics far and wide to enrich effectivity and in the reduction of fees.
Backup Exec 3600: Visibility and content-mindful Deduplication throughout actual and digital systems
outfitted with Symantec V-Ray expertise, Backup Exec 3600 appliance offers the selfsame entertaining visibility into virtual environments as Backup Exec 2010 utility to allow agencies to speed recovery times and reduce storage costs. Symantec Backup Exec 3600 is the first all-in-one backup paraphernalia with integrated customer and target facts deduplication for protecting digital and actual machines for midsized corporations with constrained IT workforce. Backup Exec 3600 will assist the upcoming free up of VMware vSphere 5 and is the handiest solution obtainable with Backup Exec on optimized hardware and application.
Backup Exec 3600 is an facile and legitimate backup appliance designed to in the reduction of IT complexity through providing:
NetBackup 5220: All-in-one Backup appliance Protects digital and actual methods
Symantec NetBackup 5220 is a scalable backup appliance for commercial enterprise organizations with both client and target deduplication designed to accelerate backups for physical and virtual techniques. according to NetBackup 7.1, the paraphernalia includes Symantec’s content material-mindful deduplication which can carve back backup extent and network utilization by using as a splendid deal as ninety nine %, eliminating backup window issues and enabling low-cost replication of statistics to different sites for company continuity. NetBackup additionally has plans to usher VMware vSphere 5 in the subsequent unencumber due out later this year.
With the NetBackup 5220 equipment, companies can:
Symantec NetBackup 5220 sequence and Backup Exec 3600 series appliances are available now in North the united states. each home paraphernalia will roll out in extra nations in a phased strategy over the subsequent year. present NetBackup and Backup Exec clients can repurpose latest licenses to installation the NetBackup 5220 or Backup Exec 3600, respectively.
For additional info about the Backup Exec 3600 appliance, discuss with http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/backup-exec-3600-equipment. For extra counsel concerning the NetBackup 5220 paraphernalia is purchasable right here.
Hillary O’Rourke, Contributor
Huawei applied sciences Co. Ltd. spoke of it's going to rob full ownership of Huawei Symantec by using purchasing Symantec’s forty nine% stake in the joint venture for $530 million.
Huawei Symantec is a Hong-Kong primarily based joint venture centered in 2008 by using Huawei and Symantec that provides storage, safety and programs management options. The settlement is expected to shut in the first quarter of 2012.
NexGen picks up $10M in funding
digital machine storage device startup NexGen Storage closed a $10 million funding round, led by way of subsequent World Capital with participation from former buyers Grotech Ventures and access undertaking companions. NexGen these days launched its flagship product, the NexGen n5 Storage device.
Penguin selects Dot Hill storage for HPC storage options
high-efficiency computing business (HPC) Penguin Computing has chosen Dot Hill methods Corp.’s AssuredSAN 3000 collection for its HPC storage options. Penguin stated it is going to sell the highest performing 3003 fashions, primarily with SAS host interfaces, and may present solid-state drives (SSDs) as an choice.
F5 groups with NetApp, VMware for are animated utility migration
F5 Networks Inc. stated it has enhanced its are animated virtual laptop (VM) migration capabilities for purchasers the utilize of NetApp unified storage and VMware virtualization options. F5 collaborated with NetApp and VMware to performance peep at various VM migration across facts facilities using VMware vSphere 5 and vMotion, NetApp FlexCache and F5’s massive-IP.
Index Engines lowers pricing for Octane for exchange
Index Engines stated it is going to sell its Octane for change/Notes e-mail archive for $50,000 in the course of the conclusion of 2011. The Octane compliance archive contains connection to 1 electronic mail server and the capability to unencumber a hundred person mailbox bills. further mailbox bills may likewise live licensed. The promotional fee includes setting up, training and the primary 12 months of aid.
NovaStor upgrades NovaBackup SMB line
records insurance policy supplier NovaStor rolled out edition 12.5 of its NovaBackup SMB product line for workstations, servers and virtual machines. The current edition allows automatic backup of faultfinding statistics to password-covered NAS devices for compliance with corporate security policies.
Avere FXT aces benchmark test
Avere systems Inc.’s FXT sequence executed a combination of 1,564,404 OPS/sec throughput and.ninety nine milliseconds response time in the SPECsfs2008 NFS benchmark peep at various. The enterprise’s NAS optimization system scored these numbers the usage of a forty four-node cluster of Avere FXT 3500 home paraphernalia the usage of the common performance assessment Corp. SPECsfs2008_nfs.v3 benchmark. total over the test configuration, 752 disks and 104 rack gadgets were used.
Violin reminiscence adds to executive group
Flash storage startup Violin reminiscence Inc. has named Scott Metzger vice president of corporate construction. Metzger in the past served as vice chairman of items, engineering and operations at Apigee Corp. Metzger will lead Violin’s growth into information-intensive markets such as analytics, search and true-time determination administration.
Survey: security concerns preclude cloud storage adoption
A survey conducted through cloud storage gateway startup Nasuni organize that 81% of IT specialists talked about they are concerned in regards to the security of data kept in the cloud. Of the 451respondents, forty eight% spoke of they're worried about the degree of control they would stand over records kept in the cloud and forty three% plan to save facts in the cloud over the next 12 months.
Unquestionably it is arduous assignment to pick dependable certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals score sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. Killexams.com ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report dissension customers Come to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams joyfully and effortlessly. They never trade off on their review, reputation and character on the grounds that killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer certitude is imperative to us. Uniquely they deal with killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com sham report objection, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. On the off haphazard that you discern any False report posted by their rivals with the denomination killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com protest or something like this, simply recollect there are constantly dreadful individuals harming reputation of splendid administrations because of their advantages. There are a huge number of fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.
HP0-831 questions and answers | HP0-311 study guide | 70-464 braindumps | 1D0-61C cram | E20-617 cheat sheets | 70-528-CSharp dumps | 9L0-007 existent questions | HP0-Y45 exercise test | 000-226 examcollection | CHHE questions answers | 000-297 brain dumps | ES0-007 bootcamp | A00-206 pdf download | 642-416 mock exam | EX0-112 sample test | C9030-644 free pdf | MB2-711 existent questions | HP0-427 study guide | 00M-229 braindumps | LOT-956 braindumps |
Look at these ST0-136 existent question and answers
If are you burdened how to pass your Symantec ST0-136 Exam? With the alleviate of the confirmed killexams.com Symantec ST0-136 Testing Engine you will learn how to boom your abilties. The majority of the scholars start identifying when they determine that they stand to look in IT certification. Their brain dumps are complete and to the point. The Symantec ST0-136 PDF documents perform your imaginative and prescient large and assist you lots in instruction of the certification exam.
We stand Tested and Approved ST0-136 Exams. killexams.com presents the most remedy and ultra-modern IT braindumps that nearly embody total info references. With the helpful resource of their ST0-136 exam dumps, you dont stand to live compelled to waste a jiffy on analyzing bulk of reference books and easily stand to live compelled to pay 10-20 hours to understand their ST0-136 actual Questions and Answers. and that they provide you with PDF Version test Questions and Answers. For Exam Simulator Version dumps, Its offered to supply the candidates simulate the Symantec ST0-136 exam in an exceedingly actual atmosphere. killexams.com Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total tests on web site PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders additional than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders over $ninety nine SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders Click http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/ST0-136 As the most ingredient this is often in any capacity very vital here is passing the ST0-136 - Symantec System Recovery 2011 Technical(R) Assessment test. As total that you necessity will live a tall score of Symantec ST0-136 exam. the solesolitary issue you wish to try to is downloading braindumps of ST0-136 exam and memoize dumps. they are not letting you down and they will accomplish every alleviate to you pass your ST0-136 exam. The professionals in like means preserve tempo with the most best in magnificence test to supply most of updated dumps. 3 months free access to possess the potential to them via the date of purchase. each candidate will stand the fee of the ST0-136 exam dumps through killexams.com requiring very miniature to no struggle.
The best way to score success in the Symantec ST0-136 exam is that you ought to attain trustworthy preparatory materials. They guarantee that killexams.com is the maximum direct pathway closer to Implementing Symantec Symantec System Recovery 2011 Technical(R) Assessment certificate. You can live successful with full self belief. You can view free questions at killexams.com earlier than you purchase the ST0-136 exam products. Their simulated assessments are in a pair of-choice similar to the actual exam pattern. The questions and answers created by the certified experts. They present you with the luxuriate in of taking the existent exam. 100% assure to pass the ST0-136 actual test.
killexams.com Symantec Certification exam courses are setup by way of IT specialists. Lots of college students stand been complaining that there are too many questions in such a lot of exercise tests and exam courses, and they're just worn-out to find the money for any greater. Seeing killexams.com professionals training session this complete version at the selfsame time as nonetheless guarantee that each one the information is included after profound research and evaluation. Everything is to perform convenience for candidates on their road to certification.
We stand Tested and Approved ST0-136 Exams. killexams.com provides the most remedy and latest IT exam materials which nearly hold total information references. With the aid of their ST0-136 exam materials, you dont necessity to waste your time on studying bulk of reference books and simply want to spend 10-20 hours to master their ST0-136 actual questions and answers. And they provide you with PDF Version & Software Version exam questions and answers. For Software Version materials, Its presented to provide the applicants simulate the Symantec ST0-136 exam in a existent environment.
We present free replace. Within validity length, if ST0-136 exam materials that you stand purchased updated, they will inform you with the aid of email to down load state-of-the-art model of . If you dont pass your Symantec Symantec System Recovery 2011 Technical(R) Assessment exam, They will give you full refund. You want to ship the scanned replica of your ST0-136 exam record card to us. After confirming, they will hastily provide you with full REFUND.
killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as below;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total exams on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $ninety nine
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders
If you build together for the Symantec ST0-136 exam the utilize of their trying out engine. It is simple to succeed for total certifications in the first attempt. You dont must cope with total dumps or any free torrent / rapidshare total stuff. They present slack demo of every IT Certification Dumps. You can test out the interface, question nice and usability of their exercise assessments before making a decision to buy.
ST0-136 | ST0-136 | ST0-136 | ST0-136 | ST0-136 | ST0-136
Killexams TM1-101 exercise exam | Killexams HP2-056 existent questions | Killexams HP0-T21 braindumps | Killexams 62-193 braindumps | Killexams 1Z0-967 test questions | Killexams 70-466 cram | Killexams 000-743 test prep | Killexams 1Z0-055 exercise Test | Killexams 650-256 sample test | Killexams 000-135 VCE | Killexams EX0-111 dumps | Killexams HP0-876 existent questions | Killexams 190-840 exam prep | Killexams P2060-001 dump | Killexams 650-325 free pdf download | Killexams 920-482 study guide | Killexams C2090-461 exercise test | Killexams 1Z0-336 braindumps | Killexams M2065-741 exam prep | Killexams JN0-522 test prep |
Exam Simulator : Pass4sure ST0-136 Exam Simulator
Killexams 00M-667 brain dumps | Killexams HP0-921 exercise exam | Killexams 310-812 study guide | Killexams 3M0-700 test prep | Killexams 1Z0-218 questions answers | Killexams 2V0-620 sample test | Killexams P2170-036 test prep | Killexams 050-v71-CASECURID02 free pdf | Killexams HP0-091 bootcamp | Killexams P2090-080 examcollection | Killexams 1Z0-499 braindumps | Killexams 000-025 questions and answers | Killexams NCE exercise questions | Killexams 000-783 exercise test | Killexams MOS-OXP test prep | Killexams 000-379 exam questions | Killexams BI0-125 braindumps | Killexams 648-375 cheat sheets | Killexams SC0-501 mock exam | Killexams EX0-117 exercise Test |
By Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman
The United States was subjected to many severe climate-related extreme weather over the past two years. In 2011 there were 14 extreme weather events — floods, drought, storms, and wildfires — that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. There were another 11 such disasters in 2012. Most of these extreme weather events reflect portion of the unpaid bill from climate change — a tab that will only grow over time.
CAP recently documented the human and economic toll from these devastating events in their November 2012 report “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower- Income Americans.” Since the release of that report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, has updated its list of “billion-dollar”-damage weather events for 2012, bringing the two-year total to 25 incidents.
From 2011 to 2012 these 25 “billion-dollar damage” weather events in the United States are estimated to stand caused up to $188 billion in total damage.  The two costliest events were the September 2012 drought — the worst drought in half a century, which baked nearly two-thirds of the continental United States — and superstorm Sandy, which battered the northeast coast in late October 2012. The four recently added disastrous weather events were severe tornadoes and thunderstorms.
Here is an update of vital extreme weather event data after the addition of these four events:
Below are descriptions of each of the four weather events in 2012 that were not included in their previous report.
April 12: Tornadoes
Nearly 100 tornadoes touched down across Kansas and other midwest states over a two-day epoch in mid-April 2012, resulting in six deaths. Extensive damage to schools, hospitals, businesses, and homes was estimated to cost $1.8 billion. Many towns were without power for extended periods of time. Fourteen counties in Kansas were declared disaster areas because of the storms. Households in these disaster-declared counties earn, on average, an annual income of $47,027–9 percent below the U.S. median household income.
April 28: Severe Storms
Severe weather in Oklahoma and surrounding states caused at least $4 billion in damage and one confirmed fatality in late April 2012. Storm damage throughout the zone was primarily caused by 38 confirmed tornadoes and severe hail. Oklahoma was most heavily impacted — six Oklahoma counties were declared disaster areas in the wake of the storm. Households in the counties that were disaster areas earn, on average, an annual income of $39,638 — a staggering 24 percent below the U.S. median household income.
May 25: Severe Storms
Twenty-seven confirmed tornadoes touched down over a broad swath of the United States, including from Oklahoma to current Hampshire. The tornadoes and outburst of severe hail, straight-line winds, and thunderstorms caused one fatality and approximately $2.5 billion in damage. Most of the damage occurred in Oklahoma and the entire state was declared a disaster area. current Hampshire and Vermont likewise had some disaster-declared counties. Households in these disaster-declared counties earn, on average, an annual income of $45,431–12 percent below the U.S. median household income.
June 29: Derecho
A derecho is a “widespread, long-lived wind storm that is associated with a corps of rapidly touching showers or thunderstorms,” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such a storm ravaged eastern and northeastern states in June 2012. It caused 28 fatalities and ripped through a 700-sqaure-mile swath of the mid-Atlantic region, leaving 3.4 million homes there without power. The storm caused at least $3.8 billion in damage in 215 counties in Maryland, current Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. total were declared disaster areas.
These events, along with the seven other “billion-dollar” weather events in 2012, made it the second-most-extreme weather year on record, according to the U.S. Climate Extremes Index.
NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt says that when it comes to higher temperatures and extreme weather, “what matters is this decade is warmer than the ultimate decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason is because they are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
The U.S. National Climate Assessment draft released in January 2013 indicates that the effects of climate change will continue to threaten the health and vitality of their communities as extreme weather becomes more frequent and/or severe. One of the report’s key findings is that U.S. coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, storms, floods, and subsequent erosion. And scientists foretell that precipitation events across the United States are likely to live heavier. These risks pose serious threats to their electricity grid, infrastructure, clean water, and sewage treatment system in the most affected places.
The climate-related extreme weather events of the past several years stand become the current normal. They must act now to reduce the industrial carbon pollution amenable for climate change and alleviate communities become more resilient to the coming storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires.
Disaster relief has suddenly become a partisan issue. This became overwhelmingly pellucid during recent debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives over the disaster Relief Appropriations Act (H.R. 152), which provided $50.7 billion in emergency aid for superstorm Sandy victims.  The measure was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2013 — an unacceptable 91 days after the storm devastated the northeast corridor.
Despite passing with support from total but one voting Democrat in the House and Senate, the vast majority of Republicans in each chamber opposed essential aid to hurricane victims. These conservative lawmakers attempted to negate pecuniary assistance to those in need, even after some of them previously requested disaster funding for their own states. total 36 Republican senators who voted against the Sandy aid bill are from states that experienced at least one “billion-dollar damage” extreme weather event in the past two years. In fact, 98 percent of lawmakers in either chamber who voted against the bill — 211 of the 216 Republicans — represent states that experienced at least one “billion-dollar damage” extreme weather event in the past two years.
