Jump to: site navigation, content.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Fracking in Fort Worth: What’s that you’re smokin’?

Email Print Tell us your story Comments (10)

In case anyone needs a reminder, this is what a "frack job" looks like. These pics were taken in east Fort Worth in early January, 2009, near Riverside Drive and I-30. The smoke was so dense that, at times, it obscured driving on the interstate highway.

Today, January 12, Chesapeake Energy will frack the so-called Thomas well about 1/2 mile east of this location which is in the West Meadowbrook neighborhood.

Did the City of Fort Worth warn us that fracking might be dangerous to human and animal health? No.

Did the neighborhood association send out an alert? No.

Did the state highway department issue a warning or close the highway? No.

Did the Star-Telegram send out a notice or a reporter? No.

Did Chesapeake Energy warn us that fracking involves the use of over 50 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, skin irritations, cardiac toxicity, kidney failure, reproductive disruption, respiratory distress and developmental toxcity? No. No. Hell No!

Just what the heck is in all that smoke and dust that will float over Fort Worth Monday morning??? What exactly will our children and pets and us be breathing when the clouds roll by? Where will the dust settle?

More importantly, where are the elected officials that have allowed this to happen in our community? Do they have fracking in their 'hoods?

For a list of the toxic chemicals used in gas well fracking and other info about the dangers of fracking, look here:

http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/Fracking.pdf

http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2008/12/frac-water-chemicals-chemical.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154394

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-12-04/fracking.pdf

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/05/fracking/print.html


Pegasus News content partner - FWCanDo

Related stories


See more stories in:

Comments

Scott Doyle Verified

Umm, this is a ridiculously broad statement: ...fracking involves the use of over 50 toxic chemicals that can cause cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, skin irritations, cardiac toxicity, kidney failure, reproductive disruption, respiratory distress and developmental toxcity?

There are multiple fracking techniques which differ as far as risks & rewards go. While I certainly understand the general concern, blanket statements such as this should be backed up with citations and specifics for particular sites.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

Edit: shotgunning links at the end of the article without applying them to this situation isn't exactly prudent citation. Fear-mongering, at best.

Note, I have nothing to do with anything going on out there...I simply have a basic knowledge of what goes on in fracking ops and find it extremely unfair to make such strong allegations without pointing out specifics to this site. Not doing your due diligence when reporting such allegations is reckless in its own right.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

David Gouldin Staff

Must ... resist ... nerdy sci-fi puns ...

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

TXsharon Anonymous

Scott, you might have to do a little bit of reading and researching for yourself.

Dick Cheney and Halliburton Fracking in YOUR Drinking Water. http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2008/11/...

Written testimony of Theo Colborn, PhD, President of TEDX, Paonia, Colorado before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, hearing on The Applicability of Federal Requirements to Protect Public Health and the Environment from Oil and Gas Development, October 31, 2007 http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/as...

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

And? I'm not supporting whether it's safe or dangerous.

There's no discussion of whether anybody fingered is required to provide public notice, whether these risks apply to this specific type of operation, or any direct link of wrongdoing.

"I heard somewhere this ain't good and they didn't tell us, here's some random internettin' on the subject - surely a few sentences apply to us, hope you find 'em" isn't journalism (in my opinion).

As a reader, connections shouldn't have to be made by researching a list of links. The article should give me info I need to form a basic conclusion, with citations from accredited sources reinforcing the message.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Pavel Lishin Verified

David: I was tempted, too. Just didn't know how to work it into the discussion.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

bluetattoo1 Anonymous

Scott, Great points!

Thanks for offering up a refreshing view....

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Chuck Anonymous

I observe that a picture was provided, and a statement made regarding 'dense smoke'. I haven't seen diesel engines smoke that bad, and if they did, the smoke would be black. I suspect that what is being termed 'dense smoke' is actually water vapor. The fracturing process uses water, and the fluid is largely water on a volume basis. There are points in the aboveground equipment that are open to atmosphere. On a cool morning, the fluid will fog, just as you tend to see around stock tanks and farm ponds.

10 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

TXsharon Anonymous

I have frack pictures on my blog and it clearly shows substantial emissions not water vapor. Even if it is water vapor going into the air, that's pretty disturbing given what's in frack fluid.

9 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

tcubridges Anonymous

I was actually a frac engineer before being laid off at the beginning of march. The smoke seen is the pictures above is not actually smoke! It is very fine sand known as 100 mesh. Sand is used to prop open the fractures created in the earth during these jobs. In terms of the chemicals, there are very few of the chemicals listed on those links used in every job. In the Barnett Shale, the main chemicals are friction reducers, biocides, scaling inhibitors, and oxygen scavengers. I understand some people may worry about Fracing, but it's really not something to worry about. The process is under strict environmental controls and the operators such as XTO, Chesapeake, etc...take every precaution to preserve the communities they operate in.

6 months, 2 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Post a comment

(Requires free PegasusNews.com account.)


(Forgotten your password?)

:

:

Today

Fall 2009 Dinner With Dialogue Series Eating "sustainably" -- without harming animals, farm workers, or the environment -- will be the topic at this dinner at Celebration restaurant, with author Pamela Walker plus Michael and Debby Sams of Full Quiver Farms from Kemp, Texas. More info

Latest comments

See more recent comments

Latest reviews

See more recent reviews


Quantcast