Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 9, 2011 at 6:03

The EPA report is most likely inaccurate and unscientific according to Wyoming's own state mineral authority and the O&G industry. Supposedly, the Wyoming situation does not even remotely compare to the fracking operations in our area. In one part because it was done shallow and in close proximity to the water wells tested - there are no water wells 2.5 miles down in the TMS or Austin Chalk. All tests recently conducted by the La. Dept of Conservation on the aquifers in the heavily fracked Haynesville shale have been negative for any fracking related contaminants. Also the one contaminate the EPA found is related to one chemical used in making plastics and is a  common organic contaminant found in well water. The contamination may in fact be from the EPA test itself according to experts. So, this is just another attempt by the White House controlled EPA to put a stumbling block in the path of hydrocarbon production to improve funding for green energy to help Obama's environmental base - like delaying the Keystone pipeline until after the election - IMO.

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on December 9, 2011 at 6:09

EPA tried that same deal here in Parker County.  And they got the crap sued out of them.  They alleged drilling for gas in South Parker County led to contamination of water wells.  Turns out that has been happening for years, gas in water wells.  It is a common occurance.  So they gave up on Barnett Shale and moved off to the Bakken Shale.  Same crap, fraking causes gas and/or petroleum seeping into water wells.  It is a common occurrence in nature.  Gas rises, so does oil. I can remember guys complaining about gas in water system in South Louisiana.   And I can remember people complaining about gas getting into the water system in Pointe Coupee during the hey days of the Tuscaloosa Trend. 

 

They are drilling an injection well adjacent to the new LaCour #43, in this case to get rid of excess water.  And they are permitting an injection well in Pointe Coupee to get rid of fracking fluids.

 

I have heard that the Austin Chalk does not need fracking.  But the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale will require fracking.  So we are gonna get fracking around Pointe Coupee.  And they will do a pile of it in East and West Felecianas as they are going for the Shale.  There are a lot more holes in Pointe Coupee (over 1,600 wells mostly dry) than in and around the Felecianas.  I'm guessing there are 10 or more injection wells already in Pointe Coupee.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 9, 2011 at 8:06

What's wrong with injecting it into the Ms. River? Its not like the extra pollution would be detected at this end of that national sewerage pipe and no one is drinking that water, except the people in New Orleans maybe.

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on December 9, 2011 at 12:05

No can do.  EPA, Clean Water Act, Department of Louisiana Environmental Quality, etc. would all dump on you.  The would fine the crap out of you.  And no one dumps sewage into the Mississippi River anymore (maybe that;s why you can not find river shrimp anymore either).  But the water ways are cleaned up.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 9, 2011 at 12:41

I would think that natural drainage of agricultural chemicals and pollution from overflows of tributaries etc., even without the chemical dumping by industries past, would be enough to pollute the Ms. but for the huge volume of water. Why would adding a little frack water hurt - considering the amount of water flowing down the Ms. River in a day.  Is frack water so dangerous  it could pollute the Ms. River?

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 9, 2011 at 14:10

Guess it would depend on whose frack  water would go into the MS River. Didn't we see one fellow on TV, not Aubrey, saying that he would drink some frack water on TV but then again we see some CHK frack water getting loose on the ground and some cows licking it up and croaking in a field in DeSoto Parish? I don't think that I would drink MS River water. Once heard a man say "That if you wanted to give the Earth an enema, you would have to insert thr tube into the mouth of the MS River".

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on December 10, 2011 at 6:31

Here is a pro fracking take on the EPA report. Not so good for the land men SORRY:.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/10/fracking-does-co...

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 10, 2011 at 6:42

Contamination in potable, fresh water zones is related to casing integrity, not fracking.  And contamination to deep, non-potable water zones is of zero consequence as it is not consumed by humans.  Keep in mind that the water contained deep in the stratigraphic column is not only chloride laden but has many naturally occurring elements that we would never allow in potable water supplies including NORM, an abbreviation for naturally occurring radioactive materials.  I don't see what the report has to do with landmen.

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on December 10, 2011 at 10:52

First of all Forbes is less than trustworthy.  They come up with some off the wall stuff now and then.  I gave up on them sometime ago and if you want good financial advice subscribe to Kiplingers which is cost less and much better information (not near as much opinion as facts).