Fracking and a Revolt Against Big Oil & Gas?

Likely not the fracking that is causing the problem (1.00 / 2)

I tried to get to sharonTX's article, but the link didn't work for me.

First off, let me say that the exemption for fracturing in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is silly and shouldn't be there. The public has a right to know precisely what is going into the ground and where. To my knowledge, this information is available to the public in Texas, though, due to TX Railroad Commission Regulations. In fact, one can find the form through the Commission's website if one knows the operator and/or lease name.

The TCEQ requires operators to protect groundwater by setting surface pipe in the wellbore to a depth that would prevent contamination. In the Barnett Shale, where this well would be, that is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-1000 feet. I confess my knowledge of surface pipe depths in the Barnett Shale isn't thorough enough to know the exact depth, but I do know that the wells in question are drilled to a depth of over 10,000 feet. It's simply impossible that the fracturing could cause a problem like the one described if everything is being done by the Commission's regulations.

However, this does not rule out that the drilling activity is causing Harris' problem. In fact, it's likely that the surface pits used to drain drilling mud and other chemicals could have developed a leak, and this could have led to the contamination. Pits are supposed to be lined, but I know that in a lot of places, they simply aren't. I would believe that in the Barnett Shale though, because of the urban nature of the field, special precautions are being taken, like using only steel pits, which are portable and not set in the ground.

The real problem with fracturing shale wells is the insane amount of water usage involved. We're talking hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per procedure. That water needs to be trucked in, and, of course, many things can go wrong along the way.

Groundwater is not going to be affected by fracturing - especially in shale wells. It's much more likely that some sort of surface activity is causing the contamination. If there's a film showing on the water, it sounds more like a diesel fuel spill or some other similar situation could have caused the problem. Oversight on urban drilling projects must be intense, and the rush to develop the Barnett Shale may have resulted in a lack of oversight.

Also, as far as fracturing is concerned, the procedure doesn't force gas to the surface at all. Shale is extremely tight sediment packed by geological pressure and, in the cases like the Barnett Shale, it can be chock full of natural gas that is "locked" within the formation. Fracturing creates fissures in the formation and then "props" them open so that the gas will find its way into the wellbore and then to the surface.

I believe this is an important issue, but it's a complicated one, and it's not a simple A+B=C type of thing. Due to the complex nature, it's tough to find knowledgeable advocates that aren't bought and paid for by the right already. The best thing that could be done is to push for tougher RRC regulations and oversight in urban areas.

---

by: Jim Wick @ Wed May 27, 2009 at 18:04:49 PM UTC

Well, you got one thing correct in your comment (0.00 / 0)

they do use an insane amount of water but that is not the "real" problem, only one of the many "real" problems.

To my knowledge, this information is available to the public in Texas, though, due to TX Railroad Commission Regulations. In fact, one can find the form through the Commission's website if one knows the operator and/or lease name.

Ahmmm, no it's not, but how about this: I'll give you a lease name and you find out the list of chemicals used to frack that lease. I won't hold my breath waiting. (And I want the specific chemical, not the generic name of surfactant or sudzing agent.)

Here ya go: MOORE, Lease No: 239743, Well No: 1H. District 09, BRADEN EXPLORATION,LLC, Operator number 086335

The TCEQ requires operators to protect groundwater by setting surface pipe in the wellbore to a depth that would prevent contamination. In the Barnett Shale, where this well would be, that is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 600-1000 feet. I confess my knowledge of surface pipe depths in the Barnett Shale isn't thorough enough to know the exact depth, but I do know that the wells in question are drilled to a depth of over 10,000 feet.

Oh really? I hate to tell you this but NO BODY inspects the wellbore and the TCEQ certainly doesn't because the Texas Railroad Commission has jurisdiction over oil and gas drilling. Go ahead, call the TCEQ and ask. L

It's simply impossible that the fracturing could cause a problem like the one described if everything is being done by the Commission's regulations.

Anything that is man made is subject to failure and hydraulic fracturing being imprecise in nature is certainly subject to mistakes, fracks that go astray and accidents. The issue with the Harris well follows the pattern of a great many wells that were contaminated during hydraulic fracture. The Trinity Aquifer now has a plume of toluene from this accident.

Groundwater is not going to be affected by fracturing - especially in shale wells. It's much more likely that some sort of surface activity is causing the contamination. If there's a film showing on the water, it sounds more like a diesel fuel spill or some other similar situation could have caused the problem. Oversight on urban drilling projects must be intense, and the rush to develop the Barnett Shale may have resulted in a lack of oversight.

Please educate yourself on these issues before making such a reckless comment!!!!  Your comment above is not based in fact!

Okay, your next paragraph is basically correct.

Assuming that you are not an industry troll, if you would care to read up on these issues, I'll provide some material:

Each link that follows contains many additional links to substantiate the material within.
Dick Cheney and Halliburton: Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals in YOUR Drinking Water.