The debate over congressional passage of disaster recovery assistance raises serious concerns about whether Congress can both aid disaster victims in a timely fashion and work to alleviate communities minimize damages from future storms and other extreme weather. In order to alleviate these communities reduce their vulnerability to extreme weather, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) and 37 of her colleagues urged President Obama to designate a blue ribbon panel to develop a a “community resilience fund” dedicated solely to providing the pecuniary and technical assistance to vulnerable communities hit by extreme weather events. Dedicated funding for predisaster mitigation will protect lives, shield middle- and lower-income households from the worst impacts of extreme weather, and save taxpayers money over time.
For more information on this proposal, tickle discern CAP’s December 2012 column “An Ounce of Prevention: Increasing Resiliency to Climate-Related Extreme Weather.”Methodology
This hub for American Progress analysis compiled data from multiple sources. Extreme weather events data were from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, or NCDC. Counties affected by each event were compiled from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Declared Disasters database.
In order to assess income levels for the most affected counties, they used median household income (2006–2010) data and number of households (2006–2010) data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s State and County QuickFacts. The 2006–2010 values are an middling over the five-year period. They compared the percent disagreement between the middling annual median household incomes for the affected counties in each weather event to the U.S. median — $51,914. They accounted for the population of each county when calculating these values. The cost per household was calculated by taking the cost of the event divided by the total number of households for each event.
 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will release final 2013 disaster cost estimates in mid-2013.
 U.S. median income figures are based on the 2005–2010 Census Bureau average.
 This was the second installment of Sandy aid. The first installment of $9.7 billion was passed on January 1, 2013.
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the hub for American Progress. Jackie Weidman is a Special lieutenant at the Center.
In Principle 10 Things Authorised Firms necessity To Know For 2019 1. Brexit ............................................................................................3 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime..............................................................5 3. Market abuse ............................................................................9 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends ......................10 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection .............................. 12 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation .....14 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation.................................................. 15 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation .. 17 9. EU Action plan on Sustainability and Asset Management ...........................................................................19 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up .......... 20 1In Principle Introduction Executive Summary In the 2018 edition of this publication, they ended the introduction with the line, “We can only hope that they will enter 2019 with greater certitude than 2018 as to how the regulatory landscape will look.” Unfortunately, certitude still remains in rather short supply. With Brexit now (at least in theory) a matter of weeks away, it remains unclear what will happen: the government’s original proposed Withdrawal Agreement has been decisively rejected, but Parliament has indicated that it would support that agreement if the “Irish Backstop” provisions are renegotiated. The Prime Minister has therefore been mandated to return to negotiations on this point, in the visage of statements by European Union leaders that there is no prospect of such negotiations going ahead. At the selfsame time, Parliament has signalled that it “rejects” a no-deal Brexit, but not agreed to a proposal which would stand made this rejection binding. Further Parliamentary proceedings are now planned for the middle of February. Whether there is a hard, soft or no Brexit, there remain a number of issues beyond Brexit that authorised firms will stand to deem in the year ahead. Including Brexit, here are 10 things that authorised firms necessity to know for 2019. 1. Brexit In the absence of a decision of what will chance Come the 29 March 2019 (or indeed, Come some future date if “exit day” is postponed”), firms stand been left in a state of uncertainty. Whilst this makes planning for what will chance even more difficult, it is feasible to plot out how inescapable more likely scenarios would play out. They deem what asset managers would visage if the original Withdrawal Agreement is largely accepted (notwithstanding a change to the Irish backstop), what would chance in the event of the UK leaving the EU without an agreement, and what effect the UK’s remaining in a customs union with the EU would stand on asset managers. They likewise deem what preparations the FCA has made for a no-deal scenario, in particular surrounding the “temporary permissions regime”. 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime The Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR), which is currently in obligate for total banks, structure societies, credit unions, and dual regulated investment and insurance firms, will live extended to cover total FCA solo-authorised firms by 9 December 2019. While the pecuniary Conduct Authority (FCA) will continue to sanction people who rob on Senior Manager roles, the responsibility to certify employees below Senior Manager level as proper and proper will devolve on the firms themselves. Firms will likewise live required to train staff on the Conduct Rules and implement current or update existing systems and controls, including a variety of policies and procedures. Although the implementation is almost a year away, firms would live well advised to stand the current requirements at the forefront of their minds to ensure a smooth transition. 3. Market abuse Market abuse continues to live an zone of very significant interest for the FCA and growing interest across the rest of the EU. With the FCA’s insight that compliance with the Market abuse Regulation (MAR) is “state of mind” rather than a matter of following procedures, firms will stand to live particularly vigilant to ensure that they remain compliant. 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends Until the terminate of 2018, the FCA had a comparatively soundless year, at least in terms of the number of investigations publicly brought to a conclusion and the consequent number of fines issued. The number of penalties was down, and the length of investigations was increasing substantially. They stand looked at the number and distribution of investigations and decision notices to build together a picture of the FCA’s current enforcement trends. 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection 2018 was an vital year for data protection law with the entry into obligate of the general Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May. They await to discern a trickle of enforcement cases in 2019 under the current regime as the courts and tribunals interpret the current law’s provisions. Especially with the greatly increased size of the penalties available for breaches, firms should continue to carefully monitor compliance with data protection obligations. Further regulatory guidance on core provisions of the GDPR is expected during 2019. 2 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation The Securities Financing Transaction Regulation (SFTR) is one of the major pieces of post-financial pass legislative reforms and introduces a reporting and transparency regime applicable to firms that parallels the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives reporting requirements under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR). total counterparties are required to report details of any securities financing transactions that they stand concluded, modified or terminated to a registered or recognised trade repository. Whilst the reporting responsibility under the SFTR is not expected to rob full effect until 2020 at the soonest, for firms that regularly deal with repos and buy-sellback transactions, this piece of legislation should live firmly on the radar, given the requirement to build operational infrastructure to support the current reporting requirement. 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation EMIR is subject to a significant reform proposal, the EMIR “refit,” which includes a number of changes that are expected to become effective in 2019. These are, in some way or other, likely to repercussion total firms currently subject to EMIR. EMIR is proposed to live extended in scope by clarifying that total alternative investment funds (AIF) should live considered to live pecuniary counterparties (FC), which has caused some confusion as to the proper classification of non- EU AIFs with non-EU managers. The refit seeks to alleviate some of the regulatory tribulation for smaller counterparties by introducing an FC+ and FC- concept to exclude the below-threshold FCs from the scope of the clearing responsibility and by making NFC- reporting the responsibility of counterparty FCs. A number of the amendments that are likely to rob effect in 2019 therefore seek to address issues raised by industry since before EMIR was published in 2012. Clearing and margin requirements established under the current EMIR regime will likewise continue to live phased in during 2019, thereby completing the phase-in requirements for total counterparty categories subject to clearing. 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation They are now in the “transitional period” of the Benchmarks Regulation (BMR), whereby EU-based existing “users” of benchmarks may continue to utilize non-EU-administered benchmarks in pecuniary instruments until 1 January 2020, notwithstanding that such benchmarks are not listed on the European Securities and Market Authority’s (ESMA)s register of “approved benchmarks.” Post-1 January 2020 treatment of non-EU benchmarks is unclear, given the necessity of available “routes” into the EU for non-EU-administered benchmarks under the BMR: No jurisdiction has, for example, been declared “equivalent” to the EU such that benchmarks administered in that jurisdiction may continue to live used. An additional wrinkle to 2019 compliance is that LIBOR is expected to cease to exist from the terminate of 2021. The FCA has stated that, from that time, it no longer expects panel banks to contribute to LIBOR; thus, it is expected to disappear. The repercussion of this is that, to the extent that users of benchmarks currently reference LIBOR in pecuniary instruments and wish to continue to accomplish so, the fact of LIBOR’s feasible cessation will necessity to live addressed in “robust written plans,” which users of benchmarks are expected to prepare and, on request, perform available to the FCA. As explained in the following, the FCA has likewise indicated that benchmark supervision is an vital supervisory priority for this year. 9. EU Action plan on Sustainability and Asset Management In November 2018, the EU Commission issued a consultation on whether, and how, asset managers should live required to rob principles of sustainability into account when making decisions. This proposal signals a key shift in using pecuniary regulation to address environmental and social concerns, whether or not it is the case in exercise that such matters are currently addressed by asset managers. While there is currently no pellucid indication of the shape of the rules affecting managers, the industry will live keeping a keen eye on these initiatives. 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up In keeping with investigations that rob longer, it is perhaps no surprise that the amount of case law that was generated in 2018 is sort of smaller than in previous years. This notwithstanding, both the Upper Tribunal (which hears references from the FCA’s Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC)) and the courts stand provided several apposite judgments. With the wider rollout of the SMCR, it seems likely that the regulator will continue, and perhaps sharpen, its focus on individuals this year. 3In Principle 1. Brexit As anyone following the unfolding of the political process of Britain withdrawing from the EU can attest to, the only thing that is inescapable is the uncertainty. The inconclusive process has meant that a number of options continue to live discussed and, while within the asset management industry a broadly shared view is that a arduous Brexit is unlikely, a number of the options leave the treatment of pecuniary services at best inconclusive. Asset managers stand splendid reason to live vigilant to the political tides: even in the smoothest transition to a soft Brexit, responses will necessity to live prepared on a relatively quick timetable. The key concern for asset managers will live the continuing access to EU markets. This means the capacity to continue to provide services to existing and future fund and segregated account clients as well as EU investment managers, and the capacity to market pecuniary products and services to prospective clients and investors. The specific mechanism that would allow for continuing and unrestricted access to the EU markets is still unclear: While some EU laws allow for an equivalency assessment, this is not the case in total apposite legislation, and it is likely that in some cases the price of market access will live a substantially higher regulatory tribulation that UK managers would stand to bear. In the short term the patchwork of access provisions for third country entities under the existing laws is likely to result in unsatisfactory arrangements and a higher level of regulatory risk across the industry. The now-partially rejected withdrawal agreement contemplates a transition epoch from 29 March 2019 until (at least) the terminate of 2020. While the final configuration of any agreement is still subject to active negotiations, a substantial transition epoch is now likely, not least because Parliament has expressed its disapproval to a no-deal Brexit which would serve to create significant instability in the markets and to stand an adverse repercussion on consumer outcomes not only in the UK but across the EU. During such a transition period, for total apposite intents and purposes, EU law would continue to apply in the UK, and asset managers would not live required to perform substantial changes in response to “exit day” in the short term. While some jurisdictions and regulators stand ensured that bilateral arrangements to ensure ongoing mutual access and regulatory cooperation stand been concluded in foster of the 29 March withdrawal date, such bilateral arrangements are unlikely to live comprehensive, and are subject to revision depending on the ultimate outcome of negotiations with the EU and on ESMA’s views on the confiscate regulatory approach and solutions. No Deal What happens if the UK “crashes out” with no deal? The EU and the UK would still live able to investigate and perform equivalency determinations, though as it would likely rob months, if not years, for these determinations to live made, in the short term there could live substantial difficulties for UK and EU entities to ensure that they were compliant. Without a transition agreement, therefore, equivalence determinations could only provide a medium-term solution for those in the pecuniary services sector and, given the limitations to relying on equivalence, a sort of limited one at that. Customs Union The Labour Party is currently the largest opposition party in the UK Parliament, and whilst there remain uncertain contours over its Brexit policy, it has declared that it would like the UK to live portion of a “permanent custom union”. Whilst a customs union would travel some way to permitting the free movement of goods, critically for asset managers, a customs union without an specific extension to embrace services would preclude free movement of services of the benign that asset managers currently reckon upon. In particular, under 4 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld MiFID II and the AIFMD, and absent any specific further legislative solution, a customs union will likely preclude firms being able to utilize passporting rights as they would now. While both above directives hold mechanisms for a third country passport, the regulatory framework for this does not currently exist, and the attendant conditions for the selfsame would live onerous, and subject to material uncertainty. By contrast, membership of the single market would likely bring with it some configuration of passporting rights – if not in exactly the selfsame way as they currently profit the industry. Temporary Permissions Regime In preparation for a no-deal Brexit, the Treasury and the FCA stand shown willing. Regulations stand been proposed to implement a “temporary permissions regime”, under which non-UK EEA firms currently operating in the UK would continue to live able to act as if they were authorised for a epoch of time. Ultimately, firms relying on a temporary permission will stand to perform a transition to full authorisation. The FCA has actively encouraged incoming EEA firms currently using passports to prepare applications for a temporary permission to avoid overcrowding at the ultimate jiffy before the curtain falls. Increasingly, a shared commonsense that a no-deal Brexit should live avoided at all, or nearly all, costs has seeped into the political discourse, and valiant efforts stand been made by manufacturing and services industry lobbies to steer pellucid of a cliff-edge departure on 29 March. As the past years stand shown, however, one does well to await the unexpected, and the haphazard contingency plans that stand been drawn up to this terminate could live build to test yet. The contingency plans of individual firms who, without any pellucid guidance are left eagerly poised for action, meanwhile, often stand a significant component of hoping for the best. 5In Principle 2. The Extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime On 4 July 2018, the FCA published near-final rules setting out how it intends to implement the extension of the SMCR to total FCA-authorised, nonbanking firms.1 The FCA has proposed for this current regime to become effective on 9 December 2019, albeit with a transitional epoch to give firms time to implement it fully. As had been previously proposed by the FCA, the SMCR will live implemented in tiers. Most firms will drop within the “Core Regime”; however, a small number of firms categorised as “enhanced regime” firms will live subject to additional requirements, and there will live fewer rules for “limited scope” firms. The proposed current rules require firms to obtain prior FCA approval for “Senior Managers.” An individual who is designated a Senior Manager may live personally liable for breaches of FCA requirements that rob spot within his or her zone of responsibility. In addition, firms will live required to certify the fitness and propriety of individuals who are not Senior Managers, but who may cause significant harm to the arduous or to its customers due to the nature of their role. A current set of Conduct Rules will apply to virtually total individuals within a firm. The first enforcement case under the SMCR, regarding the CEO of Barclays, was decided in 2018: They discuss it in more detail under “Recent Case Law and Key Enforcement Cases” below. To Whom Does This Apply? The SMCR will apply to total UK nonbank firms authorised by the FCA. This will embrace UK group 1 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps18-14.pdf. entities of non-UK firms, including US and Asian investment managers with a UK sub-advisor or a UK execution-only presence. The rules will likewise affect some non-UK staff of UK firms, including directors or material risk takers based outside the UK. The Core Regime The Core Regime consists of three main elements: the Senior Managers Regime, the Certification Regime and the Conduct Rules. (i) Senior Managers Regime An FCA-authorised arduous will necessity to obtain prior approval by the FCA for the most senior staff members whose roles embrace the performance of “Senior Management Functions.” As has been the case under the current system, the Senior Managers will necessity to demonstrate to the FCA that they are proper and proper to undertake their roles. As portion of this, firms will necessity to obtain criminal records checks for total proposed Senior Managers. Approval to hold a Senior Management duty may live granted outright by the FCA for a limited time epoch or subject to conditions. The Senior Management Functions embrace the Chairman duty (SMF9), the Chief Executive duty (SMF1), the Executive Director duty (SMF3), the Compliance Oversight duty (SMF16) and the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (SMF17). Anyone who performs these functions in a arduous covered by the SMCR, whether present in the UK or not, will necessity to seek this authorisation. Under the current Approved Person/Controlled duty regime, a corporate entity was permitted to hold a Controlled Function. Under the Senior Managers Regime, however, only individuals can hold a Senior Management Function, and it cannot live held by a corporate entity. In firms where a corporate entity currently performs a Controlled Function, it will live necessary to deem which individual will hold the Senior Management Function. Whilst the FCA has not made specific how this will work, firms should deem who is directing the corporate entity that is performing the controlled function. It is likely that a director of that corporate entity will live the most suitable person to hold that Senior Manager position. 