Fractured gas well questions multiply

by Jim Mayo, Your Times Publisher
Sequoyah County Times
April 26, 2010

The question of whether or not an injection well to dispose of oil and gas well fluids will be opened in Vian remains on hold while an Oklahoma Corporation Commission referee considers the application and the protests against it.

The Vian well is in a semi-dormant status awaiting the referee’s decision, but the larger issues of new and wide-spread use of hydraulic fracturing techniques in gas wells and disposal of the waste water that results from them have grown.

Of immediate interest is the fact that four new injection wells have opened in Arkansas near Fort Smith. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission reports that the amount of waste saltwater coming from Arkansas into the 18 counties of commission District IV, which includes Sequoyah County, dropped from 925,566 barrels in the quarter ending Dec. 31, 2009 to 25,000 barrels for the quarter ending March 31, 2010. The new wells are likely taking much of the water that was coming here. However, this is but a small part of the total water injected in the district during the two time periods. Just because Arkansas drillers aren’t sending as much waste to us as they once did doesn’t mean the issue has passed.

I think it is important to consider as a whole the subjects of fractured wells, injection wells and soil farming, which is a way of attempting to dispose of waste salt water above ground and is the subject of much protest in Haskell County. Each is a part of the effort to increase production of natural gas.

When you see T. Boone Pickens on TV boosting gas, or read about rapidly increasing supplies of domestic natural gas, it is largely the hydraulically fractured wells that produce the gas.

I am indebted to my sister, Andy, in Beaumont, Texas, for sending along a story from the April 11 issue of the Houston Chronicle.

It reports on a potential disaster underway in the small town of Daisetta, Texas, which is located about 55 miles northeast of Houston.

On May 7, 2008, a sinkhole as wide as two football fields developed near this small town of 230. As that sinkhole developed, a quarter-mile away a geyser of fluid gushed from an abandoned well on property owned by the community’s mayor. The mayor said in the April 11 article that he had to cut down 100 trees on his property that were killed by the fluid.

The article went on to say, “In the first published report providing any explanation for the phenomenon, a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality adviser theorized injection disposal wells may be primarily responsible for destabilizing the area and creating a kind of quicksand 1,000 feet below that led to the collapse.”

The town has hired a law firm to investigate and sue the people responsible, if that can be determined.

In addition to the sinkhole and dead trees and vegetation, the city worries that its water wells may also become contaminated.

The article said the Texas Railroad Commission conducted investigations and found nothing in violation of its regulations other than an instance when an injection well operator injected more waste than his permit allowed. The Railroad Commission is the Texas equivalent of our Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Both regulate the oil and gas industry.

Injection well operators and regulators have said many times that there is little or no risk involved in injecting oil and gas well waste into underground formations. People in Daisetta aren’t convinced. The Chronicle article reported that “… an engineering company drilling a backup well for the city detected traces of toluene and naphthalene in its water sample…. the engineer recommended abandoning the $93,000 project and drilling somewhere else.”

While hydraulic fracturing of oil wells has been going on for years, the wholesale fracturing of gas wells using millions of gallons of water under tremendous pressures is relatively new, and so some of the problems with the technique are also new.

Oklahoma is highly dependent on the oil and gas industry. One of the reasons we are in such a slump is the decline in prices for gas, partly brought on by the Great Recession. Partly because of this, state government is almost broke. Clearly, we all have a stake in what happens to oil and gas production.

We also have a huge stake in controlling and eliminating pollution and improving public safety. That is why people in Vian are so upset over the proposed injection well that would be located only a few blocks from the Vian school.

All of the problems surrounding frac wells have drawn the attention of the nation media. In recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal published an extensive article about the subject, the Public Broadcasting System program NOW featured a segment that would scare your pants off, and newspapers here and there are picking up on the story as it develops.

In the NOW segment, a man in a home near a fractured well turned on a water faucet in a kitchen and ignited the gas that came out into a ball of flames.

Congress has promised to hold hearings into the various issues surrounding the ever-growing complaints.

The oil and gas industry, and to some extent the government agencies which regulate them, are fond of saying that fracturing oil and gas wells and disposal of fluids down injection wells is nothing new.

It seems to me that while that may be true, there is still much more we don’t know about what we are doing than what we do know, and ignorance can be downright dangerous.

We should proceed with great caution.
LINK
Amen.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Fracking oversight OK says EPA water chief

(Drawing Distinctions)

NewsWatch:Energy
Tom Fowler
February 17, 2010

Hydraulic fracturing has been the source of much anxiety and anger as drilling in the Marcellus Shales in New York and Pennsylvania picked up in recent years. A lack of direct federal involvement in oversight of the process and incidents of residential water supplies near drill sites becoming contaminated have been the main rallying points for opponents.

But one official at the Environmental Protection Agency says he's confident state regulators are doing a good job watching over fracking and that it has not yet been linked to any water contamination, reports Dow Jones:

"I have no information that states aren't doing a good job already," Steve Heare, director of EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division said on the sidelines of a state regulators conference here [Washington]. He also said despite claims by environmental organizations, he hadn't seen any documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies.

