Jump to: site navigation, content.

Local stuff that matters to you.
Did you know about Ryan Bingham at House of Blues this Friday?
News & events for
Wednesday, November
25

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Barnett Shale: A point of clarification

4

If you don't already know about it, I suggest anyone interested in finding out more about the Barnett Shale and Fort Worth to look at the Powell Barnett Shale Newsletter produced by Gene Powell, Jr.

Mr. Powell is very pro-drilling, but I think his newsletter is very thorough and quite well done. I believe that point is about the only thing he and I would agree about.

While I think Mr. Powell -- aw, hell, I'm just going to call him Gene -- while I think Gene's newsletter is pretty good, his editorial slant minimizes anything that would stand in the way of more Barnett Shale drilling, including NIMBYs and activists (his words, not mine). I don't have problem with this -- he is a gas driller writing for gas drillers. He knows his audience.

However, in the October 1 issue of his newsletter, there was something that jumped out at me. See page 19 in the article titled "New Water Disposal Well Operational In Fort Worth." And I quote:

"Reports by Mike Lee of the Fort Worth Star Telegram that the used frac water states it 'sometimes including cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene' just is not true. [emphasis his] It is the type of erroneous information found on blogs (web logs) [emphasis mine] but if it were present, what better place to put it than 1.5 miles deep in the earth rather than trucking it though our neighborhoods?"

Just not true? Erroneous information on Web logs (which Gene finds on The Google)? Really?

I believe the "erroneous" Web log which Gene refers to is this one here. I believe the post in question is this one -- "Why I Don't Believe You, Chesapeake" -- where I write: "Barnett Shale wells require fracturing of the limestone formation to release the oil and gas trapped within. Water, sand, and hazardous chemicals are injected under high pressure down the drilling hole to fracture the limestone. What are those chemicals? Some are known and include potentially toxic substances such as diesel fuel, which contains benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide.”

Evidently, Gene thinks I just pull words like this out of my ass. Gene, I'm lucky to spell those words on a good day. But, like any good blogger, I can cut and paste. And this section came from www.earthworksaction.org. And where did they get it? From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 2002. DRAFT Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. EPA 816-D-02-006. Chapter 4.

That's right. The EP-freaking-A! The Feds. Uncle Sam. And that's the 2002, there's-no-global-warming, George W. Bush EPA -- so who knows how much freaking worse it really is.

Gene, I am not making shit up to frighten people. I think the facts are scary enough. Fort Worth does not want or need an injection well. This does not do Fort Worth a world of good. And obviously the city is concerned enough to look into it or they never would have declared their moratorium on new injection wells.

If you ever think I am "erroneous," shoot me an e-mail, state your case, and if I am incorrect about a fact, I will correct it. However, in this instance, I believe the error is yours. I look forward to the correction.

Pegasus News content partner: The Caravan of Dreams



  • Staff
  • Verified User
  • Anonymous

TXsharon says:

They'll say ANYTHING to continue making billions from drilling and polluting.

A handy little book with a list of the chemicals used in frac water:

Our Drinking Water at Risk PO Box 1102 Durango, CO 81302 970-259-3353

Just keep in mind that all those chemicals don't end up "1.5 miles" deep in the injection wells because they don't recover all the frac water that's pumped into the drilling hole. An undetermined amount (the EPA isn't sure because they only measured the flowback from one, ONE freaking well!) of the frac water stays in the drilling hole where it can travel up and down the fractures and into our groundwater or even back to the surface where your dog can drink it or your child can run barefoot through it. It's about 40% that stays there, or sometimes it might be 50%, or even 60%. Then, if you're lucky it might only be 30% or so... That little tidbit is on page 22 of the above mentioned booklet.

Damn! Those pesky bloggers. I blog at Bluedaze. http://txsharon.blogspot.com/

Anonymous

2 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

jackrabbit says:

Mr. Smith, I can also cut and paste. This is a statement from the same EPA report you cited: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 2002. DRAFT Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. EPA 816-D-02-006:

"Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time."

Just for the record the Barnett shale formation is neither limestone nor coalbed in nature. The Barnett shale formation also has adjacent geological barriers which have helped keep the natural gas from escaping for millions of years. And TxSharon, you should consider yourself very lucky that, in your neighbohood, water bubbles out of the ground from a mile down for your doggie to drink and your barefoot kids to run through.

Anonymous

2 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

neptune says:

It seems like Chesapeake has some web site called askchesapeake.com, why not ask them and find out what they have to say? I personally checked the Ground Water Protection Council's web site and found that they as well as the EPA endorse the use of disposal wells as defined by the rules outlined by the EPA in the 1970's called underground injection controls. The EPA endorses this practice I think the city of Fort Worth should follow their lead. Gas wells seem much more dangerous than Salt Water wells and they allow them. I could not find a single case of someone dieing from salt water being spilled. If it gets trucks off our already busy streets, I am all for them. Lets start supporting the gas companies to get the trucks off the road.

Anonymous

2 years, 1 month ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

bennett says:

should a mineral owner receive any payment from the operator of a disposal well?

Anonymous

1 year, 7 months ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

What do you think?

:

:

Email Print Comment Tell us your story

See more stories in:


Quantcast