6 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Statement of Responsibilities Firms must prepare a Statement of Responsibilities (SoR) with respect to each Senior Manager. Firms will necessity to provide the SoR to the FCA when a Senior Manager applies to live approved, and then whenever there is a significant change to his or her responsibilities. If a Senior Manager holds more than one Senior Management duty within one firm, he or she will live required to stand only a single SoR describing total of his or her responsibilities. However, if a Senior Manager holds Senior Management Functions in two or more firms, he or she will necessity a separate document for each firm. The FCA has published guidance on the contents of an SoR: An SoR must live a self-contained document, which does not incorporate any other document by reference. It must point to clearly how the responsibilities performed by a Senior Manager proper in with the firm’s overall governance and management arrangements, and this must live consistent with a firm’s management responsibilities map. Ultimately, the firm’s set of SoRs should demonstrate, when build together, that there are no gaps in the allocation of responsibilities among the Senior Managers. Duty of Responsibility Each Senior Manager will owe a duty of responsibility. This means that, if a arduous is in infringement of its obligations under the FCA’s rules or principles, the Senior Manager amenable for the zone in which the infringement took spot could live held personally accountable. In order to hold someone individually accountable, the FCA would stand to point to that the Senior Manager did not rob the steps that a person in his or her position could reasonably live expected to rob to avoid the infringement occurring. This duty is included to ameliorate accountability, not just of the junior decision-makers, but to the highest echelons of the business. Prescribed Responsibilities The FCA has proposed a number of “Prescribed Responsibilities.” Firms will live obliged to ensure that, at total times, a Senior Manager has responsibility for each of the Prescribed Responsibilities. Some examples of Prescribed Responsibilities embrace the performance by the arduous of its obligations under the Senior Managers Regime (including its implementation and oversight), the performance by the arduous of its obligations under the Certification Regime (discussed below), the performance by the arduous of its obligations in respect of notifications and training in relation to the Conduct Rules, and the responsibility for the firm’s policies and procedures for countering the risk that the arduous might live used to further pecuniary crime. (ii) Certification Regime The Certification Regime will apply to employees who are not Senior Managers, but whose role means that it is feasible for them to stand a significant repercussion on customers, the arduous or market integrity. These roles are called “Certification Functions.” For each employee undertaking a Certification Function, the arduous must assess whether they are proper and proper to accomplish their job, and the arduous must provide each such employee with a certificate to that effect. This certificate must circumscribe the areas of the business with which that employee will live involved. For each employee, certification must live undertaken at least once a year. In deciding whether someone is proper and proper under the Certification Regime, the arduous will stand to rob into account several different factors, including whether that person has obtained apposite qualifications, whether he or she has undertaken inescapable training programmes, whether he or she possesses the requisite level of competence and whether he or she has the confiscate personal characteristics for the role. The Certification Functions embrace what was CF29 under the Approved Persons regime, which was (unfortunately) called the “significant management function.” trust should live taken that no confusion arises: To live clear, holders of the significant management duty under the Approved Persons regime in total likelihood will live subject to the Certification Regime and not the Senior Managers Regime. The restriction of the Certification Regime to “employees” is sort of deceptive: Not only does it encompass “employees” in the ordinary sense of the word, but it likewise includes anyone who provides, or is under an responsibility to provide, services to the arduous and who is subject to the supervision, direction or control by the arduous as to the manner in which those services are provided. Third-party contractors and other agents may drop within this definition. The Certification Regime applies to total UK-based employees, any non-UK-based employees who stand contact with UK clients and any material risk takers, regardless of where they are located. Whilst perhaps uncommon, it is feasible that 7In Principle someone performing a Senior Management duty will likewise live performing a Certification Function. In this case, it is necessary for both procedures to live followed, that is, the FCA will stand to authorise that person to hold a Senior Management Function, and the arduous will stand to certify them as proper and proper to perform their role. Directory As the SMCR replaces the Approved Persons regime, the number of people approved individually by the FCA will dwindle dramatically, since the vast majority of employees will not live Senior Managers, but will drop within the Certification Regime. Consequently, the pecuniary Services Register currently maintained by the FCA will become much less useful, since only those people approved by the FCA (Senior Managers) would likely continue to issue on it. In light of this, the FCA published a consultation paper in July 2018 proposing the introduction of a current Directory. This Directory would hold information not only on Senior Managers, but likewise on total people who stand been certified by their organisation. Populating this Directory will require the co-operation of authorised firms, since they will live the ones with the information on their certifications. The provision of this information to the FCA for the Directory may well live a nontrivial matter for firms. The FCA’s consultation closed on 5 October 2018, and they await the FCA to issue a policy statement in Q1 of this year. At that point, they will hopefully know much more about what is proposed and what burdens might live placed on individual firms. (iii) Conduct Rules The Conduct Rules will live enforceable by the FCA against individuals. The individual Conduct Rules will apply to total staff (barring inescapable ancillary staff, such as receptionists, cleaners and catering staff). The FCA will apply the Conduct Rules to a firm’s regulated and unregulated pecuniary services activities. It should live noted that this is a narrower scope than how the Conduct Rules apply within the SMCR as applied to banks, where the Conduct Rules apply across the board to total activities. The Conduct Rules are divided into two tiers, the first tier being applicable to total staff, and the second tier being applicable to Senior Managers only. The Conduct Rules are high-level guidance and largely replicate the principles currently applicable to Approved Persons. They are informed by the Principles for Businesses, which remain unchanged. Firms will live obliged to train total staff on how the Conduct Rules apply to their activities within the firm. The Enhanced Regime The largest and most knotty firms will live subject to inescapable additional requirements under the enhanced regime. Enhanced regime firms will embrace “significant investment (IFPRU) firms” and firms with assets under management of £50 billion or more. Enhanced firms will necessity to comply with the Core Regime requirements and inescapable additional requirements. Such requirements embrace additional Senior Management Functions and Prescribed Responsibilities, as well as an overall responsibility for every business activity and management duty of the firm. In addition, an enhanced regime arduous will stand to compile a responsibilities map that sets out the firm’s management and governance arrangements. Regulatory References For incoming employees who are either going to live performing Senior Management Functions or who will live covered by the Certification Regime, a arduous will stand to request a reference from their previous employers covering the preceding six years. This reference will live known as a “Regulatory Reference.” This reference must embrace information of any disciplinary action following breaches of the Conduct Rules, as well as any information apposite to whether the employee was proper and proper. This information will necessity to live shared in a standard template, and, for each employee, the Regulatory Reference must live updated appropriately if and when any current apposite information comes to light. Since Regulatory References will live mandatory to provide, it is vital that firms accomplish not attempt to enter into agreements that combat with their responsibility to provide such references (for example, NDAs). Non-Executive Directors Non-Executive Directors (NED) will necessity to live approved by the FCA if they are to perform the SMF9 Chair duty or the SMF14 Senior Independent Director Function. NEDs who accomplish not necessity to live approved may still live subject to the Conduct Rules 8 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and the Certification Regime. In addition to the generally applicable Conduct Rules, NEDs will likewise necessity to comply with Rule SC4 (the requirement to disclose appropriately any information of which the regulator would reasonably await notice), which otherwise applies to only those holding Senior Management Functions. Next Steps The FCA has announced various conversion mechanisms that should ease the transition from the current Approved Persons regime to the SMCR. For example, Approved Persons at “core” firms will stand their Controlled duty approval mapped to the apposite Senior Management duty where feasible (e.g., a director holding CF1 will become (if appropriate) an executive director holding SMF3). Other Approved Persons holding just CF30 (Customer), for example, may not necessity to hold a Senior Management duty at total and will simply live covered by the Certification Regime. Whilst this will ease the transition somewhat, this automatic mapping will not live feasible for total Approved Persons (e.g., an Approved Person holding CF4 (Partner) may stand to hold SMF3 (Executive Director), as well as SMF27 (Partner). It will live necessary, therefore, for some trust to live taken to ensure that the conversions to the current regime are total correctly completed. The FCA has likewise announced transition provisions with respect to the Certification Regime. For example, firms will stand one year from the commencement date of 9 December 2019 to provide a certificate to employees as required. However, firms will stand to stand identified who will necessity to live certified under the Certification Regime on day 1. Whilst the commencement date is still some time away, firms would live well advised to stand started to believe about what they will necessity to accomplish in splendid time so as to ensure a seamless transition when this is required. 9In Principle 3. Market abuse FCA “Complying with [MAR] is more than adhering to a set of prescriptive requirements”; it is a “state of mind,” so says the FCA.2 In reiterating its understanding of MAR, the FCA once again has provided firms with a tall bar to meet in the detection and avoidance of market abuse, but at the selfsame time providing comparatively miniature direction on how to comply. Market abuse remains a tall priority for the FCA. In 2017/2018, the FCA received 4,829 insider dealing reports and 666 market manipulation reports, and consequently opened 87 abuse cases. The regulator’s continued interest makes it total the more vital to glean as much as feasible from the FCA’s publications to try to discern how best to meet the requirements placed on firms as the “first line of defence” against market abuse.3 A few themes from the FCA’s recent publications are worth highlighting. First, in relation to systems surrounding internal alerts and warnings of potential market abuse, the FCA has warned against relying on “out of the box” or “industry standard” software. Whilst the FCA has appreciated that generic software can live helpful to a firm, the FCA thinks that this is too blunt an instrument for a arduous to reckon on. There is a danger that people who are intent on market abuse will not live caught if they deviate at total from the most common forms of market abuse that such software is designed to detect. The remedy, from the FCA’s point of view, is that each arduous must assess what warnings and alerts are confiscate 2 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. 3 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. for the business that arduous conducts, taking into account the scale, size and nature of the firm’s activity. Whilst this may live informed by “industry standards,” the arduous must exercise its own independent judgment in determining what will live sufficient. Second, the FCA has reported that it thinks that there is a level of underreporting of suspicious trades and orders (Suspicious Trades and Order Reporting, or STOR). In particular, the FCA thinks that firms are sometimes taking too narrow a view of the market, and thereby missing suspicious behaviour; the specimen used by the FCA is in relation to fixed income products, where firms may analyse the trades of one particular product and not deem trades in other related products that, when analysed together, would require a STOR submission.4 Third, the FCA has scrutinised firms’ utilize of insider lists. Under MAR, firms are required to maintain insider lists, and there are templates that must live used setting out what information should live contained within an insider list. When requested, these lists must live provided to the FCA. The FCA notes that it has “observed varying character in the insider lists they stand received to date.”5 A particular concern that the FCA has is the overuse of permanent insider lists as a way of trying to avoid keeping temporary insider lists up to date. The advice to firms given by the FCA is to anticipate likely sources of insider information and set up systems that can ensure that insider lists for individual deals or events are naturally created whenever a market participant gains inside information. Removing a dependence on permanent insider lists is, it appears, designed to inspirit this behaviour. The European Securities and Markets Authority 2018 saw ESMA issue its first annual report under MAR, providing a summary of actions under MAR across the EU in 2017.6 In summary, the results are as follows: 4 FCA, Market Watch, September 2018, Issue 56, https://www. fca.org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-56.pdf 5 FCA, Market Watch, December 2018, Issue 58, https://www.fca. org.uk/publication/newsletters/market-watch-58.pdf. 6 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 145-1081_mar_article_33_report_sanctions.pdf. 10 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld The Statistics The FCA’s enforcement figures accomplish not perform for comfortable reading for pecuniary institutions. Year on year, the number of investigations opened by the FCA is increasing. This zeal for opening investigations, however, is not matched by an equivalent growth in the number of cases reaching a conclusion. In existent terms, this means not only that, statistically speaking, you are more likely to live the subject of an investigation, but that this investigation is likely to rob a significant time to conclude. In the minutes of the meeting of the FCA board in September 2018, it is noted that the FCA planned to “clea[r] total legacy cases by Q1 of 2019.”7 Their review of the notices that the FCA has produced since then would suggest that this was perhaps optimistic. 7 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/minutes/fca-board-26-and- 27-september-2018.pdf, point 11.2. Accuracy of the Data They note that the accuracy of the FCA’s reports on the number of open investigations has been placed under some scrutiny recently. At the terminate of ultimate year, the results from several freedom-of-information requests made to the FCA within a matter of weeks of each other were published.8 Each of these requests ostensibly asked for the selfsame information, how many open investigations there are, yet the FCA gave three different, incompatible answers. Whilst they stand no reason to doubt the figures provided by the FCA, which they review here, it is evident that the presentation of the data is not intended to live neutral and that further contextualisation is required. Number of Cases The latest full figures on the number of cases that they stand are for the 2017/2018 year.9 On 1 April 2017, there were 410 investigations open. In the following 12 months, 208 cases closed, and another 302 investigations started. Ultimately, by 31 March 2018, there were 94 more open investigations than the previous year. The most striking expand in this epoch relates 8 discern L. Rogerson and R. Wolcott, “UK FCA published inconsistent, double counted enforcement statistics in license of information responses” (Thomson Reuters, 14 December 2018). 9 Unless otherwise stated, figures in this section are taken from: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/annual-report-2017-18- enforcement-performance.pdf (last accessed 14 December 2018). 4. The FCA’s Recent Enforcement Trends • The only criminal proceedings brought were by the German authorities. Criminal fines were imposed on seven individuals for market manipulation, although the total amount of the fines was very limited at only EUR 12,450. • Two Article 14 MAR proceedings were brought – one each by the Slovenian and Lithuanian authorities – in relation to the infringement of the insider dealing requirements. These did not result in pecuniary penalties. • Thirty-five pecuniary sanctions were issued across the EU relating to the infringement of Article 15 MAR on market manipulation. With the exception of a EUR 40,000 sanction imposed by the French authorities, these were total comparatively small fines. • For “other infringements” of MAR, 107 pecuniary sanctions and 111 nonmonetary sanctions were imposed. Notably, this included a penalty of £70,000 issued by the FCA against Tejoori Limited for failing to inform the market of inside information as required by Article 17(1) MAR. 11In Principle to investigations into culture and governance. The number of cases in this category increased by more than 300%, from 15 to 61 cases. pecuniary crime cases likewise showed a substantial expand of more than 50%, from 55 to 86 open investigations, and market abuse investigations were up by nearly 30%, from 22 to 28 open cases. The only type of investigation showing a substantial dwindle in this epoch was wholesale conduct investigations, which declined by just more than 30% from 38 to 26 cases. Whilst these statistics must live understood within the context of a comparatively small data set, these figures accomplish tally with the FCA’s stated priorities, particularly with the ever-increasing focus on individual accountability and acting against criminal conduct threatening the integrity of the market. Case Length The middling length of civil and regulatory cases brought by the FCA, including cases that settle or where the FCA decides to rob no further action, has increased by about a month and a half, from 17.6 to 19.1 months. This figure, on its own, however, is sort of misleading: This modest expand in the overall middling covers some more concerning changes in particular categories. For example, in a case that eventually settles, the length of time from commencement of the investigation up to settlement has increased by nine months to 32.3 months. Of even greater concern, the middling length of a concluded case that was referred to the RDC has nearly doubled since the previous year to 59.4 months (almost five years). Since this is an average, it is quite feasible that some cases stand taken substantially longer than this. In contrast to these figures, however, the middling duration of a concluded case that is eventually referred to the Upper Tribunal has decreased by approximately nine months to 52.4 months. Final Notices and pecuniary Penalties In 2017/2018, the FCA issued 269 final notices, with penalties imposed of almost £70 million. By contrast, in the first six months of 2018/2019, the FCA issued only 77 final notices, and penalties of only just under £2.4 million. While the FCA was more active in the second half of ultimate year – notably, in October, it fined Tesco Personal Finance plc £16.4 million, and, in December, it fined Santander UK plc £32.8 million – the £60.4 million total fines for 2018 remains the second lowest since the regulator’s inception by both volume and number of fines. Criminal Cases The FCA noted in its 2017/2018 Enforcement Annual Report that “[c]riminal cases can rob significantly longer to resolve than regulatory cases” and reports that the middling length of total criminal cases is 58.2 months10. Whilst substantially longer than the “average” civil or regulatory case – that is, including investigations that are not pursued or that settle – they note that this is eminently comparable to the middling duration of cases involving an RDC or Upper Tribunal reference. One recent criminal case is of particular note. The FCA brought a prosecution against a former UBS compliance officer and a UBS trader over allegations of insider dealing.11 The two defendants had their first hearing before the City of London Magistrates in June 2017. Only in October 2018 did the eight-week trial start. Then, in December 2018, after five days of deliberations, a jury was unable to gain a verdict and was discharged. This was despite the judge permitting the jury to Come to only a majority verdict. The FCA has notified the court that it intends to seek a retrial against these defendants.12 10 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/annual-report- 2017-18-enforcement-performance.pdf, page 9. 