Hydraulic Fracture Fluid Kills 18 Cattle Near Chesapeake Well in LA

Close the Halliburton Loophole

And, of course, there is always Bluedaze: DRILLING REFORM FOR TEXAS

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 14:21:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

Your attitude is precisely why more oversight and regulation are difficult to accomplish. I have no motivation to follow up on your post because, frankly, you're rude.

Yes, I'm an industry troll. Somehow, I was able to use my super-stealth capabilities to get myself on staff for President Obama's campaign, and I'm riding that all the way to the White House, where I will carry out my diabolical plan to ensure the raping of natural resources for the next eight years.

Now, I'm not a geologist, but I play one on the internet. I've also overseen the fracturing of a conventional well in Runnels County, Texas. I have a little bit of knowledge about how the procedure works and how it interacts with the geological strata at the base of the wellbore. I've filed the forms with the RRC describing the mix of chemicals that were used.

I'm also a Democrat and an activist for progressive causes. If you somehow believe that being antagonistic to the oil and gas industry in Texas at every turn is going to bring about progressive change, good luck with that. No really, good luck. You're going to need it.

Here's your well information. I'm sorry that I don't have the expertise to identify what is in the acid mix, exactly, but if I was more motivated, I feel certain that a call to any oil well service company would help:

Depth Interval of 8400-10550, "FRAC = 2,999,213 H20 & 17,500 15% ACID, W/ 1,840,251 LBS PROPPANT"

I know the acid used is likely HCl, and the proppant is likely sand. And a lot of H20 - water. Do I think this information should be more detailed? Yes, I do.

Also, the RRC sends inspectors to leases, yes, but TCEQ determines the depth to which surface pipe must be set. To say that "NO BODY" inspects the wellbore is wrong.

However, my original sentiment (ignored by you) that more oversight is needed, still stands. I am not the enemy and I am not an apologist. If you treat every person that doesn't agree with you 100% as an enemy or an apologist, you're going to lose.

---

by: Jim Wick @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 17:14:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fracturing (5.00 / 1)

Is it precise or imprecise? In the words of the industry. In other words: they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Geologist or no, much of what is in your 1st comment is just flat out wrong. If you follow the history of hydraulic fracturing and sudden contamination of water, there are just way too many incidents to be a coincident. People and animals are being harmed immensely so I take it personally when someone gives out erroneous information.

Since the industry is in charge of regulating itself, how do you know what is used and what isn't used in the frack compound. I actually asked for the chemical list for that particular well and was told that it's proprietary and a secret. So, they, the industry, report the ingredients to the RRC. No one checks it.

The industry does its own inspection and reporting in most everything.

And yes, I'm antagonistic toward the oil and gas industry because I live right on top of the Barnett Shale and I see what they are doing every single day of my life. My activism is making a difference. We are making progress.

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 19:34:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frankly, my dear... (0.00 / 0)

Your attitude is precisely why more oversight and regulation are difficult to accomplish...frankly, you're rude.

Hard to believe that one rude person could stall oversight and regulation of this industry. But since there are so few speaking out and still not much regulation...do you seriously think so?

TXSharon gets attention for this issue. I have a feeling that she doesn't mind being called "rude," if that's what it takes to inform the public. Like many others, I appreciate her efforts, her sometimes "in your face" efforts, to get our attention on a very serious and urgent matter.

You really should take some time to read all that she has written over the past few years...personally, I think she is a very courageous voice. A very concise voice. She does her research very well. I've learned a lot. And I would like to thank her.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 05:38:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Elsbeth (3.00 / 1)

Sometimes, because I am pulled in so many directions every waking moment of my life, and because I am attacked and threatened almost daily by the industry, I tend to make my communications too direct--no bullshit, to the point. Sometimes, because I am "boots on the ground" in the middle of this mess and not sitting in an office somewhere navel gazing about these issues, I get really pissed off when people spread misinformation.

I could have just asked the guy a simple question: If the information is readily available and the process is no threat, why are so many highly intelligent and powerful people working to get the exemption lifted? Defies logic, eh? =)

---

by: TXsharon @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 14:15:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's a long article (3.00 / 1)

at Land Letter: The Natural Resources Weekly Report it requires a subscription but I have an email forward. I've seen this information so often that I forget it's not common knowledge.

Here's a small snippet:

Fracturing fluid toxicity

Additionally, some research has linked hydraulic fracturing to contamination and human illness.

For example, tests conducted by scientist Theo Colborn, president of the Colorado-based Endocrine Disruption Exchange, linked a western Colorado woman's rare adrenal glad tumor to methane and other chemicals that had leached into the woman's well water after hydraulic fracturing activities occurred on a neighboring property.

In another case, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources found that a house exploded as a result of a nearby gas well's faulty concrete casing and hydraulic fracturing that pushed methane into an aquifer.

Aside from the human health impacts, there are also concerns about the chemicals' effects on the environment and fish and wildlife. "We're talking about the use of chemicals that can be considered highly toxic," said Elizabeth Maclin, Trout Unlimited's vice president for eastern conservation.

