Driller denies that it contaminated Texas aquifer - EPA Makes Aggressive Move

Posted as an FYI:

Driller denies that it contaminated Texas aquifer


By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI Associated Press © 2010 The Associated Press

Dec. 7, 2010, 8:44PM

HOUSTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emergency order against a Texas gas driller Tuesday, accusing the company of contaminating an aquifer and giving it 48 hours to provide clean drinking water to affected residents and begin taking steps to resolve the problem.
 

The order is unprecedented in Texas, partly because the federal body overstepped the state agency responsible for overseeing gas and oil drilling in the state. The EPA's move could ratchet up a bitter fight between Texas and the EPA that has evolved in the past year from a dispute over environmental issues into a pitched battle over states rights.

 

EPA regional director Al Armendariz said he issued the order against Range Resources of Fort Worth, Texas, because he felt the Texas Railroad Commission was not responding quickly enough to contamination found in two water wells belonging to Parker County residents in North Texas.

The EPA began inspecting the wells in August after receiving complaints from residents who said the Texas commission and Range Resources had not responded to problems they were having with their drinking water. The EPA inspected the wells with the commission, Armendariz said, and found high levels of explosive methane, as well as other contaminants, including cancer-causing benzene.

"We thought what we found in the homes was alarming," Armendariz told The Associated Press.

Range Resources on Tuesday denied being the source of the contamination.

 

"We've been working with the Railroad Commission as well as the landowners over the last several months," spokesman Matt Pitzarella said. "We believe that the methane in the water has absolutely no connection to our operations in the area. We provided that information to the Railroad Commission, the landowners and to the EPA." The Railroad Commission issued a statement saying members of its staff also have not reached conclusions about the source of the contamination. It said Range Resources is cooperating with the commission's investigation and already had agreed last week to conduct more tests, as well as to perform soil gas surveys, monitor gas concentrations, and offer a water supply to affected residents.

 

"If the data indicates oil field activities are responsible for the gas found in the water well, the (commission) will require assessment, cleanup, and evaluate what fines or penalties may be
assessed as necessary," the statement said. But John Blevins, the director of the EPA's compliance assurance and enforcement division, wrote in a letter Tuesday to Range Resources that the contamination findings present "a potential imminent endangerment to the health of persons using those private drinking water wells."

 

The EPA gave Range Resources 24 hours to inform the agency in writing that it will comply with the federal order. It then had 48 hours to provide impacted families with clean drinking water and install
monitors in the homes to ensure methane gas levels don't rise to explosive levels. The company was given five days to begin a thorough survey of the aquifer to determine if other wells and families also could be impacted by contamination.

 

Range Resources has been using new technologies that make it possible to extract once out-of-reach natural gas reserves. Horizontal drilling, along with the hydraulic fracturing, make it possible for drillers to permeate once impenetrable geologic formations called shale. The companies pump high volumes of water and chemicals at great pressure into the well bore to permeate the rock, and
there have been complaints in some places — especially in Pennsylvania — that underground aquifers have been contaminated in the process.

 

This is the first such suspicion in Texas, Armendariz said. The families in Parker County have not been identified, but Armendariz said they had been using the wells for years and never had issues until Range began drilling nearby in April 2009. One of the greatest fears is of explosion, he said.

The EPA issued the emergency order under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Texas Railroad commissioner Michael L. Williams called it "Washington politics of the worst kind."

 

"The EPA's act is nothing more than grandstanding in an effort to interject the federal government into Texas business," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Terry Wallace in Dallas contributed to this report.



Tags: contamination, drilling, epa, texas

Views: 850

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have not seen anything printed that tried to tie the problem to fracking except for the Dallas paper's article that Essay cited.  I did see an article from the Star-Telegram that stated that both Range wells had been fracked.  Well, duh... so have all the other wells drilled in the last half century.  All of a sudden it's "new technology"... ?

 

The general appearance from at the EPA website suggests a tie tofracturing, and then there is the mention of the fracing study. In the order, fracing is only mentioned in the context of the history of the wells.


stupid cellphone keypad

Dbob

UPDATE/Range Production to help Parker County homeowners monitor water for natural gas after leaks


12:00 AM CST on Saturday, December 11, 2010

Background: The Environmental Protection Agency said earlier this week that Range Production Co. wells leaked explosive natural gas into two southern Parker County homes and that the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees drilling, had botched the case. The commission said the EPA was playing politics. Range said its wells hadn't leaked.

What's new: The EPA said Friday that Fort Worth-based Range agreed to provide the homes with drinking water and install explosivity monitors. The Railroad Commission set a hearing for Jan. 10 on the EPA's charge of state inaction.

What the commission said: "RRC staff expects both parties, the EPA as well as Range Resources representatives, to appear before hearing examiners and testify as to the allegations made yesterday."

What EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz said: "Hopefully, the Railroad Commission's announcement that they intend to hold a hearing this January will not send the company in question the wrong message – that the immediate safety of Texans is an issue open for compromise or weeks of delay. EPA's emergency order remains in effect."

What's next: Under the EPA's order, over the next 60 days Range must investigate and fix the problem.

Clean-air brawl: The other big EPA-Texas fight is over state air-pollution rules, which the EPA says don't meet federal minimums. The state says they do and accuses the EPA of political meddling.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/...

All,

Looks like the hearing has been moved and there is a bit more action on this. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/meetings/hearings/2011/0118-HearingLette...
EPA filed a civil complaint yesterday related to this matter - looking for civil penalties of $16,500/day

http://www.epa.gov/region6/6xa/range_011811.htm

The hearing with Range and the RRC is today. Me thinks there is much politics invovled.
Government thugs again doing what they do best. I hope the judge throws out the penalties.  Why is the government even in this let the state or the lawyers handle the matter.  The government wants to control everything and if we let them they will soon be telling us when to die.

For those still following, here is an excellent article:

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-e...

 

...

Your task: Pin the presence of methane on Range Resources by trying to prove its wells in the Barnett represent the source of the natural gas in the water wells.

On Dec. 7, 2010, that’s precisely the argument that EPA put forth in issuing an unprecedented “emergency order” -- demanding, among other things, that Range plug up its wells and go home.

Just one problem: The isotopic analysis EPA used as the basis for its order doesn’t include a word about nitrogen; EPA never ran those tests.

Fortunately, experts from Weatherford Labs in Texas did. And at a hearing of the Texas Railroad Commission in Austin this week, those experts testified that the methane found in those private water wells in question came from the Strawn, not the Barnett.

What that means in practical geological terms is that Range isn’t (and in fact couldn’t be) responsible for the occurrence of methane in those wells – it has no wells in the Strawn.

What it means in practical political terms is that EPA’s analysis and subsequent actions were, are and continue to be wrong – or at least “fundamentally flawed,” according to testimony from Weatherford expert Dr. Mark McCaffrey.

Of course, EPA itself didn’t have a whole lot to say about that or anything else this week. It didn’t show for the hearing. Nor did it submit even a single page of data or testimony in support of its case.

In fairness, it’s a case that’s becoming increasingly difficult to make, at least with a straight-face.

With its isotopic analysis now exposed as incomplete, the only card EPA has left in the deck is to assert that methane migration into Parker Co. wells is an entirely new phenomenon, something that started happening only after Range began drilling wells into the Barnett over the past couple years.

But Bob Patterson of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District -- someone who, it can be presumed, knows a thing or two about the quality, composition and history of groundwater in the area – told Platts earlier this month that natural gas has been in the water “at least since the late '60s or early '70s.”

A 2003 report by independent water experts -- re-introduced at the hearing -- confirms that fact. Of course, because EPA decided not to show this week, we can’t say for certain whether the agency even knows about it. The report, or Bob.

Remarkably, even as its case (and credibility) continues to erode, EPA this week asked the Department of Justice to impose a $16,500-a-day penalty on Range for failing to comply with an order that EPA itself has neither the interest nor ability to defend or explain in an open, on-the-record forum.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-e...

 

.....


Thanks for posting this. I do want to keep up with this case and I was an advocate for the EPA in their investigation.  However, not showing up for this hearing his chicken poop.

That website has a number of other articles by Chris Tucker.  They are worth checking out.

I imagine they have a feduciary duty to be responsible/accountable to the tax payers.  Could be EPA is simply demonstrating that they're being such rather than just "pooh-poohing" taxpayer/public concerns?

 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturin...

 


Hydraulic Fracturing EPA Public Informational Meeting


Fort Worth, Texas

July 8, 2010


Summary of Public Comments


While US EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this document,

this is not a transcript of the meeting. The “Summary of Public Comments” section does not

represent the views or opinions of US EPA. The statements and claims in these comments have

not been verified or endorsed by US EPA.


80)


 

a better exercise of fiduciary responsibility would be to disband the entire agency and allow states to maintain their own oversight, as they have and will continue to do responsibly.

Yeah, I could see how that would work.  It's just that those dang rivers won't keep their waters in just one state.  Air seems to move around a lot, too.  Therefore, if one state decides to set itself up as the industrial toxic wasteland of the US, what they decide to dump into the river upstream and/or emit into the atmosphere won't stay self-contained.  Bummer, I'm sure, for those who would stand to profit and send their families to live in more hospitable surroundings.

 

I'm thinking of just declaring myself a "corporate personhood."

 

Oh well, back to the drawing board.  But thanks for the thoughts.  80) 

Yes, common sense would be good with either Federal or State.. How do we achieve this?

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service