11 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/two-charged- insider-dealing. 12 https://www.ft.com/content/9b00c710-fe17-11e8-ac00- 57a2a826423e. 12 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld pecuniary regulation is now inexorably intertwined with data protection rules. It is likewise striking that these rules often stand very broad application beyond the EU. As explained below, recent enforcement cases indicate that the nexus does not stand to live extremely obvious or clearly direct. (i) The GDPR The data protection framework set out in the GDPR continues to become further entrenched in the pecuniary regulatory framework apposite to pecuniary market participants, including asset managers. This is reflected, for example, in the FCA’s focus on cybersecurity in its 2018/2019 business Plan, which sets out the FCA’s objectives for the period,13 joint FCA and UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) statements,14 and co-ordinated investigations and enforcement actions of the FCA acting with the ICO.15 It is worth looking back to two enforcement actions of 2018 to live reminded of the direction in which GDPR enforcement is going, which accords with the expectations of many of aggressive enforcement and (a concern for non-EU-based asset managers) the relatively narrow connection to the EU that is being considered sufficient by the ICO to bring an enforcement action. 13 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/business-plans/business- plan-2018-19.pdf. 14 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-and-ico-publish- joint-update-gdpr. 15 https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and- blogs/2018/09/credit-reference-agency-equifax-fined-for-security- breach/. (ii) AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd – Enforcement over an Entity with no Presence in the EU In October 2018, AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd (AIQ) was the first target of a formal enforcement notice by the ICO under the GDPR.16 AIQ, which is a Canadian business, was required to “cease processing any personal data of UK or EU citizens obtained from UK political organisations or otherwise.” AIQ breached the GDPR because it “processed personal data in a way that data subjects were not alert of, for purposes which they would not stand expected, and without a lawful basis for processing”. The case is significant for non-EU businesses in particular because the enforcement notice was served on an entity established outside of the UK that had no presence at total in the EU. The ICO took the view that AIQ’s processing of personal data related to the monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour in the EU and that it was therefore within the scope of its enforcement powers. (iii) Equifax Ltd. – Non-EU Cyber-Attack Did Not Preclude Application of EU Rules; and Significant Fine In September 2018, the ICO issued Equifax Ltd, a UK-based credit reference agency, with a £500,000 fine for failing to protect the personal information of approximately 15 million UK citizens whose data was breached during a cyber-attack against Equifax that took spot in 2017.17 The fine was the maximum permitted to live levied under the pre-GDPR legislative framework. Since the failings occurred before the date of entry into obligate of the GDPR (25 May 2018), the investigation was carried out under the previous UK regime. The case is significant for non- EU businesses in particular because the location of the cyber-attack in the US did not preclude strict application of the UK’s data protection rules. Although the information systems of Equifax in the US were compromised, Equifax in the UK was identified as amenable for the data of its UK customers: The ICO took the view that the UK arm of Equifax failed to rob confiscate steps to ensure that its US parent, which was processing the data on its behalf, was protecting the information. Although too soon to tell, compliance challenges may arise post-Brexit if it is the case that, 16 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/enforcement- notices/2260123/aggregate-iq-en-20181024.pdf. 17 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/mpns/2259808/ equifax-ltd-mpn-20180919.pdf. 5. Cybersecurity and Data Protection 13In Principle over time, the substance of key requirements under the GDPR diverge from the configuration of the GDPR that is adopted by the UK as a legally separate regime on “exit day”: There may eventually, in effect, live two fairly distinct versions of the GDPR. Regulatory guidance is expected to live forthcoming in 2019 concerning, among other aspects of the GDPR, its high-level principles, including lawfulness, fairness, transparency of data processing and storage requirements. The EU e-Privacy Regulation The e-Privacy Regulation (the EPR) impacting, among other matters, “direct marketing” in the EU, is in the process of being finalised, and it is expected to Come into effect in late 2019 or early 2020 once the legislative process has concluded. Although the rules supplant and tighten existing “direct marketing” requirements under the existing e-Privacy Directive from 2002,18 direct marketing will, as explained below, now live subject to EU-wide rules that are uniform across the EU rather than, as currently, implemented differently by member state. Further, the stricter concept of “consent” from the GDPR will now live applied. Consent must therefore live freely given, obvious and evidenced by a positive action of the recipient: A pre-checked consent box, for example, is unlikely to suffice. The EPR presents the possibility of significant fines along the lines of the GDPR. The territorial scope of the EPR is wide-reaching: In addition to compliance being required by legal and natural persons within the EU, legal and natural persons located outside of the EU will likewise live required to comply with the EPR where they provide electronic services to users located in the EU. Whilst enforcement against non-EU persons may live difficult, for anyone with any connection to the EU, these rules will live vital to follow as well. Direct marketing is defined broadly as “any configuration of advertising, whether written or oral, sent to one or more identified or identifiable end-users of electronic communications services, including the placing of voice to voice calls, the utilize of automated calling and communication systems with or without human interaction, electronic message, etc.” Those engaging in direct marketing will necessity to panoply their phone 18 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. number or, alternatively, utilize a special identifiable pre- fixed number that makes pellucid that the muster relates to marketing. One of the most significant rules that is expected to live contained in the EPR and so will live in obligate across the EU provides for a “soft opt-in” in particular circumstances. The soft opt-in provides that direct marketing will live permitted to live directed towards a person who has already received goods or services from the business, provided that (a) the direct marketing relates to similar goods or services, and (b) that, in each communication, the subscriber is given the break to “opt-out.” This rule is similar to the one already in obligate in the UK under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulation 2003 (PECR);19 however, it will live necessary to wait and discern whether the concept is given the selfsame meaning by the EU courts as it has been understood domestically. Cybersecurity In October 2018, the FCA fined Tesco Personal Finance plc £16.4 million for its systems and controls- related failings following a cyber-attack that the FCA considered “largely avoidable”.20 The FCA said in its final notice that Tesco Personal Finance plc failed to rob confiscate action to prevent the foreseeable risk of fraud. In doing so, it breached Principle 2 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses to conduct their business with due care, skill and diligence. 19 The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 SI 2003 No.2426. 20 They discuss this case further in the “Recent Case Law and Key Enforcement Cases” section below. 14 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation21 2019 will discern the final legislative steps being taken to finalise core provisions of the EU SFTR relating to reporting of securities financing transactions (SFT) – essentially covering repos and buy-sellback transactions. Investment firms and credit institutions will not live required to comply with reporting provisions until 12 months from the date of the European Commission adopting the apposite regulatory and implementing technical standards, and for UCITS and AIFs, until 18 months has elapsed from the date of their adoption. The SFT reporting rules stand not yet been finalised following extended disagreement between the 21 Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Commission and ESMA.22 Although compliance will not live required until early/mid-2020, many pecuniary market participants will necessity this time to build in spot apposite IT and operational systems for collateral management and the reporting of SFTs. It is possible, however, that much of the work required may already stand been done where systems stand been introduced for EMIR, given similarities with respect to a number of the reporting provisions.23 Notwithstanding the final configuration or timing of Brexit, the UK is likely to adopt any rules that enter into obligate in the EU after “exit day” in substantively similar configuration to that in which they are published, given that the rules originate from globally agreed G20 standards. 22 The Commission announced its intent in July 2018 to endorse the RTS and the ITS, with some amendments compared to the draft submitted by ESMA to the Commission. ESMA has issued a statement that it does not agree with one of the amendments relating to the Commission’s proposal to drop ESMA’s provision that makes it mandatory for reports to embrace Legal Entity Identifiers for branches and Unique Transaction Identifiers once these stand been developed and “endorsed by ESMA” – the Commission takes the view that this amounts to a delegation of power to ESMA to perform changes to the reporting requirements that does not accord with the scope of their legal powers. 23 For example, if both entities that are subject to an SFT are located in the EU, they will both live required to report the trade to an authorised trade repository on a T+1 basis. 6. EU Securities Financing Transaction Regulation21 15In Principle 7. Amendments to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation EMIR has caused some difficulties since its promulgation in 2012, which a large EMIR reform project, expected to live finalised in a number of respects in 2019, is intended to address. As explained below, this so-called EMIR “refit” proposal will affect a large number of the requirements under EMIR, impacting total types of participants subject to the rules. There are likewise requirements under the current EMIR package that are scheduled for phase-in during 2019 relating to clearing and margin, for which participants should live preparing to the extent applicable to them. Finally, an intragroup exemption from clearing is expected to live extended following its expiry at the terminate of 2018. (i) The EMIR Refit Proposal Although the EMIR refit is still in the midst of the European legislative process and inescapable requirements may therefore find themselves altered by the time of its conclusion, the following sets out a number of key areas of the reform package as they currently stand in the process: • Proposal that total AIFs become “financial counterparties”: One of the key changes in the EMIR refit is the proposal that the definition of FC live amended to capture total AIFs, and not only AIFs that stand an authorised or registered Alternative Investment Fund Manager (AIFM).24 24 Original drafts of the legislation had suggested that non-EU AIFs with a non-EU AIFM would live reclassified as FCs, which would stand represented a significant expansion of the scope of EMIR to non-EU AIFMs. More recently, the definition of FC has been narrowed so that it captures EU AIFs (regardless of the location of the AIFM), as well as, per existing rules, AIFs (wherever located) with an authorised or registered AIFM. • Introduction of a “small pecuniary counterparty”: A definition of “small pecuniary counterparty” (SFC) is proposed to live introduced for entities that trade infrequently and accomplish not pose a systemic risk; these entities would live exempt from the clearing responsibility under EMIR.25 • Amendment of the time reference for the clearing threshold determination: The proposal is for a once-yearly determination based on the aggregate month-end middling total notional amount for March, April and May, replacing the current 30- day rolling middling determination. • Proposal to remove the requirement that clearing for one asset triggers clearing requirement for total asset classes: The EMIR refit is expected to remove the requirement that, where the clearing responsibility is triggered by an NFC for one asset class subject to the clearing obligation, it is then subject to the clearing responsibility for total asset classes subject to the clearing obligation. Instead, it is proposed that the NFC would live in scope for only the clearing responsibility requirements for the class of derivative that has fallen over the apposite clearing responsibility threshold; this change would significantly reduce the clearing tribulation for many entities that trade clearable products only relatively infrequently. • Proposed amendment of reporting requirement for NFC entities: It has been proposed that the reporting requirement live amended so that, where an FC has entered into a derivative transaction with an NFC falling below the clearing threshold, the FC would live amenable for reporting on behalf of both parties. • Proposed extension of the clearing exemption for pension schemes, which expired on 16 August 2018. 25 The determination for whether an entity is an FC or an SFC would, in current proposals, live made by applying the selfsame clearing only once yearly, based on the aggregate month-end middling total notional amount for March, April and May. Risk mitigation rules would however continue to apply to the SFC. 16 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (ii) Phase-In of Requirements Relating to Clearing and Margin The clearing responsibility under EMIR will continue to live phased in during 2019 for Category 3 and Category 4 counterparties.26 Phase-in of the initial margin requirements under EMIR will likewise continue in 2019, with the threshold for mandatory initial margin falling to an aggregate middling notional amount of uncleared derivatives on a groupwide basis above EUR 750 billion from 1 September 2019. Entities subject to the clearing and margin rules will necessity to consider, among other matters, whether their clearing/CCP relationships are adequate and, for initial margin purposes, which custodian they will use, and the required steps to implement custodial relationships. (iii) Extension of the Intragroup Exemption from the Clearing responsibility On 27 September 2018, ESMA submitted proposed amendments to the European Commission relating to the secondary legislation under EMIR concerning intragroup transactions with a third-country entity.27 These changes, once passed (which they fully await to happen), will extend the expiry date for the exemption from clearing for interest rate derivative classes denominated in the G4 currencies to 21 December 2020.28 26 For (i) Category 3 counterparties (i.e., FCs whose group’s aggregate month-end middling of outstanding notional amount of OTC derivatives is below 8 billion EUR, assessed over January/ February/March, and AIFs that are NFCs below the threshold) from 21 June 2019 for CDS; and (ii) for Category 4 counterparties (those that are NFCs not falling within any other category), from 9 May 2019. 27 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 151-1768_final_report_no.6_on_the_clearing_obligation_intragroup. pdf. 28 The exemption expired on 21 December 2018, for interest rate derivative classes denominated in G4 currencies subject to the clearing responsibility and will expire on later dates for CDS and inescapable other interest rate derivatives. Many industry participants stand not prepared for expiry of the exemption, partly because it was expected that the exemption would live extended until third-country equivalence decisions are in place. These are currently absent. ESMA therefore issued a statement29 on 31 October 2018 in which it emphasised that national regulators should apply a “risk-based approach” to enforcement of noncompliance with the clearing responsibility by entities utilising the intragroup exemption from clearing. 29 https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/esma70- 151-1773_public_statement_on_co_and_to_for_intragroup_as_well_ as_cat_4.pdf. 17In Principle 8. EU Benchmarks Regulation and LIBOR Cessation The BMR30 entered into obligate on 1 January 2018, regulating the “use,” “contribution to” and “administration” of benchmarks. The BMR continues to raise issues into 2019, in particular, for “users” of benchmarks, which will embrace asset managers. (i) Challenges for Users of Benchmarks In 2019, users of benchmarks are finding themselves with the difficult question of whether they are able to continue to utilize non-EU administered benchmarks from the terminate of the year. The “use” restrictions in the BMR prevent EU-based entities from referencing a non-EU administered and non-ESMA authorised “index” used as a benchmark in pecuniary instruments from 1 January 2020, unless, in broad terms: i. The jurisdiction of the administrator of the index has been declared “equivalent” to the EU for the purposes of the BMR by the European Commission. ii. An administrator located outside of the EU has been recognised by an EU member state under the BMR. or iii. An EU located administrator endorses a non- EU benchmark and takes responsibility for its supervision. 30 Regulation (EU) 2016/1011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016, on indices used as benchmarks in pecuniary instruments and pecuniary contracts or to measure the performance of investment funds and amending Directives 2008/48/ EC and 2014/17/EU and Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. Although they are currently in the middle of a “transitional period” under the BMR (which permits entities located in the EU to utilize existing indices/ benchmarks until 1 January 2020, even where not any of these circumstances are met, provided that they “used” the benchmark when the BMR entered into force), there is the problem that, to date, no jurisdiction has yet been declared “equivalent” to the EU for the purposes of the BMR. Recognition and endorsement of benchmarks stand likewise not proved popular. It is not pellucid therefore how non-EU benchmarks may live used after the transitional period. Given this concern, a number of pecuniary industry groups collaborated in November 2018 to formally request by epistle to ESMA and the Commission that the transition epoch live extended.31 They await that it is very likely that regulatory guidance will live published during the course of 2019 to assist with these issues. (ii) Users’ Updates to “Robust Written Plans” and the repercussion of the Future Cessation of LIBOR In 2019, updates to benchmark plans may live needed in light of LIBOR ceasing to exist. Under the BMR, users of benchmarks are required to stand in spot a “robust written plan” to address fallbacks for any benchmarks used in case they cease to live available or if they change such that they can no longer live used.32 These plans are required to live made available to the FCA at their request. Written plans for benchmarks should live looked at carefully in 2019, particularly where any plans reference LIBOR. As is now well known, the LIBOR benchmark rate is expected to cease to exist from the terminate of 2021 following the FCA’s statement in July 2017 that panel bank contributors to LIBOR will no longer live encouraged by the FCA to provide quotes to set LIBOR. Monitoring preparations for LIBOR’s cessation likewise appears to live an FCA supervisory priority for 2019.33 31 https://www.isda.org/2018/11/21/briefing-on-the-need-to-extend- the-transition-period-of-the-benchmark-regulation/. 