In its 2011 budget, the EPA is seeking to spend $4 million to study the environmental impacts of the process.

Bill Kappel, a U.S. Geological Survey official, said contamination of water supplies is more likely to happen as companies process the waste water from hydrofracking. In some instances, municipal water systems that treat the water have reported higher levels of heavy metals and radioactivity.

"Treatment of the [waste] water hasn't caught up with the hydro-fracking technology," Kappel said.

But both re-injection of that waste water and water treatment at the surface is already regulated by the federal government under the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts.

It seems poor well completion work is also to blame in some of the instances where there has been contamination as well. That's a pretty important distinction to make because it narrows the possible areas where errors/accidents can occur and should focus people on what part of the process has the greater risks.
LINK
Editorial comments by Splashdown in red.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Update: Chesapeake withdrawing Pulteney wastewater site plans

stargazette.com
February 16, 2010

Chesapeake Energy is withdraw its permit applications to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and [New York] state Department of Environmental Conservation for a wastewater disposal facility in the Steuben County town of Pulteney.

Chesapeake's plans to convert an abandoned natural gas well into a disposal site for wastewater from the hydraulic fracturing process stirred up stiff public opposition.

The company indicated last week it would not pursue those plans, but also noted that it wasn't going to withdraw permit applications with the EPA or state Department of Environmental Conservation.

In letters sent to both agencies, Chesapeake indicated it changed its mind not because of public opposition, but because it has better options available.

"This decision is based primarily on the fact that the state will not allow completion of Marcellus shale wells until the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement is completed," the letters stated. "In addition, since initiating this project, we have advanced our operational capacity to reuse/recycle water produced in other areas of the Marcellus Shale, greatly reducing our current need for additional disposal facilities in New York."

Chesapeake's decision was applauded by state Sen. George H. Winner Jr., who opposed the plan to locate an injection well in Pulteney.

"It's the right decision, and I'm pleased that company officials have been more than willing to listen and give every consideration to the concerns of local leaders and local residents," Winner said in a news release.

LINK

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Gas industry responds to flowback concerns

The Wellsboro Gazette
Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The Marcellus Shale Coalition issued the following statement Feb. 4 regarding water use and flowback water management in the development of natural gas from the Marcellus formation:

“Pennsylvanians deserve to get the facts about water management for Marcellus shale development. We need to put an end to the suppositions that could threaten our state’s ability to create jobs and investment here at home.

“Regulations governing the use and management of water needed to drill a Marcellus shale well in Pennsylvania are among the most stringent in the nation, (But that doesn't mean they are stringent enough!) and ensure the protection of the commonwealth’s water resources. (Though to date they haven't always done that.) Water withdrawals from streams and rivers must be approved, including the withdrawal location and amount of water required for each well, as well as detailed storage and treatment plans. (This does not guarantee protection either.)
“The industry currently treats or recycles all of its flowback water. Recycling accounts for approximately 60 percent of the water used to complete Marcellus shale wells, with greater percentages predicted for the future. There are more than a dozen approved water treatment facilities available to treat flowback water, with plans for additional capacity in the future. (Recycling recoverable water does not preclude or prevent pollution from the toxic fracking fluid that remains in the well bore. Flowback accounts for only a fractional percent of the water used in drilling in the Marcellus shale. CLICK HERE for a .pdf file of PA wastewater facilities.)

“Companies are working with international water quality experts and are funding research and development projects to develop mobile and permanent treatment technologies such as evaporation and crystallization. These efforts will enhance the commonwealth’s overall water treatment capabilities, while bringing more commerce into Pennsylvania. We’re also researching and developing deep underground injection well technology, which is a proven, safe disposal method in other regions of the country. (But not a proven, safe disposal method for our geology. Here wastewater returns to our watershed. ...And, as fracking chemicals remain an industry secret, how can we know we've safely "treated" produced water for reintroduction into our enviroment?)
“Claims about elevated levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the Monongahela River from natural gas development have been refuted by studies that attribute a minimal amount of the total TDS levels to Marcellus shale drilling activity. In fact, historical monitoring shows the variability of TDS levels in the Monongahela and other rivers to be a cyclical phenomenon over the past 30 years. (Smoke and Mirrors!) Convincing arguments may not be provable beyond doubt, but the possibility of contamination could be avoided if proper wastewater treatment facilities were in place BEFORE more drilling is permitted!

On Feb. 2, 2010, Dave Badger of Treasure Lake, Dubois wrote, in the Tri-County Courier Express: Millions of gallons of gas drilling wastewater are being produced every day and our state doesn't have a single treatment facility capable of properly treating it. Currently, much of the wastewater is being trucked to some municipal sewage and industrial treatment plants across the state where it's haphazardly treated before being discharged into our rivers and streams. These treatment plants are not equipped to remove TDS (total dissolved solids) and other chemical contaminants commonly found in drilling wastewater. High levels of TDS in mining wastewater contaminated Dunkard Creek last September in southern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. The salts in TDS caused a golden algae bloom, an algae not known to the region that thrives in brackish water, that wiped out virtually every fish and other aquatic organism along a 30-mile stretch of stream. An estimate of the loss of life was $30 million. Wouldn't it make more sense to have proper wastewater treatment facilities in place before issuing any more drilling permits? Fresh, clean water is our most precious natural resource, not natural gas. Our elected officials are allowing greed to trump common sense.

