Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on November 26, 2012 at 5:32

May I suggest that those with timber issues go to:

http://www.lsua

gcenter.com/en/our_offices/parishes/Bossier/Features/Newsletters/

You can  sign up to get Ricky Kilpatricks newsletter.

Permalink Reply by Drone on November 26, 2012 at 13:52

I have a bad habit of over stating things sometimes. Go to Google.com or Google earth and type in, 194 camp bistineau road, Doyline, La. and try to get a satellite view. You will see a gas location to the south of Bistineau road. It will give a pretty good idea, but it does not show all of it. This is our property all around that gas pad.

Permalink Reply by Drone on November 27, 2012 at 3:42

section 31

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 25, 2012 at 5:24

Drought dries out the trees...then insects attack the trees...

We had more + 100 degree days last year than ever in recorded history..not to mention no rain for months...but then if one is an EPA fan...go ahead..blame fracking!

Fracking Gets blamed for everything else...right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill R on November 25, 2012 at 8:14

I agree... insect and blight are the two largest killers of trees here in Oregon with Winter Kill and Drought both adding to it or working in unison with the other two. Those followed by forest fire are the prime killers.

Of course, some Environmentalist or EPA Scientist will be 'banging the gong' that it is all caused by 'Fracking'... even if there is absolutely none going on around the area. I am still waiting for them to blame all of the Pacific Rim Volcanoes and Earthquakes on 'Fracking' at some point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on November 25, 2012 at 8:23

Personally, I would bet/hope it is the drought - but I also would like to see soil and water tests from his land because I do not trust either the EPA or CHK.  In fact, I would have the tests run by two different chemists just to rule out their own bias.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 26, 2012 at 7:06

I used to have faith in scientists..but it seems they are becoming more and more like prostitutes...meaning their findings are for who ever pays them...that includes the government..

Ethics right out the window...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on November 26, 2012 at 8:09

All a few interesting comments - First, if he actually has 40 acres that is dead, its "worth" looking into if it can be kept simple and under his control. The labs should follow protocol regardless of who brings in the sample. Interpreting the sample results, if required, is where the art and (pseudo?)science begins.

I don't think it will get to a point where interpreting the sample results in a positive or negative light will implicate or clear fracing. In most cases, its going to be pretty black and white.

If the sample results come back, say with roughly 3 x expected background based on NRCS/LSU expectations, then maybe more sampling is warranted, with some interpreting of the results. This is the point at which the "worth it" or not starts to really come into play. If he takes samples, lets see what he gets and if we can help.

For whatever reason, something has suggested to him that the tree mortality might be fracing related. If samples come back clean, hopefully he gains some piece of mind.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 26, 2012 at 8:25

IMO, the crux of the question is contained in the discussion introduction, "I makes sense to me that a fracking company might use salt water as a fracking solution. I understand that this solution is under a lot of pressure. Anything under pressure takes the less resistant course. Could it be that some of this material is coming back up under our timber and killing it?"

Frac fluid is "fresh" water, not salt water.  The water returned post-frac does contain salts and other compounds found in the formation that can be harmful; assorted chlorides, heavy metals, NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials), etc.

The completion design and pressure pumping equipment limit the extent of the frac cylinder meaning the fractures stimulated radiate out a short distance from the well bore, ~ 300'.  In other words the possibility that frac fluid migrated upward to the ground water or top soil surrounding the trees is infinitesimal.  IMO, the only reasoned manner in which frac fluid would impact trees is a surface spill of sufficient quantity to flow across the area encompassed by the effected trees.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on November 26, 2012 at 9:15

Skip

Not to beat a dead horse, but yes, I agree that the chances of frac fluid from a Haynesville migrating upward from a frac is near zero, although near surface casing leaks have occurred in other plays (Dimcok, PA). Hypothetically, one could happen in the Haynesville. A surface spill is much more likely.

However, due to the size of the area reported by Drone, there is essentially zero chance of a surface spill of sufficient size to affect that area, without having caught the attention of a regulator or being reported by the operator.

IMHO, if we simply told Drone it wasn't possible, move along - he has 2 choices - accept what we say, or move on to another source that promotes frac hysteria and is sympathetic to his plight. I think frac fluid can be fairly conclusively ruled out with less than $200 of lab testing and some simple contact with the LSU folks mentioned previously or to the NRCS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 26, 2012 at 9:33

dbob, I don't think dead horses mind being beat.  I hope not as I continue to flog this one.  Agreed, it is always permissible to include the very small likelihood of casing integrity when considering situations such as Drone's.  I'm unsure that the Cabot/Dimock, PA  case supports that possibility. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/dimock-pa-water-safe-epa_n...

We must recognize that every time any miniscule credence is given to the possibility of frac chemicals contributing to a scenario such as Drone's, we leave the door open for those same frac hystericals.  When there are much more plausible and obvious possibilities, in this case, drought, IMO that should be the first place to investigate.  As opposed to $200 for lab tests I would think communication with and/or a visit from the LSU folks or other similar experts is the wise first step. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 26, 2012 at 12:15

As far as dead pines and  oaks..I have quite a few dead from last year..if you drive around and look... there are dead trees all over the place...my lease extension is fixing to expire..there is no drilling any where near my place..nor looks like there will be in the near future...if fracking is killing trees where there has been fracking..what killed the trees where there has been no fracking...?

I wonder how Matt Damon would portray all this..?

• ▶ Reply

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