32 Article 28(2). 33 In September ultimate year, the FCA sent a “Dear CEO” to large UK banks and insurance companies in which the FCA asked for details of recipients’ preparations and the actions being taken to manage transition from LIBOR to alternative interest rate benchmarks. Although the audience consisted of large banking and insurance institutions, it is difficult to preclude the FCA looking at these issues more generally for entities under their supervision, including asset managers. 18 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (iii) Brexit and the BMR On 23 November 2018, the UK government published an explanatory stating how the BMR will live “on-shored” in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit.34 According to the memo, the UK plans to interject a “UK version” of the BMR that would effectively live a copyout of the EU version of the BMR as in obligate on exit day. Benchmarks on the ESMA register are proposed to live grandfathered for utilize in the UK for 34 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-benchmarks- amendment-and-transitional-provision-eu-exit-regulations-2019/ the-benchmarks-amendment-eu-exit-regulations-2018-explanatory- information. 24 months from the date of the UK’s exit from the EU. The extent to which the “UK BMR” would reflect updates to the “EU BMR” post-Brexit is not clearly addressed; however, it is not inconceivable that the two regimes could diverge over time in significant respects. 19In Principle 9. EU Action plan on Sustainability and Asset Management In November 2018, the European Commission published a consultation35 for input from stakeholders regarding the extent to which institutional investors and asset managers should live subject to duties of “sustainability,” and reflect these in their decision- making relating to investments. The consultation follows publication of an interim report by the EU tall level Expert Group on sustainable finance in July 2017, which recommended that the Commission clarify the fiduciary duties of institutional investors and asset managers concerning environmental, social and governance factors, and long-term sustainability. The striking aspect of the consultation is the planned shift to using pecuniary regulation as a tool to inspirit the sustainability of investments. No laws or regulations stand been proposed at this stage. Although respondents who stand published their replies publically stand generally agreed that sustainability should live more directly addressed in the legal framework applicable to investment decision- making, some stand resisted the assumptions that asset managers stand hitherto ignored sustainability as an integral portion of their investment process. 35 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-investors-duties- sustainability-consultation-document_en.pdf. Questions that stand been asked embrace the following: • “Do you believe apposite investment entities should deem sustainability factors in their investment decision-making?” • “What are the sustainability factors that the apposite investment entities should consider?” (Choices embrace climate factors, social factors, governance factors and other environmental factors.) • “Which of the following entities should deem sustainability factors in their investment decision- making?” (Choices embrace collective investment funds (AIFs, UCITS, etc.), insurance providers, and individual portfolio managers.) • “Within the portfolio’s asset allocation, should apposite investment entities deem sustainability factors even if the consideration of these factors would lead to lower returns to beneficiaries/clients in the medium/short term?” 20 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 10. Individuals on the Enforcement Agenda: 2018 Key Cases and Enforcement Round-Up As discussed more fully in the previous section, there were comparatively few enforcement cases in 2018, and correspondingly few final notices or decisions from the Upper Tribunal. Of the few cases that were decided, however, they note the following: Jes Staley36 On 11 May 2018, the FCA and the PRA fined Barclays’ CEO, Jes Staley, a total of £642,430 for allegedly failing to act with due skill, trust and diligence in the way that he conducted himself in response to an anonymous epistle received by Barclays in June 2016. Barclays is likewise now subject to special requirements by which it must report annually to the regulators detailing how it handles whistleblowing, with personal attestations required from Senior Managers amenable for the apposite systems and controls. According to the regulatory notices, in June 2016, a member of Barclays’ board received an anonymous epistle from an individual outside the bank, purportedly a shareholder, citing concerns about a senior employee, Barclays’ process for hiring him and Mr. Staley’s role in dealing with those concerns at a previous employer. Later that month, Barclays received a second anonymous epistle expressed as being from a Barclays employee. Mr. Staley became concerned that the letters were portion of a crusade against the employee and targeted at undermining Mr. Staley’s hiring strategy. Mr. Staley instructed the firm’s security team to identify the author of the first letter. Mr. Staley was informed that the epistle was being treated as a whistleblower, and so he should not attempt to uncover the author. Although Mr. 36 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/mr-james- edward-staley-2018.pdf. Staley initially accepted this advice, he later resumed his search to identify the author after he mistakenly interpreted an update from compliance that the correspondence was no longer being treated as a whistleblower. The final notices addressed to Mr. Staley from the FCA and the PRA organize that the Barclays CEO was in infringement of the requirement to act with due skill, trust and diligence (individual conduct rule 2) because he should stand identified that: • He had a combat of interest in relation to the epistle and needed to rob particular trust to maintain an confiscate distance from Barclays’ internal investigation. • There was a risk that he would not live able to exercise impartial judgment in relation to how Barclays should respond. • Once the complaint was in the hands of the Compliance team, it was vital that Compliance retained control over its investigation process. While the regulators said that Mr. Staley made serious errors of judgment, they did not find him to stand acted with a necessity of integrity. They did, however, point out that the standard of conduct expected from a CEO under individual conduct rule 2 was more exacting than for other employees and that CEOs must ensure that confiscate standards of governance are maintained. The final notices perform no allegations regarding the Senior Manager Conduct Rules. Although the regulators acknowledged that Mr. Staley made no personal gain from the events, they viewed his misconduct as sufficiently serious for each to impose a penalty of 10% of his annual income (with a 30% reduction in the overall fine for agreeing to settle at an early stage in proceedings). Barclays has likewise announced that it reduced Mr. Staley’s compensation for 2016 by £500,000. In addition to the penalty imposed on Mr. Staley, Barclays agreed to enhanced reporting requirements under which it must inform the regulators on an annual basis how it handles whistleblowing, with personal attestations required from those Senior Managers amenable for the apposite systems and controls. In related proceedings, current York State’s pecuniary 21In Principle regulator fined Barclays Bank Plc and its current York offshoot US$15 million based on the selfsame conduct that underlies the enforcement in the UK.37 The current York agency accused the bank of governance shortfalls and suggested that it had taken a “step back” after prior enforcement for other violations. Alistair Rae Burns38 Mr. Burns’ case was factually complicated. The Upper Tribunal’s judgment is informative on some vital questions of principle, however: To what extent is an approved person liable to ensure that a particular investment is suitable for a particular customer when it is known that that customer is receiving independent advice from a third party? Mr. Burns was an approved person holding the CF1 (director) position at TailorMade Independent Limited (TMI). TMI itself was authorised by the FCA and acted as an independent pecuniary advisor, particularly advising customers on the benefits of transferring their pensions into Self-Invested Personal Pension Schemes (SIPP). Mr. Burns likewise had interests in other companies that functioned under the “TailorMade” brand (e.g., TailorMade Alternative Investments Limited (TMAI)). TMAI was not authorised by the FCA, although its business was the promotion of comparatively illiquid and esoteric investments to customers. Many of these investments were inappropriate, and, eventually, TMI and TMAI had to stop trading, and TMI’s authorisation was removed. Amongst other allegations, the FCA alleged against Mr. Burns that he had failed to rob reasonable steps to ensure that TMI, as a regulated entity, gave advice that was suitable for its customers. Further, the FCA alleged that TMI failed to obtain the necessary information from its clients to ensure that it had enough information so that it had a reasonable basis to believe that such investment advice given was suitable (e.g., information on the customer’s pecuniary situation, investment objectives, and knowledge and suffer in relation to the apposite types of investment). These rules are laid out in the FCA handbook at COBS 9.2. In defence, Mr. Burns pointed out that the investments in question were not “specified investments”; that is, they were not investments subject to regulation in total contexts. Second, Mr. Burns argued that total TMI did was arrange to set up a SIPP for a customer and that it did not give advice on the investments that went into 37 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/business/barclays- whistle-blower-fine.html. 38 https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2018/246.pdf. the SIPP, and that it was TMAI that did this. The Tribunal organize that, in any circumstance where a arduous gives advice to a customer on the merits of establishing a SIPP, any advice given on the merits of the underlying assets to live held within the SIPP must drop within the scope of the regulator’s rules, whether or not they would, in another context, live considered specified investments. Mr. Burns’ first dispute was therefore unsuccessful: The investments in a SIPP are subject to regulation in this context. Second, whilst the Tribunal accepted that, where a customer has “genuinely made a decision without advice from the IFA arduous which arranges for the establishment of the SIPP to acquire investments to live held within the SIPP, then the obligations of the IFA arduous … may live more limited.”39 The Tribunal accepted that a SIPP exists for the customer to perform some of his or her own decisions about investments and that merely setting up a SIPP for a customer did not necessarily express that TMI would stand to scrutinise the investments as if it had offered to counsel on them alone. The Tribunal thought, however, that any “limitation” on the COBS 9.2 principles on which TMI might try to avail itself was narrow. It was open to TMI to rob into account the fact that the customer had already decided (possibly with advice) the type of investments that he or she wanted to hold in a SIPP when assessing the client’s knowledge of the sector. It did not, however, express that TMI or Mr. Burns was excused from advising on the underlying investments at all; it was still necessary for them to gather enough information about the customer to determine whether the proposed investments were suitable. The Tribunal approved a lower-than-requested pecuniary penalty against Mr. Burns of £60,000 and upheld the FCA’s decision to impose a prohibition on Mr. Burns. Investment advisers should live alert that the COBS 9.2 rules (to gather enough information about a customer to determine whether a particular investment is suitable) may apply to investments that might otherwise not live regulated if the client is being advised in relation to another, related action that is regulated. Further, advisers should beware that instructions from a customer cannot live followed without thought. If the customer has received advice from another firm, the adviser may rob this into account, but still must determine whether the advice that the customer has received is suitable. 39  UKUT 246 (TCC), . 22 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Angela Burns40 On 24 May 2013, the FCA published a decision notice against Angela Burns fining her £154,800 and issuing a prohibition order. Five and a half years later, after references to the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, and an attempted appeal to the Supreme Court, the FCA issued its final notice against Ms. Burns in December 2018. Ms. Burns had been an NED at two mutual societies and acted as chair for their investment committees. Ms. Burns was engaged by the societies to provide investment advice, and she suggested a registered investment advisor. Unbeknownst to the mutual societies, however, Ms. Burns, at the selfsame time, was trying to elicit consultancy work for herself with the investment advisor. In her approach to the investment advisor, Ms. Burns explicitly referred to her NED positions in the mutual societies to perform herself more attractive. In falsely holding herself out as a neutral investment advisor for the mutual societies, and aggravating this by relying on her position in those societies for her own gain with the investment advisor, the FCA – and the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal agreed – decided that Ms. Burns was in infringement of Principle 1, to act with integrity in carrying out her accountable functions. The FCA determined that she should stand declared her conflicts of interest. Consequently, the FCA issued a prohibition order against Ms. Burns. The one success that Ms. Burns had before the Upper Tribunal, which was not disturbed on appeal to the Court of Appeal, was to stand the proposed fine of £154,800 reduced to £20,000. ENRC v. SFO41 Firms often bring in external law firms to conduct investigations and to provide reports on what has happened. Firms pick to instruct outside counsel for these investigations for a number of reasons, but one vital reason is the hope that the final report will live protected by legal professional privilege and so will not stand to live disclosed to a court or the regulator. ultimate year, they drew attention to two cases where 40 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/angela- burns-2018.pdf. 41 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2006.html. the court had taken a narrow view of privilege, and compelled the firms involved to disclose various notes and papers produced by external law firms during the investigation. One of those cases, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited v. Serious Fraud Office, has now been successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The judgment given is helpful for firms, but it still does not express that everything produced by a law arduous during an investigation will live covered by privilege. In particular, timing will matter. In December 2010, ENRC received an email from a whistleblower alleging criminal conduct in Kazakhstan and Africa. ENRC appointed external lawyers to investigate this. By March 2011, ENRC was alert that the SFO was interested in the situation, and ENRC’s general counsel arranged for the firm’s dawn-raid procedures to live reviewed and upgraded in response. ENRC’s head of compliance predicted a dawn-raid before the terminate of summer 2011. In August, the SFO wrote to ENRC advising it to deem carefully the SFO’s Self-Reporting Guidelines, and requested a meeting with its general counsel. The apposite question in this case was whether documents created by the external law firm, including notes of interviews with employees, after this epistle was received would live protected by privilege. There are two branches of legal professional privilege, namely legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. ENRC argued that the documents in dispute should generally live protected under litigation privilege, and further that the notes of interviews with employees should likewise live protected under legal advice privilege. In broad terms, legal advice privilege protects professional communications between a counsel and a client whenever these communications are made. Litigation privilege, on the other hand, protects communications that are made when legal proceedings are “reasonably contemplated” and when the communications are made for the “sole or predominant purpose” of those proceedings. At first instance ultimate year, Mrs. Justice Andrews decided that the notes of interviews with employees could not live protected by legal advice privilege.42 There is Court of Appeal authority that legal advice privilege can arise between only lawyers and employees who stand been specially authorised to seek and receive legal advice. These employees had 42 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/1017.html. 23In Principle not been specially designated, and so she decided that legal advice privilege would not apply. Mrs. Justice Andrews further decided that, in the apposite epoch after the SFO’s epistle in August 2011, ENRC did not reasonably contemplate that proceedings would live brought. Consequently, she organize that litigation privilege could likewise not apply to these documents. The Court of Appeal rarely overrules its own precedents. Whilst it was overtly faultfinding of the authority restricting legal advice privilege to communications between a counsel and only some employees, the Court left it to the Supreme Court to determine the question. The SFO has said that it does not plan to appeal this decision; they may stand to wait some time for another case to gain the Supreme Court. In any event, overruling this decision would not stand made a disagreement to the outcome of this case, since the Court of Appeal thought that litigation privilege should apply to the documents in this case, including notes made of interviews with employees. It held that, in total the circumstances of this case, and especially where (a) the SFO had gone beyond merely stating general principles from its guidelines and (b) lawyers had been appointed to conduct an investigation, there was “clear ground” to snort that proceedings were reasonably in contemplation. Indeed, much of what ENRC was attempting to accomplish was avoid the proceedings that it thought would live coming its way. The message from this case is generally positive. Even though legal advice privilege remains sort of unhelpful in terms of protecting investigation material, the courts should now peep more favourably on litigation privilege claims. Santander43 On 19 December 2018, the FCA fined Santander £32.8 million for failing to effectively process the accounts and investments of deceased customers. The FCA organize that, between 1 January 2013 and 11 July 2016, the bank breached: • Principle 3 of its Principles for Businesses (management and control) by failing to rob reasonable trust to organise and control its probate and bereavement process responsibly and effectively with adequate risk management systems. 