Maclin said studies have shown there are typically about 54 chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, of which 34 are water soluble. Of the water soluble chemicals, 62 percent could have some kind of ecological impact, if they get into ground or surface water, she said.

One reason that linking hydraulic fracturing to contamination reports has been difficult is that the ingredients used in fracing remain closely guarded industry secrets.

Scientists say they need information about what chemicals are used to determine if drilling causes water contamination, but global companies such as Halliburton Co. and Schlumberger Ltd. have fought to shield the chemical recipes they use in drilling from public view.

You really can't believe anything the Texas Railroad Commission says. I found out an operator dumped their sewage--collected during their 2 months of living onsite while drilling--into the sludge pit. Here's the email response I received from Walter Gwyn, District 8 Director:

Keep in mind that the sewage sat in a huge tank for 2 months then in the pit for a week before I found it. Then it was another week before the inspector came.

From: Walter Gwyn walter.gwyn@rrc.state.tx.us
Date: Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Complaint: Wise County Sludge Pit Containing Toxins and Raw Sewage

Two different RRC inspectors have confirmed through two different inspections at the same site that there was no human waste sewage that was seen at the pit site.  In addition, and pardon me for the graphic detail here, but there was not one piece of "used toilet tissue paper" mixed with the material that you believe to be human waste sewage seen anywhere on the drilling site.  I have seen the photos of the location and the photos do confirm that no waste paper associated with human sewage is present at the site.
At the present time, the pit in question is in compliancewith RRC rules.

So, because he didn't see any toilet tissue lying around on the site he refused to test the water for fecal matter. Nice science, eh?

---

by: TXsharon @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 15:48:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Likely not the frac (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Jim Wick.  The probability is that surface spills may cause some problems but not the fluid in the well.  Here is why.  It costs money if a frac goes into a water zone as the water stops gas flowing up the well and water flows better than oil, so less oil comes out of the ground. Therefore a poor return on investment.  This is avoided by the Engineers as they like to be employed.  Frac fluid in hydrocarbon bearing rock, where gas and oil have been trapped for rather a long time, is not going anywhere except in the rock or back up the well for disposal.

You should have gotten a sample of the water, excrement, etc because that constitutes evidence. Evidence is not stating what you believe you saw or heard from a third party.

A company cannot refuse to say what chemicals they are using if asked by the regulator.  They can refuse to tell the public in the same way that you cannot go into a fast food place and demand to know their "secret ingredient"
Do you have fluoride and chlorine added to your water by the supplier? That stuff isn't too good for you.

Other parts of the world use less damaging chemicals but they are less effective.

Try the US Patent office web site.

As to why intelligent and powerful people want the ban lifted, well that is because the politicians like a popular cause to get re-elected and the consultants stand to make more money. While you are getting tied up in knots about this do an internet search on how many big oil and gas deals are being done by China around the world to tie those resources to them for the next few decades.

Also if you disagree with a statement can you say why it is wrong rather than making sweeping statements that the other person is ignorant or reckless? That is not the best way to debate.

Thanks.

p.s. I'm a Troll too.

---

by: Jimb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 23:11:42 PM UTC

I don't think you are ignorant or reckless (0.00 / 0)

But you may have a "dwindling pile of chips."

"Likely not the frac"?

Likely?

This...

Another bill, introduced to the New York Assembly on June 5th by 12 Assembly members, will substantially regulate all gas drilling in the state, including the controversial practice of horizontal drilling and shale fracturing, or "fracking," which uses chemicals some critics say could contaminate ground water with carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. The exact contents of fracking liquids is a well-defended industry secret, but among the deadly chemicals known to be used include benzene, toluene, and diesel fuel.

No such laws, or others yet to come, would have appeared without the grassroots activists around the country who pushed an environmental agenda during the Bush/Cheney years. "They're the foot soldiers of the movement," says Amy Mall, senior policy advisor of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "We rely on them."

[...]

The other argument, heard in a June 4th hearing of Congress' Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, is more subtle -- that regulating gas drilling should be left to the states. But opponents will doubtless counter with Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce. Even energy industry lobbyists concede privately that in this game they've got a weak hand, a dwindling pile of chips, and few powerful allies who can step in to save their bacon.[emphasis added by me.]

And what about the earthquakes in recent months and this past weekend in North Texas?

Cleburne quakes probably related to gas drilling, expert says

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, June 9, 2009

By SHERRY JACOBSON and DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News

Three small earthquakes that rattled Cleburne in the past six days were probably caused by intense natural gas drilling, the state's leading expert on earthquakes said Monday.

"Most people would probably conclude if they looked at the data that they would be related," said Cliff Frohlich, associate director and senior research scientist at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin.

[...]

Cleburne officials sounded rattled Monday as they considered whether their quakes might not be a natural occurrence.

[...]

"We will certainly investigate it," he said. "We haven't decided how to do it. But we would be negligent if we didn't."

Seems we who live near these wells need to batten down the hatches. And not breathe the air, either, on burnoff days.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:02:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]