“The industry is committed to the use of Best Management Practices in all aspects of its operations, including significant investment in advanced flowback water treatment capabilities and recycling technologies.”The Marcellus Shale Coalition is comprised of dozens of drilling and service companies who work in Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry. Its Web site is www.pamarcellus.com.
LINK
Editorial comments by Splashdown in red.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Resistance to proposed wastewater facility grows

By Derrick Ek

Corning Leader

Sat Feb 06, 2010

Pulteney, N.Y. - As resistance to a proposed Chesapeake Energy toxic wastewater disposal facility near Keuka Lake grows, Pulteney Town Supervisor Bill Weber is vowing to do everything in his power to stop the project.

Weber has asked the town’s attorney to investigate the possibility of imposing a moratorium on such projects, and the Pulteney Town Board will discuss the matter at its next meeting on Wednesday.

“There’s no way I’m going to support this, and I have confidence that the town of Pulteney will find a way to stop it,” Weber said.

Chesapeake Energy has applied to the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Conservation for permission to build a facility in Pulteney to dispose of wastewater from its Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operations.

The DEC will be the lead agency for the review. The project will also require a special use permit from the town of Pulteney.

The planned Chesapeake facility will include six bays to unload trucks carrying wastewater, six temporary storage tanks, and equipment to inject the wastewater into a 6,000-foot-deep depleted gas well, according to EPA documents. The documents indicate that Chesapeake would inject an average of approximately 180,000 gallons per day into the well over 10 years.

The well is located near the intersection of Armstrong Road and County Route 78, less than a mile from Keuka Lake.

Injection wells are a method used by gas drilling companies to dispose of the waterwater created by high-volume, horizontal hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking” – which is a process used to tap the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation.

There is a shortage of treatment plants able to handle the waste in the Northeast, and injection wells provide “the most cost effective and environmentally sound option” for disposing of the wastewater, Chesapeake wrote in its EPA application.

However, the project is facing opposition from a network of concerned residents and environmental activists who fear heavy truck traffic on rural roads along the Keuka Lake wine trail, as well as the possibility that the wastewater could cause soil or water contamination by migrating through underground cracks or fissures.

The Leader contacted a top regional official from Chesapeake Energy on Thursday, seeking further details and asking the company to address the concerns. The official promised to speak with corporate officials and respond, but The Leader hadn’t heard back as of Friday evening.
...
Jeff Andrysick, [leader of a citizen group, Pulteney Pure Waters] ... believes the wastewater poses a threat to Keuka Lake, and that the rural roads can’t handle the truck traffic. Also, he said, the roads are bustling with vacationers in the summer, enjoying cottages on the lake and visiting nearby wineries such as Dr. Frank’s, Bully Hill and Heron Hill.

Any kind of industrial or pollution issues would threaten the wine industry, he added.

Andrysick said he didn’t want to see the bedrock underneath Pulteney turned into a “gigantic plumbing experiment.”

“Pulteney’s wonderful way of life shouldn’t be sacrificed to an outside predatory corporation. They don’t live here and won’t have to live with the results,” he said.

Weber, the town supervisor, called the situation a “perfect storm” that is threatening to “tear the town apart.”

He criticized some of the project opponents for acting irrationally. He says he’s been the target of a great deal of hostility because he was slow to notify the public of Chesapeake’s interest, and because of his perceived support for the project.

Weber said he never was in favor of the project, but had to consider it objectively.

In the beginning, he admitted, he didn’t even realize the scope of the project. Then he studied Chesapeake’s EPA application, consulted others, educated himself on related issues, and has come to the conclusion that the facility is a very bad idea. The main issue, in his mind, is truck traffic.

He isn’t sure yet about the threat to water supplies.

“I’m not a geologist to be able to tell you what the real threat is. Do I want it there? No, of course I don’t. Do I think it’ll destroy Keuka Lake? I don’t know,” he said. “But what really bothers me is the fact that somebody is trying to come into Pulteney and do something that the people don’t want.”

The town has time, he said, because the federal and state review process will likely take a year or longer. Implementing a moratorium may be a tricky issue, Weber said, because of the state’s conservation law regarding natural gas exploration.

“You can’t just zone (energy companies) out of existence,” he said. “Previous court cases have shown that.”

Weber is also concerned that if the EPA and DEC give approval to Chesapeake, but town officials refuse to give the company a permit, the town will wind up in a lengthy court battle.

“If this huge company is going to spend that much money on a project, and some little town in upstate New York says, ‘No, we don’t want you here,’ they’re gonna say, ‘We have every right to be here, get out of our way.’”
LINK.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!