43 https://fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/santander-uk-plc-2018. pdf. • Principle 6 (customers’ interests) by failing to ensure that its probate and bereavement process paid due respect to the interests of its customers and their representatives and treated them fairly. The FCA said that the bank’s probate and bereavement process contained weaknesses that reduced its capacity to effectively identify total the funds that it held that formed portion of a deceased customer’s estate. This resulted in it being unable to effectively follow up with representatives of the deceased customer. Such weaknesses meant that the process would start, but would stall and remain incomplete, meaning that funds would not live transferred to those who were entitled to receive them. Since 2015, Santander has carried out remediation exercises to transfer funds from affected accounts to the rightful beneficiaries. These exercises are almost complete, which means that most of the 40,000 affected customers stand now received the funds, together with interest and compensation for any consequential loss. The bank was likewise organize to stand breached Principle 11 (relations with regulators) for failing to promptly disclose information relating to the above-detailed issues to the FCA. price Steward, the FCA’s head of enforcement, cautioned that the FCA remains “on the lookout for firms with impoverished systems and controls and will rob action to deter such failings to ensure customers are properly protected.”44 Arif Hussein45 The FCA issued a decision notice prohibiting Arif Hussein from performing any duty in relation to any regulated activity on the grounds that Mr. Hussein had knowingly or recklessly engaged in conduct that he believed was improper; that Mr. Hussein was knowingly or recklessly complicit in his employer, UBS’s, manipulation of LIBOR; and that Mr. Hussein lacked veneration and integrity. In particular, the FCA alleged that Mr. Hussein had engaged in unbecoming internal chats with a trader- submitter at UBS for the purpose of influencing UBS’s LIBOR submissions. Mr. Hussein referred this notice to the Upper Tribunal. 44 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/santander-uk-plc- fined-serious-failings-its-probate-and-bereavement-process. 45 https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/TCC/2018/186.pdf. 24 © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Before the FCA’s RDC, Mr. Hussein had contended that he had been involved in internal chats with trader-submitters to explore internal opportunities to hedge or “net” his trading positions (in short, he had engaged with trader-submitters in their capacities as short-end derivatives traders, rather than as LIBOR submitters). Before the Upper Tribunal, Mr. Hussein repeated this defence, but he likewise stated that he believed at that time that it was acceptable for trader- submitters to rob into account trading positions when determining what a LIBOR submission would be. The FCA contended that Mr. Hussein had changed his defence between the interviews he had had at the FCA and the RDC hearing, and then at the Upper Tribunal hearing, and that this change indicated a necessity of integrity. The Upper Tribunal agreed with Mr. Hussein’s position that he had thought his chats with the trader- submitters to live appropriate. The Upper Tribunal noted that, at the apposite time, there were no formal procedures within UBS regulating the LIBOR submission process, and Mr. Hussein did believe that his trading positions could live taken into account by the submitters. The Tribunal organize that Mr. Hussein did not act dishonestly or recklessly and that his participation in the chats was not perverse to the standards required of him. The Tribunal accepted, however, that Mr. Hussein had misled the FCA through his answers at interview and that he should stand appreciated during the proceedings before the RDC that the chats had had a dual purpose: The chats had not simply been exploration into his hedging or netting options. The Tribunal organize that Mr. Hussein should stand told the RDC that he thought it permissible for his trading positions to live taken into account in the LIBOR submissions. The Tribunal therefore agreed with the FCA that Mr. Hussein had changed his position and that this meant that he must stand misled the regulator and failed in his duty to live candid with the FCA. sort of reluctantly it appears, the FCA agreed that this failing by Mr. Hussein was sufficiently serious that it was reasonable for the FCA to impose a prohibition order on him. Notwithstanding that the Tribunal disagreed with the RDC and the FCA’s submissions on many issues, therefore, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Hussein’s reference. Interestingly, the Upper Tribunal expressed some concern that a comparatively junior trader should stand received a prohibition order from the FCA whilst more senior managers had apparently escaped sanction. Whilst the Upper Tribunal has no power to accomplish anything more than express its strong concerns about this to the FCA, this statement is sort of unusual. The most vital message from this case is the responsibility to reflect and live truthful about what happened from as early in the investigation as possible. Had Mr. Hussein’s position remained consistent throughout the proceedings, it seems likely that the Tribunal would stand organize for him; as the Tribunal said, “we accomplish not believe him to live a thoroughly dismal person. He made a serious mistake of judgment.” Unlike in court litigation, where parties are expected to develop their cases as the proceedings progress, the duty of candour to the FCA means that this approach is not open in these regulatory proceedings. Everything that an authorised or approved person does, whether before the investigation or during the investigation, is open to scrutiny, and litigation conduct must accommodate accordingly. Tesco Personal Finance plc46 In November 2016, Tesco Personal Finance plc (Tesco Bank) reported that it had suffered a serious cyber infringement during which £2.26 million was stolen from 9,000 consumers’ accounts. Tesco Bank quickly refunded any customers who had lost money in the attack. In October 2018, the FCA announced that it would fine Tesco Bank £16.4 million for failing to exercise due skill, trust and diligence in protecting its customers. The FCA noted that this sort of cyber-attack was a “foreseeable risk” from which Tesco Bank had failed to protect its customers. Further, the FCA determined that, once it became alert of the cyber breach, Tesco Bank had failed to act with “sufficient rigour, skill and urgency.” Even if the cyber infringement had been too sophisticated for Tesco Bank reasonably to live expected to stand been able to prevent – which was not the case here – the FCA was faultfinding that Tesco Bank did not stand in spot a response plan that would permit a swift recovery. The FCA requires firms to stand an effective plan in spot setting out what to accomplish if a damaging event occurs, whether that event should stand been foreseen or not. 46 https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/tesco-personal- finance-plc-2018.pdf. 25In Principle Contact Information If you stand any questions regarding this update, tickle contact: Helen Marshall Partner, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7661.5378 Ezra Zahabi Partner, London email@example.com +44 20.7661.5367 Joe Hewton Associate, London firstname.lastname@example.org +44 20.7012.9624 James Campbell Associate, London email@example.com +44 20.7012.9852 EU/UK pecuniary Services Regulatory exercise Akin Gump’s EU/UK pecuniary Regulatory exercise – which forms portion of the Firm’s wider Global pecuniary Regulatory Group – advises its clients (which embrace institutional and alternative investment managers, retail and investment banks, brokerages and senior individuals) on total aspects of the UK and EU pecuniary services regulatory framework. The exercise has taken a leading role in advising the global pecuniary services industry on regulatory actions, the repercussion of EU legislation and on commercial and securities issues that affect it. The exercise is particularly well known for its work acting for pecuniary institutions and senior individuals who find themselves subject to investigation by regulators and exchanges. © 2019 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. total rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational utilize only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not live used as such. Prior results accomplish not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is the practising denomination of Akin Gump LLP. Akin Gump LLP is a current York limited liability partnership and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, tickle discern their Legal Notices page Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld is a leading global law arduous providing innovative legal services and business solutions to individuals and institutions. Founded in 1945 by Richard Gump and Robert Strauss with the guiding vision that commitment, excellence and integrity would drive its success, the arduous focuses on structure lasting and mutually beneficial relationships with its clients. Their firm’s clients gain from individuals to corporations and nations. They present clients a broad- spectrum approach, with over 85 practices that gain from traditional strengths such as appellate, corporate and public policy to 21st century concentrations such as climate change, intellectual property litigation and national security. akingump.com
Natural gas has recently emerged as a relatively clean energy source that offers the break for a number of regions around the world to reduce their reliance on energy imports. It can likewise serve as a transition fuel that will allow for the shift from coal to renewable energy resources while helping to reduce the emissions of CO2, criteria pollutants, and mercury by the power sector. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing perform the extraction of tightly bound natural gas from shale formations economically feasible. These technologies are not free from environmental risks, however, especially those related to regional water quality, such as gas migration, contaminant transport through induced and natural fractures, wastewater discharge, and fortuitous spills. The focus of this Review is on the current understanding of these environmental issues.
The most common problem with well construction is a faulty seal that is emplaced to prevent gas migration into shallow groundwater. The incidence rate of seal problems in unconventional gas wells is relatively low (1 to 3%), but there is a substantial controversy whether the methane detected in private groundwater wells in the zone where drilling for unconventional gas is ongoing was caused by well drilling or natural processes. It is difficult to resolve this issue because many areas stand long had sources of methane unrelated to hydraulic fracturing, and pre-drilling baseline data are often unavailable.
Water management for unconventional shale gas extraction is one of the key issues that will dominate environmental debate surrounding the gas industry. Reuse of produced water for hydraulic fracturing is currently addressing the concerns regarding the vast quantities of contaminants that are brought to the surface. As these well fields ripen and the opportunities for wastewater reuse diminish, the necessity to find alternative management strategies for this wastewater will likely intensify.Outlook
Improved understanding of the destiny and transport of contaminants of concern and increased long-term monitoring and data dissemination will alleviate effectively manage water-quality risks associated with unconventional gas industry today and in the future. Confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations combined with the expedited rate of evolution and the limited funding for research are major impediments to peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. Now is the time to work on these environmental issues to avoid an adverse environmental legacy similar to that from abandoned coal mine discharges in Pennsylvania.Fracturing Hydrology?
Hydraulic fracturing, widely known as "fracking," is a relatively inexpensive way to tap into what were previously inaccessible natural gas resources. Vidic et al. (p. 826) review the current status of shale gas evolution and discuss the feasible threats to water resources. In one of the hotbeds of fracking activity, the Marcellus Shale in the eastern United States, there is miniature evidence that additives stand directly entered groundwater supplies, but the risk remains. Ensuring access to monitoring data is an vital first step toward addressing any public and environmental health concerns.Abstract
Unconventional natural gas resources present an break to access a relatively clean fossil fuel that could potentially lead to energy independence for some countries. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing perform the extraction of tightly bound natural gas from shale formations economically feasible. These technologies are not free from environmental risks, however, especially those related to regional water quality, such as gas migration, contaminant transport through induced and natural fractures, wastewater discharge, and fortuitous spills. They review the current understanding of environmental issues associated with unconventional gas extraction. Improved understanding of the destiny and transport of contaminants of concern and increased long-term monitoring and data dissemination will alleviate manage these water-quality risks today and in the future.
Natural gas has recently emerged as an energy source that offers the break for a number of regions around the world to reduce their reliance on energy imports or strive toward energy independence (1, 2). It may likewise live a potential transition fuel that will allow for the shift from coal to renewable energy resources while helping to reduce the emissions of CO2, criteria pollutants, and mercury by the power sector (3). The driving obligate behind this shift is that it has become economically feasible to extract unconventional sources of gas that were previously considered inaccessible. Conventional gas is typically extracted from porous sandstone and carbonate formations, where it has generally been trapped under impermeable cap-rocks after migration from its original source rock. In contrast, unconventional gas is usually recovered from low-permeability reservoirs or the source rocks themselves, including coal seams, tight sand formations, and fine-grained, organic-rich shales. Unconventional gas formations are characterized by low permeabilities that circumscribe the recovery of the gas and require additional techniques to achieve economical flow rates (2).
The archetypical specimen of rapidly increasing shale gas evolution is the Marcellus Shale in the eastern United States (Fig. 1). Intensive gas extraction began there in 2005, and it is one of the top five unconventional gas reservoirs in the United States. With a regional extent of 95,000 square miles, the Marcellus is one of the world’s largest known shale-gas deposits. It extends from upstate current York, as far south as Virginia, and as far west as Ohio, underlying 70% of the state of Pennsylvania and much of West Virginia. The formation consists of black and shaded gray shales, siltstones, and limestones (4). On the basis of a geological study of natural fractures in the formation, Engelder (5) estimated a 50% probability that the Marcellus will ultimately yield 489 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.Fig. 1 Marcellus Shale wells in Pennsylvania.
Rapid evolution of Marcellus Shale since 2005 resulted in more than 12,000 well permits, with more than 6000 wells drilled and ~3500 producing gas through December 2012 (average daily production ranged from <0.1 to >20 million cubic feet/day (MMCF/D). Current locations of centralized wastewater treatment facilities (CWTs) are distributed to facilitate treatment and reuse of flowback and produced water for hydraulic fracturing.
Concerns that stand been voiced (6) in connection with hydraulic fracturing and the evolution of unconventional gas resources in the United States embrace land and habitat fragmentation as well as impacts to air quality, water quantity and quality, and socioeconomic issues (3, 5, 7). Although shale gas evolution is increasing across several regions of the United States and the world (such as the United Kingdom, Poland, Ukraine, Australia, and Brazil), this review focuses on the potential issues surrounding water character in the Appalachian region and specifically the Marcellus Shale, where the majority of published studies stand been conducted. Their Review focuses on chemical aspects of water character rather than issues surrounding enhanced sediment inputs into waterways, which stand been discussed elsewhere (4, 7, 8).Cause of the Shale Gas evolution Surge
Recent technological developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing stand enabled enhanced recovery of unconventional gas in the United States, increasing the contribution of shale gas to total gas production from negligible levels in 1990 to 30% in 2011 (1). Although the first suitable horizontal oil well was drilled in 1929, this technique only became a standard industry exercise in the 1980s (9). Whereas a vertical well allows access to tens or hundreds of meters across a flat-lying formation, a horizontal well can live drilled to conform to the formation and can therefore extract gas from thousands of meters of shale. Horizontal wells reduce surface disturbance by limiting the number of drilling pads and by enabling gas extraction from areas where vertical wells are not feasible. However, horizontal drilling alone would not stand enabled exploitation of the unconventional gas resources because the reservoir permeability is not sufficient to achieve economical gas production by natural flow. Hydraulic fracturing—"hydrofracking," or "fracking"—was developed in the 1940s to fracture and expand permeability of target formations and has since been improved to match the characteristics of specific types of reservoirs, including shales.
Hydraulic fracturing fluids consist of water that is mixed with proppants and chemicals before injection into the well under tall pressure (480 to 850 bar) in order to open the existing fractures or initiate current fractures. The proppant (commonly sand) represents generally ~9% of the total weight of the fracturing fluid (10) and is required to preserve the fractures open once the pumping has stopped. The number, type, and concentration of chemicals added are governed by the geological characteristics of each site and the chemical characteristics of the water used. The fracturing fluid typically used in the Marcellus Shale is called slickwater, which means that it does not hold viscosity modifiers that are often added to hydrofracture other shales so as to facilitate better proppant transport and placement.
Chemical additives in the fluids used for hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale embrace friction reducers, scale inhibitors, and biocides (Table 1 and Box 1). Eight U.S. states currently require that total chemicals that are not considered proprietary must live published online (11), whereas many companies are voluntarily disclosing this information in other states. However, many of the chemicals added for fracturing are not currently regulated by the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, raising public concerns about water supply contamination. From 2005 to 2009, about 750 chemicals and other components were used in hydraulic fracturing, ranging from harmless components, including coffee grounds or walnut hulls, to 29 components that may live hazardous if introduced into the water supply (6). An inorganic acid such as hydrochloric acid is often used to clean the wellbore zone after perforation and to dissolve soluble minerals in the surrounding formation. Organic polymers or petroleum distillates are added to reduce friction between the fluid and the wellbore, lowering the pumping costs. Antiscalants are added to the fracturing fluid so as to circumscribe the precipitation of salts and metals in the formation and inside the well. Besides scaling, bacterial growth is a major concern for the productivity of a gas well (quantity and character of produced gas). Glutaraldehyde is the most common antibacterial agent added, but other disinfectants [such as 2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) or chlorine dioxide] are often considered. Surfactants (alcohols such as methanol or isopropanol) may likewise live added to reduce the fluid surface tension to aid fluid recovery.Table 1
Common chemical additives for hydraulic fracturing.Box 1 Glossary of Terms
Casing: steel pipe that is inserted into a recently drilled section of a borehole to stabilize the hole, prevent contamination of groundwater, and segregate different subsurface zones.
Cementing: placing a cement blend between the casing and a borehole to stabilize the casing and seal off the formation.
Class II disposal wells: underground injection wells for disposal of fluids associated with oil and gas production.
Flowback water: water that returns to the surface after the hydraulic fracturing process is completed and the pressure is released and before the well is placed in production; flowback water return occurs for several weeks.
Produced water: water that returns to the surface with the gas after the well is placed in production; production water return occurs during the life of a well.
Proppant: granular material, such as silica sand, ceramic media, or bauxite, that keeps the fractures open so that gas can flow to the wellbore.
Slickwater fracturing – fracturing with fluid that contains mostly water along with friction reducers, proppants, and other additives; used for predominantly gas-bearing formations at shallower depths.
Source rock - organic-rich sedimentary rocks, such as shale, containing natural gas or oil.
