Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 2, 2011 at 15:38

Hydraulic fracture stimulation is unrelated to methane in water wells.  Shallow, naturally occurring gas zones are  most often the case here in NW. LA.  If produced gas were to infiltrate fresh water aquifers it would most likely be attributable to surface casing integrity issues regardless of whether a well was fraced or naturally flowing.  Fracture stimulation zones do not extend anywhere near the Corrizo-Wilcox aquifer of NW. LA.  The vertical separation from Haynesville shale depths to the aquifer providing potable well water is approximately 9,000' to 11,500'.  A frac zone extends a few hundred feet in diameter from the horizontal wellbore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PJ on June 2, 2011 at 17:08

good words, Skip, thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 7, 2011 at 5:13

Skip,

 

Growing up I had a friend who lived south of town who used the gas from the water well to light their outside coachlights. There can be natural fractures that allow gas to inflitrate ground water. Methan is not toxic, its the explosive risk whenit is concentrated in a gargage or water tank, or basement that is dangerous.

 

Ideally the surface casing protects groundwater, but there can be falures in the pipe or cement job as well.

 

Its hard to say what is the cause, but I wouldn't pin it on fracking, I would say there are natural deposits or a bad surface casing, which is very unlikly, esp when production pipe and tubing is in place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on June 2, 2011 at 15:53

PJ, 

 

Can you share some details regarding what University/researchers and what the experimental design is?  Regarding studies, its hard to prove a negative.  If you dig deep, you'll find studies on naturally occurring methane, thermogenic methane from coal seems, and a few other studies linking various things to methane in groundwater.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PJ on June 2, 2011 at 16:46

dbob, I don't have details only the news from TX legislature's work. Local station spouted that a local univeristy would be testing water wells near the regions where mainly Chesapeake has frac'd wells for mainly Gs production. sorry not to be more O&G techno for ya.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DJG on May 27, 2011 at 10:31

Adubu,

 

Enervest Energy is currently the most active O&G working the Austin Chalk in Central Texas.

 

http://www.evenergypartners.com/

 

Very actively drilling horizontal chalk wells in the Giddings Field corridor and seeing both Gas and Oil/Liquids.

 

Recent  Austin Chalk wells within a 10+/- mile radius of us here have been seeing IP's anywhere in the 200 to 700 +/- BOE range.

 

Enervest completed drilling operations on a new well about 1.5 miles to the West of our property just this past week.    I'm VERY interested in hearing the results on that one once they have it frac'ed and up for sales.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MARG on June 22, 2011 at 7:36

I thought that  a La. Hosston (sometimes written Hoston) was the same as a Tx Cotton Valley. CV has always been known to be "higher classed" than a TP in my "little world".  LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 22, 2011 at 7:46

Hosston (after the town, Hosston, LA.) and Travis Peak are the same formation.  Cotton Valley is Cotton Valley in both NW. LA. and E. TX.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page