Stray gas - gas contained in the geologic formation outside the wellbore that is accidentally mobilized by drilling and/or hydraulic fracturing.Methane Migration
As inventoried in 2000, more than 40 million U.S. citizens drink water from private wells (12). In some areas, methane—the main component of natural gas—seeps into these private wells from either natural or anthropogenic sources. Given its low solubility (26 mg/L at 1 atm, 20°C), methane that enters wells as a solute is not considered a health hazard with respect to ingestion and is therefore not regulated in the United States. When present, however, methane can live oxidized by bacteria, resulting in oxygen depletion. Low oxygen concentrations can result in the increased solubility of elements such as arsenic or iron. In addition, anaerobic bacteria that proliferate under such conditions may reduce sulfate to sulfide, creating water- and air-quality issues. When methane degasses, it can likewise create turbidity and, in extreme cases, explode (13, 14). Therefore, the U.S. Department of the Interior recommends a warning if water contains 10 mg/L of CH4 and immediate action if concentrations gain 28 mg/L (15). Methane concentrations above 10 mg/L indicate that accumulation of gas could result in an explosion (16).
The most common problem with well construction is a faulty seal in the annular space around casings that is emplaced to prevent gas leakage from a well into aquifers (13). The incidence rate of casing and cement problems in unconventional gas wells in Pennsylvania has been reported previously as ~1 to 2% (17). Their weigh in Pennsylvania from 2008 to March 2013 for well construction problems [such as casing or cementing incidents (18)] cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) revealed 219 notices of violation out of 6466 wells (3.4%) (19). Of these, 16 wells in northern Pennsylvania were given notices with respect to the regulation that the "operator shall prevent gas and other fluids from lower formations from entering fresh groundwater" (violation code 78.73A). Most of the time, gas leakage is minor and can live remedied. However, in one case attributed to Marcellus drilling and leaky well casings, stray gas that accumulated in a private water well exploded near the northeastern Pennsylvania town of Dimock. A study of 60 groundwater wells in that area, including across the border in upstate current York (20), showed that both the middling and maximum methane concentrations were higher when sampled from wells within 1 km of active Marcellus gas wells as compared with those farther away. Much discussion has since ensued as to whether the methane detected in these wells was caused by drilling or natural processes (21–24) because the zone has long had sources of both thermogenic and biogenic methane unrelated to hydraulic fracturing, and no predrilling baseline data are available. The averages reported in that study for sites both near and far from drilling are not dissimilar from values for groundwater from areas of Pennsylvania and West Virginia sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) before the recent Marcellus Shale evolution began, or samples in current York state where high-volume hydrofracturing is currently banned (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Methane concentrations in groundwater and springs.
(A) Published values for groundwater or spring samples embrace 239 sites in current York from 1999 to 2011 (84), 40 sites in Pennsylvania in 2005 (27), and 170 sites in West Virginia from 1997 to 2005 (85). Maxima varied from 68.5 mg/L in West Virginia, to 44.8 mg/L in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, where an underground gas storage province was leaking, to a value approaching 45 mg/L in current York. (B) Values shown with down arrows are averages for a set of wells in southeastern current York and northeastern Pennsylvania located <1 km (26 wells) and >1 km (34 wells) from active gas drilling (20).
The reason gas is organize so often in water wells in some areas is because methane not only forms at depth naturally, owing to high-temperature maturation of organic matter, but likewise at shallow depths through bacterial processes (25, 26). Both these thermogenic and biogenic gas types can migrate through faults upward from profound formations or laterally from environments such as swamps (swamp gas) or glacial till (drift gas) (14, 27). In addition, gas can derive from anthropogenic sources such as gas storage fields, coal mines, landfills, gas pipelines, and abandoned gas wells (28). In fact, ~350,000 oil and gas wells stand been drilled in Pennsylvania, and the locations of ~100,000 of these are unknown (29). Thus, it is not surprising that gas problems stand occurred in Pennsylvania long before the Marcellus evolution (30). Pennsylvania is not the only state facing this problem because about ~60,000 documented orphaned wells and potentially more than 90,000 undocumented orphaned wells in the United States stand not been adequately plugged and could act as vertical conduits for gas (31).
As natural gas moves in the subsurface, it can live partially oxidized, mixed with other gases, or diluted along flow paths. To determine its provenance, a "multiple lines of evidence approach" must live pursued (24). For example, researchers measure the presence of other hydrocarbons as well as the isotopic signatures of H, O, and C in the water or gas (16, 27, 31). Thermogenic gas in general has more ethane and a higher 13C/12C ratio than that of biogenic gas. Stable isotopes in thermogenic gas may sometimes even yield clues about which shale was the source of the gas (24, 32). In northeastern Pennsylvania, researchers bicker whether the isotopic signatures of the methane in drinking-water wells indicate the gas derived from the Marcellus or from shallower formations (20, 24).
Although determining the root of gas in water wells may lead to solutions for this problem, the source does not affect liability because gas companies are amenable if it can live shown that any gas—not just methane—has moved into a water well because of shale-gas evolution activity. For example, drilling can open surficial fractures that allow preexisting native gas to leak into water wells (13). This means that pre- and post-drilling gas concentration data are needed to determine culpability. Only one published study compares pre- and post-drilling water chemistry in the Marcellus Shale drilling area. In that study, a sample of 48 water wells in Pennsylvania investigated between 2010 and 2011 within 2500 feet of Marcellus wells showed no statistical differences in dissolved CH4 concentrations before or shortly after drilling (33). In addition, no statistical differences related to distance from drilling were observed. However, that study reported that the concentration of dissolved methane increased in one well after drilling was completed nearby, which is possibly consistent with an middling rate of casing problems of ~3%.
The rate of detection of methane in water wells in northeast Pennsylvania [80 to 85% (20, 24)] is higher than in the wider region that includes southwestern Pennsylvania [24% (33)], where pre- and post-drilling concentrations were statistically identical. This could live a result of the small sample sizes of the two studies or because the hydrogeological regime in the northeast is more prostrate to gas migration (34). Such geological differences likewise may construe why regions of the Marcellus Shale stand been characterized by controversy in respect to methane migration as noted above, whereas other shale gas areas such as the Fayetteville in Arkansas stand not reported major issues with respect to methane (35). trustworthy models that incorporate geological characteristics are needed to allow prediction of dissolved methane in groundwater. It is likewise faultfinding to distinguish natural and anthropogenic causes of migration, geological factors that exacerbate such migration, and the likelihood of ancillary problems of water character related to the depletion of oxygen. Answering some of these questions will require tracking temporal variations in gas and isotopic concentrations in groundwater wells near and far from drilling by using multiple lines of evidence (16, 24). Research should likewise focus on determining flow paths in areas where tall sampling density can live attained.How Protective Is the "Well Armor"?
The protective armor shielding the freshwater zones and the surrounding environment from the contaminants inside the well consist of several layers of casing (hollow steel pipe) and cement (Fig. 3). When the integrity of the wellbore is compromised, gas migration or stray gas can become an issue (14). Gas migration out of a well refers to movement of annular gas either through or around the cement sheath. Stray gas, on the other hand, commonly refers to gas outside of the wellbore. One of the primary causes of gas migration or stray gas is related to the upper portion of the wellbore when it is drilled into a rock formation that contains preexisting high-pressure gas. This high-pressure gas can stand deleterious effects on the integrity of the outer cement annulus, such as the creation of microchannels (36). Temperature surveys can live performed shortly after the cementing job is completed in order to ensure that cement is present behind the casing. Acoustic logging tools are likewise available to evaluate the integrity of the cement annulus in conjunction with pressure testing.Fig. 3 Typical Marcellus well construction.
(i) The conductor casing string forms the outermost barrier closest to the surface to preserve the upper portion of the well from collapsing and it typically extends less than 12 m (40 ft) from the surface; (ii) the surface casing and the cement sheath surrounding it that extend to a minimum of 15 m below the lowest freshwater zone is the first layer of defense in protecting aquifers; (iii) the annulus between the intermediate casing and the surface casing is filled with cement or a brine solution; and (iv) the production string extends down to the production zone (900 to 2800 m), and cement is likewise placed in the annulus between the intermediate and production casing. Potential flaws in the cement annulus (Inset, "A" to "E") picture key pathways for gas migration from upper gas-bearing formations or from the target formation.
It is well known that to effectively stabilize wellbores with cement in areas with zones of overpressurized gas, proper cement design and proper mud removal are essential (37, 38). If the hydrostatic pressure of the cement column is not higher than the gas-bearing formation pressure, gas can invade the cement before it sets. Conversely, if this pressure is too high, then the formation can fracture, and a loss of cement slurry can occur. Even when the density is correct, the gas from the formation can invade the cement as it transitions from a slurry to a hardened state (39). The slurry must live designed to minimize this transition time and the loss of fluid from the slurry to the formation. Also, if drilling mud is not properly cleaned from the cavity before cementing, mud channels may allow gas migration through the central portion of the annulus or along the cement-formation interface. Even if the well is properly cleaned and the cement is placed properly, shrinkage of the cement during hydration or as a result of drying throughout the life of the well can result in crack evolution within the annulus (40, 41).
Although the primary mechanisms contributing to gas migration and stray gas are understood, it is difficult to foretell the risk at individual sites because of varying geological conditions and drilling practices. To successfully protect fresh water and the surrounding environment from the contaminants inside the well, the site-specific risk factors contributing to gas migration and stray gas must live better understood, and improvements in the diagnostics of cement and casing integrity are needed for both current and existing wells. Finding solutions to these problems will provide environmental agencies the knowledge needed to develop sound regulations related to the distances around gas wells that can live affected. It will likewise provide operators the capacity to prevent gas migration and stray gas in a more efficient and economical manner.The Source and destiny of Fracturing Fluid
The drilling and hydraulic fracturing of a single horizontal well in the Marcellus Shale may require 2 million to 7 million gallons of water (42). In contrast, only about 1 million gallons are needed for vertical wells because of the smaller formation contact volume. Although the projected water consumption for gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale region is 18.7 million gallons per day in 2013 (39), this constitutes just 0.2% of total annual water withdrawals in Pennsylvania. Water withdrawals in other areas are similarly low, but temporary problems can live experienced at the local level during drought periods (3). Furthermore, water quantity issues are prevalent in the drier shale-gas plays of the southwest and western United States (43). It is likely that water needs will change from these initial projections as the industry continues to ameliorate and implement water reuse. Nevertheless, the understanding of flow variability—especially during drought conditions or in regions with already stressed water supplies—is necessary to develop best management practices for water withdrawal (44). It is likewise necessary to develop specific policies regarding when and where water withdrawals will live permitted in each region (45).
After hydraulic fracturing, the pressure barriers such as frac plugs are removed, the wellhead valve is opened, and "flowback water" is collected at the wellhead. Once the well begins to yield gas, this water is referred to as "produced water" and is recovered throughout the life of the well. Flowback and produced waters are a blend of injected fluids and water that was originally present in the target or surrounding formations (formation water) (42, 46–50). The fraction of the volume of injected water that is recovered as flowback water from horizontal wells in Pennsylvania ranges from 9 to 53% (9, 41), with an middling of 10%. It has been observed that the recovery can live even lower than 10% if the well is shut-in for a epoch of time (51). The well is shut-in—or maintained closed between fracturing and gas production—so as to allow the gas to dawdle from the shale matrix into the current fractures. Two of the key unanswered questions is what happens to the fracturing fluid that is not recovered during the flowback period, and whether this fluid could eventually foul drinking water aquifers (23, 33, 34, 52–54). The analyses of Marcellus Shale well logs indicate that the low-permeability shale contains very miniature free water (55, 56), and much of the hydraulic fracturing fluid may imbibe (absorb) into the shale.
Fracturing fluid could migrate along abandoned and improperly plugged oil and gas wells, through an inadequately sealed annulus between the wellbore and casing or through natural or induced fractures outside the target formation. Indeed, out-of-formation fractures stand been documented to extend as much as ~460 m above the top of some hydraulically fractured shales (57), but still ~1.6 km or more below freshwater aquifers. Nonetheless, on the basis of the study of 233 drinking-water wells across the shale-gas region of rustic Pennsylvania, Boyer et al. (33) reported no major influences from gas well drilling or hydrofracturing on nearby water wells. Compared with the pre-drilling data reported in that study, only one well showed changes in water character (salt concentration). These changes were noticed within days after a well was hydrofractured less than ~460 m away, but not any of the analytes exceeded the standards of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, and nearly total the parameters approached pre-drilling concentrations within 10 months.
In the case of methane contamination in groundwater near Dimock, Pennsylvania, contamination by saline flowback brines or fracturing fluids was not observed (20). One early U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report (54) suggested that a vertically fractured well in Jackson County, West Virginia, may stand contaminated a local water well with gel from fracturing fluid. This vertical well was fractured at a depth of just ~1220 m, and four former natural gas wells nearby may stand served as conduits for upward contaminant transport. A recent EPA study (53) implicated gas production wells in the contamination of profound groundwater resources near Pavillion, Wyoming. However, resampling of the monitoring wells by the USGS showed that the flowrate was too small to lend confidence to water-quality interpretations of one well, leaving data from only one other well to interpret with respect to contamination, and regulators are still studying the data (58). The Pavillion gas province consists of 169 production wells into a sandstone (not shale) formation and is unusual in that fracturing was completed as shallow as 372 m below ground. In addition, surface casings of gas wells are as shallow as 110 m below ground, whereas the domestic and stock wells in the zone are screened as profound as 244 m below ground. The risk for direct contaminant transport from gas wells to drinking-water wells increases dramatically with a dwindle in vertical distance between the gas well and the aquifer.
A recent study applied a groundwater transport model to rate the risk of groundwater contamination with hydraulic fracturing fluid by using pressure changes reported for gas wells (52). The study concluded that changes induced by hydraulic fracturing could allow advective transport of fracturing fluid to groundwater aquifers in <10 years. The model includes numerous simplifications that compromise its conclusions (59). For example, the model is based on the assumption of hydraulic conductivity that reflects water-filled voids in the geological formations, and yet many of the shale and overburden formations are not water-saturated (60). Hence, the actual hydraulic conductivity in the province could live orders of magnitude lower than that assumed in the study (59). Furthermore, although profound joint sets or fractures exist (14), the assumption of preexisting1500-m long vertical fractures is hypothetical and not based on geologic exploration. Hence, there is a necessity to establish realistic flow models that rob into account heterogeneity in formations above the Marcellus Shale and realistic hydraulic conductivities and fracturing conditions.
Last, it has long been known (14, 34, 47, 48, 61, 62) that groundwater is salinized where deeper ancient salt formations are present within sedimentary basins, including basins with shale gas. Where these brines are present at relatively shallow depths, such as in much of the northeastern and southwestern United States and Michigan, brines sometimes seep to the surface naturally and are unrelated to hydraulic fracturing. An vital research thrust should focus on understanding these natural brine transport pathways to determine whether they could picture potential risk for contamination of aquifers because of hydraulic fracturing.Appropriate Wastewater Management Options
The flowback and produced water from the Marcellus Shale is the second saltiest (63) and most radiogenic (50) of total sedimentary basins in the United States where large volume hydraulic fracturing is used. The middling amount of natural gas-related wastewater in Pennsylvania during 2008 to 2011 was 26 million barrels per year (a fourfold expand compared with pre-Marcellus period) (64). Compared with conventional shallow wells, Marcellus Shale wells generate one third of the wastewater per unit volume of gas produced (65). However, the wastewater associated with Marcellus evolution in 2010 and 2011 accounted for 68 and 79%, respectfully, of the total oil and gas wastewater requiring management in Pennsylvania. Flowback/produced water is typically impounded at the surface for subsequent disposal, treatment, or reuse. Because of the large water volume, tall concentration of dissolved solids, and knotty physical-chemical composition of this wastewater, which includes organic and radioactive components, the public is becoming increasingly concerned about management of this water and the potential for human health and environmental impacts associated with the release of untreated or inadequately treated wastewater to the environment (66). In addition, spills from surface impoundments (14) and trucks or infiltration to groundwater though failed liners are potential pathways for surface and groundwater contamination by this wastewater.
Treatment technologies and management strategies for this wastewater are constrained by regulations, economics of implementation, technology performance, geologic setting, and final disposal alternatives (67). The majority of wastewater from oil and gas production in the United States is disposed of effectively by profound underground injection (68). However, the state of Pennsylvania has only five operating Class II disposal wells. Although underground injection disposal wells will likely expand in number in Pennsylvania, shale gas evolution is currently occurring in many areas where Class II disposal wells will not live readily available. Moreover, permissions for and construction of current disposal wells is complex, time-consuming, and costly. Disposal of Pennsylvania brines in Ohio and West Virginia is ongoing but limited by tall transportation costs.
The necessity of disposal well capacity in Pennsylvania is compounded by rare induced low-magnitude seismic events at disposal wells in other locations (69–71). It is likely that the disposal of wastewater by deep-well injection will not live a sustainable solution across much of Pennsylvania. Nonetheless, between 1982 and 1984, Texas reported at most ~100 cases of confirmed contamination of groundwater from oilfield injection wells, saltwater pits, and abandoned wells, even though at that time the state hosted more than 50,000 injection wells associated with oil and gas (72). Most problems were associated with small, independent operators. The ubiquity of wells and relative necessity of problems with respect to brine disposal in Texas is one likely explanation why public pushback against hydraulic fracturing is more limited in Texas as compared with the northeastern United States.
Another reason for public pushback in the northeast may live that in the early stages of Marcellus Shale development, particularly in 2008 to 2009, flowback/produced water was discharged and diluted into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs, or municipal wastewater treatment plants) under permit. This exercise was the major pathway for water contamination because these POTWs are not designed to treat total dissolved solids (TDS), and the majority of TDS passed directly into the receiving waterways (6, 73), resulting in increased salt loading in Pennsylvania rivers, especially during low flow (74). In response, the Pennsylvania DEP introduced discharge limits to eliminate disposal of Marcellus Shale wastewater to POTWs (75). In early 2010, there were 17 centralized waste treatment plants (CWTs) in Pennsylvania that were exempted from the TDS discharge limits. However, according to Pennsylvania DEP records not any of these CWTs reported to live currently receiving Marcellus wastewater, although they may receive produced water from conventional gas wells. Nevertheless, the TDS load to surface waters from flowback/produced water increased from ~230,000 kg/day in 2006 to 350,000 kg/day in 2011 (64).
It is difficult to determine whether shale gas extraction in the Appalachian region since 2006 has affected water character regionally, because baseline conditions are often unknown or stand already been affected by other activities, such as coal mining. Although tall concentrations of Na, Ca, and Cl will live the most likely ions detected if flowback or produced waters leaked into waterways, these salts can likewise originate from many other sources (76). In contrast, Sr, Ba, and Br are highly specific signatures of flowback and produced waters (34, 47). Ba is of particular interest in Pennsylvania waters in that it can live tall in sulfate-poor flowback/produced waters but low in sulfate-containing coal-mine drainage. Likewise, the ratio of 87Sr/86Sr may live an isotopic fingerprint of Marcellus Shale waters (34, 77).
Targeting some of these "fingerprint" contaminants, the Pennsylvania DEP began a current monitoring program in 2011. Samples are collected from pristine watersheds as well as from streams near CWT discharges and shale-gas drilling. The Shale Network is collating these measurements with high-quality data from national scientists, the USGS, the EPA, and other entities in order to assess potential water character impacts in the northeast (78, 79). Before 2003, express concentrations in Pennsylvania surface waters in counties with unconventional shale-gas evolution were 27 ± 32, 550 ± 620, and 72 ± 81 μg/L for Ba, Sr, and Br (±1σ), respectively (Fig. 4). Most values more than 3σ above the express concentrations since 2003 picture samples from areas of known brine effluents from CWTs. A concern has been raised over bromide levels in the Allegheny River watershed that may derive from active CWTs because of health effects associated with disinfection by-products formed as a result of bromide in drinking water sources (64, 80). Given the current regulatory climate and the fact that the majority of dissolved solids passes through these CWTs, it is expected that these treatment facilities will likely not play a major role in Marcellus Shale wastewater management.Fig. 4 Concentrations of three ions in surface waters of Pennsylvania in counties with unconventional shale-gas wells: (A) barium, (B) strontium, and (C) bromide.
Data reported by EPA (STORET data), USGS (NWIS data), Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Appalachian Geological Consulting and ALLARM [from Shale Network database (78, 79)], and from the Pennsylvania DEP (SAC046) embrace total rivers, streams, ponds, groundwater drains, lysimeter waters, and mine-associated pit, seep, and discharge waters accessed by using HydroDesktop (www.cuahsi.org) in the apposite counties (data before 2009 for bromide are not shown). Lines indicate 3σ above the express of data from 1960 to 2003 for the longest duration dataset (USGS). Most values above the lines since 2003 picture targeted sampling in areas of known brine effluents from conventional oil and gas wells (such as Blacklick Creek receiving brine effluent from a CWT). The highest plotted Ba concentration was measured in Salt Springs in northern Pennsylvania. Three of the four samples with highest Sr and Br are from Blacklick Creek; next highest is from Salt Springs. Original values reported beneath the detection circumscribe are plotted at that circumscribe (10 to 100 μg Sr/L; 10 μg Ba/L; and 10 to 200 μg/L Br). The EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Ba is 2000 μg/L. EPA reports no MCL for Sr or Br. Lifetime and 1-day health advisory levels for Sr are 4000 and 25000 μg/L, respectively, and a level under consideration for Br is 6000 μg/L.
The predominant wastewater management exercise in the Marcellus Shale region nowadays is wastewater reuse for hydraulic fracturing [a review of Pennsylvania DEP data for the first 6 months of 2012 indicates 90% reuse rate (81)]. Wastewater is impounded at the surface and used directly, or after dilution or pretreatment. Reuse of wastewater minimizes the volume that must live treated and disposed, thus reducing environmental control costs and risks and enhancing the economic feasibility of shale-gas extraction (67). Currently, operators in the Marcellus region accomplish not fully agree about the character of wastewater that must live attained for reuse. Major concerns embrace feasible precipitation of BaSO4 and, to a lesser extent, SrSO4 and CaCO3 in the shale formation and the wellbore and the compatibility of wastewater with chemicals that are added to the fracturing fluid (such as friction reducers and viscosity modifiers). Hence, a better understanding of chemical compatibility issues would greatly ameliorate the capacity to reuse wastewater and minimize disposal volumes. In addition, radioactive radium that is commonly present in flowback/produced water will likely live incorporated in the solids that configuration in the wastewater treatment process and could yield a low-concentration radioactive waste that must live handled appropriately and has potential on-site human health implications.
The wastewater reuse program represents a sort of temporary solution to wastewater management problems in any shale play. This program works only as long as there is net water consumption in a given well field. As the well province matures and the rate of hydraulic fracturing diminishes, the province becomes a net water producer because the volume of produced water will exceed the amount of water needed for hydraulic fracturing operations (82, 83). It is not yet pellucid how long it will rob to gain that point in the Marcellus region, but it is pellucid that there is a necessity to develop additional technical solutions (such as effective and economical approaches for separation and utilize of dissolved salts from produced water and treatment for naturally occurring radioactive material) that would allow continued evolution of this vital natural resource in an environmentally amenable manner. Considering very tall salinity of many produced waters from shale gas development, this is truly a formidable challenge. Research focused on better understanding of where the salt comes from and how hydrofracturing might live designed to minimize salt return to the land surface would live highly beneficial.Conclusions
Since the advent of hydraulic fracturing, more than 1 million hydraulic fracturing treatments stand been conducted, with perhaps only one documented case of direct groundwater pollution resulting from injection of hydraulic fracturing chemicals used for shale gas extraction (54). Impacts from casing leakage, well blowouts, and spills of contaminated fluids are more prevalent but stand generally been quickly mitigated (17). However, confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations, combined with the expedited rate of evolution and the limited funding for research, are substantial impediments to peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts. Furthermore, gas wells are often spaced closely within small areas and could result in cumulative impacts (5) that develop so slowly that they are arduous to measure.
The public and government officials are continuing to raise questions and focus their attention on the issue of the exact composition of the hydrofracturing fluid used in shale formations. In 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives directed the EPA to conduct a study of hydraulic fracturing and its repercussion on drinking-water resources. This study will add vital information to account for the destiny of hydraulic fracturing fluid injected into the gas-bearing formation. It is well known that a large portion (as much as 90%) of injected fluid is not recovered during the flowback period, and it is vital to document potential transport pathways and ultimate temperament of the injected fluid. The evolution of predictive methods to accurately account for the entire fluid volume based on minute geophysical and geochemical characteristics of the formation would allow for the better design of gas wells and hydraulic fracturing technology, which would undoubtedly alleviate alleviate public concerns. Research is likewise needed to optimize water management strategies for effective gas extraction. In addition, the repercussion of abandoned oil and gas wells on both fluid and gas migration is a concern that has not yet been adequately addressed.
Gas migration received considerable attention in recent years, especially in inescapable parts of the Appalachian basin (such as northeast Pennsylvania). It has been known for a long time that methane migrates from the subsurface (such as coal seams, glacial till, and black shales), and the capacity to ignite methane in groundwater from private wells was reported long before the recent evolution of the Marcellus Shale (14). However, in the absence of trustworthy baseline information, it is facile to foible any such incidents on gas extraction activities. It is therefore faultfinding to establish baseline conditions before drilling and to utilize multiple lines of evidence to better understand gas migration. It is likewise vital to ameliorate drilling and cementing practices, especially through gas-bearing formations, in order to eliminate this potential pathway for methane migration.
Water management for unconventional shale gas extraction is one of the key issues that will dominate environmental debate surrounding the gas industry. Reuse of flowback and produced water for hydraulic fracturing is currently addressing the concerns regarding the vast salt quantities that are brought to the surface (each Marcellus well generates as much as 200 tons of salt during the flowback period). However, there is a necessity for comprehensive risk assessment and regulatory oversight for spills and other fortuitous discharges of wastewater to the environment. As these well fields ripen and the opportunities for wastewater reuse diminish, the necessity to find alternative management strategies for this wastewater will likely intensify. Now is the time to work on these issues in order to avoid an adverse environmental legacy similar to that from abandoned coal mine discharges in Pennsylvania.References and Notes
S. Holditch, K. Perry, J. Lee, "Unconventional Gas Reservoirs—Tight Gas, Coal Seams, and Shales, Working Document of the National Petroleum Council on Global Oil and Gas Study" (National Petroleum Council, 2007).
S. M. Olmstead, L. A. Muehlenbachs, J.-S. Shih, Z. Chu, A. J. Krupnick, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., published online 11 March 2013.10.1073/pnas.1213871110doi:10.1073/pnas.1213871110
U.S. House of Representatives Committee of Energy and Commerce Minority Staff, "Chemicals used in Hydraulic Fracturing" (prepared for H. A. Waxman, E. J. Markey, D. DeGette, 2011).
Energy Information Administration, Drilling Sideways–A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application, DOE/EIA-TR-0565 (U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1993).
NYS DEC, "Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental repercussion Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling And High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs" (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2009).
K. K. Eltschlager, J. W. Hawkins, W. C. Ehler, F. J. Baldassare, "Technical measures for the investigation and mitigation of fugitive methane hazards in areas of coal mining" (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh, PA, 2001).
T. Considine, R. Watson, N. Considine, J. Martin, "Environmental Impacts during Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: Causes, Impacts, and Remedies, Report 2012-1" (Shale Resources and Society Institute, State University of current York, Buffalo, 2012).
K. J. Breen, K. Revesz, F. J. Baldassare, S. D. McAuley, "Natural gases in ground water near Tioga Junction, Tioga County, North-central Pennsylvania–Occurrence and utilize of isotopes to determine origins, 2005" (U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report Series 2007-5085, 2007).
PA DEP, "Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Production in Pennsylvania" (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, PA DEP Fact Sheet, 2011).
W. R. Gough, B. A. Waite, in Water Resources in Pennsylvania: Availability, Quality, and Management, S. K. Majumdar, E. W. Miller, R. R. Parizek, Eds. (Pennsylvania Academy of Science, 1990), pp. 384–398.
IOGC, "Protecting their Country's Resources: The States’ Case, Orphaned Well Plugging Initiative" (Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2008).
T. M. Kresse et al., U.S.G.S. Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5273 (2012).
V. Gonzalo, B. Aiskely, C. Alicia, in SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Society of Petroleum Engineers International (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2005).
M. J. Rogers, R. L. Dillenbeck, R. N. Eid, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 90829 (2004).
M. B. Dusseault, M. N. Gray, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 64733 (2000).
J. M. Tinsley, E. C. Miller, D. L. Sutton, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 8257 (1979).
T. D. Hayes, "Marcellus Shale water chemistry" (Appalachian Shale Water Conservation and Management Committee, 2009).
D. Soeder, W. M. Kappell, "Water resources and natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale" (U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009-3032, Reston, VA, 2009).
M. E. Blauch, R. R. Myers, T. R. Moore, B. A. Lipinski, N. A. Houston, paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Society of Petroleum Engineers SPE 125740, Charleston, WV, 2009.
E. L. Rowan, M. A. Engle, C. S. Kirby, T. F. Kraemer, "Radium content of oil- and gas-field produced waters in the Northern Appalachian Basin (USA): Summary and discussion of data" (U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigation Report 2011-5135, 2011).
M. E. Mantell, in EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Technical Workshop 4. Water Resources Management, Chesapeake Energy (Oklahoma City, OK, 2011).
D. C. DiGiulio, R. T. Wilkin, C. Miller, G. Oberly, "DRAFT: Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming" (U.S. Environmental Prodection Agency Office of Research and Development, 2011).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Report to Congress: Management of wastes from the exploration, development, and production of raw oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1987).
K. R. Bruner, R. A. Smosna, "Comparative study of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Devonian Marcellus Shale, Appalachian Basin, DOE/NETL-2011/1478" (Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2011).
J. A. Williams, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5224 (2010).
C. E. Clark, J. A. Veil, "Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in the United States, ANL/EVS/R-09/1" (Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 2009).
C. J. de Pater, S. Baisch, "Geomechanical study of Bowland Shale seismicity, Synthesis Report" (Cuadrilla Resources, Ltd., 2011).
Reuters, "Ohio earthquake was not a natural event, expert says," Reuters, 2012.
National Academy of Sciences, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2012).
Texas Department of Agriculture, "Agricultural Land and Water Contamination from Injection Wells, Disposal Pits, and Abandoned Wells Used in Oil and Gas Production" (TX Department of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, 1985).
PA DEP, "Wastewater Treatment Requirements, 25 PA Code 95" (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2010).
J. R. Mullaney, D. L. Lorenz, A. D. Arntson, "Chloride in Groundwater and Surface Water in Areas Underlain by the Glacial Aquifer System, Northern United States" (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5086, 2009).
S. States et al., paper presented at the AWWA-WQTC, Phoenix, AZ, November 13 to 17, 2011.
C. Kuijvenhoven et al., paper presented at the Shale Gas Water Management Conference, Dallas, TX, November 30 to December 1, 2011.
R. D. Vidic, T. D. Hayes, S. Hughes, in Shale Gas Water Management Marcellus Initiative (Pittsburgh, PA, 2011).
J. S. White, M. V. Mathes, "Dissolved-gas concentrations in ground water in West Virginia" (U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 156, 2006).
3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
Citrix [48 Certification Exam(s) ]
CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fortinet [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
HP [750 Certification Exam(s) ]
HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBM [1532 Certification Exam(s) ]
IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Juniper [64 Certification Exam(s) ]
LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
Microsoft [374 Certification Exam(s) ]
Mile2 [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
NetworkAppliance [39 Certification Exam(s) ]
NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
Oracle [279 Certification Exam(s) ]
P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Pegasystems [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11710033
Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-1g1
Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/st0-136
Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12237012
Blogspot : http://killexamsbraindump.blogspot.com/2017/11/ensure-your-success-with-this-st0-136.html
RSS Feed : http://killexams.com/datafiles/rss/ST0-136-rss.xml
Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/uz28gx654i16qmfn0xkz709bct4uti0q
publitas.com : https://view.publitas.com/trutrainers-inc/never-miss-these-st0-136-questions-before-you-go-for-test
zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/5xjzy94d0da302ac042ce803ae16044eb350b