Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on September 16, 2014 at 5:48

Well "Doh!"  Could not make a case against Fracking so now it is against the wells themselves.  We had a famous case here in Parker County, TX and EPA weighed in on it big time.  The up shot was the complainant was caught with a pipe hooked up to his water system from a gas well.  Well guess what there was gas in his water, he demonstrated the same by lighting his water tap.

Unfortunately that is rigging the evidence.  EPA changed its mind, and left with its tail between its legs.  It was challenged by the Texas Authorities and lost - lost big time.  That ended the Fracking argument in this state and just about all the other states.  Now EPA and the government says Fracking is a safe process.

Parker County has had more that one occasion where natural gas has seeped to the surface, even a recorded well fire from the same phenomena. 

So we have Ohio, not known as big petroleum state, coming on as experts.  Give me a break and look a the source.  The study did not originate in the big oil states like California, Colorado, Louisiana and the big daddy of them all, Texas.

Credibility is again in the fore front of the issue.

Now having said all that, I am well aware the poorly drilled wells exist.  Poorly drilled does not necessarily mean leaky wells.  Yes, there is a probability of that but I have not heard of any Salt Water Disposal wells of leaking.  And there are a ton of those.  You can not tell me they get the same attention as regular wells that may and often, produce oil and gas.  But as yet there is no mention of ejection wells which are all over the place and a primary source of surface water contamination.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 16, 2014 at 6:17

William, did you read the study?  Or just the article?  As I point out in my prologue, 1) the study is the first of which I am aware meeting scientific rigor that looks at where NG contamination originates, and 2) most authors who I have read on the subject neither understand the mechanics of contamination nor can they resist the fracing myths that entice them every time they sit down to compose an article.  Don't get caught up in the article's rambling but imagine how the anti-fractivists will react now that one of their primary (and most ridiculous) claims will be sliced, diced and thoroughly discredited.  I refer to their claim that chemicals from frac zones migrate thousands of feet up through numerous impermeable intervals to reach and contaminate fresh water aquifers.  I have stated many times that if fresh water aquifers are contaminated from exploration and production activities it is likely from casing integrity problems in or near the aquifer zone.  Plenty of vertical wells including those that didn't get a modern frac operation have potential for casing leaks.  The antis are about to be exposed concerning their misrepresentation of fracing and though the casing issue is still one to be debated...they won't be able to call it fracing anymore.  When the air goes out of the fracing balloon it severely handicaps those with extreme environment agendas.  Eventually they have to admit that they simply hate hydrocarbon energy sources.  And that every time they drive a non-electric vehicle, heat and cool their homes, or log on to their computers they are demonstrating the fact that they are hypocrites. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on September 16, 2014 at 7:48

Well put Skip. It is about time academia back handed the anti-frackers with a dose of facts. Pointing out environmentalists hypocrisy in consuming just as much oil as the next guy while whining about oil is a true picture of their lack of character. I doubt this study is widely circulated by the leaders of these anti-fracking groups - the article is certainly not a $ fund raiser for them. Maybe instead of painting anti-fracking signs they could make more constructive use of their time being volunteer old oil well site inspectors.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on September 24, 2014 at 15:04

Of course there is also the problem of competent reporting. When I first heard this study reported on TV, even though the completion element was included in the report, I could have sworn that the problem had something to do with fracking.

I did not get the impression that this came from any particular bias so much as just complete incomprehension and unfamiliarity with what was being "reported".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 24, 2014 at 15:24

Competent reporting has become an oxymoron.  The Internet has hastened the media devolution to tabloid journalism.  Clicks are valued over content.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on September 16, 2014 at 6:53

Injection Well Lawsuit in Laurel, MS Reveals Damage from Oilfield Waste Disposal

An oilfield waste injection well has been operating for 18 years with minimal oversight in a suburban neighborhood in Laurel, Mississippi.  Since 1996 this disposal well  has allowed salt water, produced during drilling operations, combined with oil and drilling fluids to be injected into the earth 4020 feet down a “dry hole” oil well from 1992 that was drilled to 11,500 feet and partially plugged with cement. Injecting waste down it has proved to be a harmful mistake by state regulators and the operating companies.

Tay and Deidra  Baucum own an adjacent wooded piece of land downhill from the well site on Wansley Road on the northeast edge of Laurel. It would have made a good place for houses. However, they have discovered that seepage from the disposal well site has migrated underground and onto their land. Salt water and other fluids have moved downslope from unlined waste pits at the well site and maybe from the injection well itself. This has added toxins and high levels of salt to their soil, killing trees along the path of seepage. A creek runs farther down the slope, and is likely also receiving polluted groundwater and runoff.  Buried waste drums have also been discovered on the Baucum property in the woods next to the injection well.

Extension Service foresters from Mississippi State University told the Baucums that their trees are dying from exposure to brackish water, which should not exist in these soils in Jones County. This July, the Baucums sued Petro Harvestor Oil and Gas Co. LLC and a group of past owners of the injection well for negligence and the economic damage that the surface and subsurface oilfield waste is causing to their property. The suit was filed in Jones County Circuit Court.

This problem in Laurel raises the larger question for the state of Mississippi: since there is an expansion of drilling and fracking here, what really happens to the oilfield waste? If our state’s Oil and Gas Board has been permitting this toxic situation to unfold in Laurel and hasn’t seen fit to notice the violations or stop  them, what is it doing in rural Wilkinson, Amite and Pike Counties where the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale is being drilled for oil and gas? Fracking and horizontal drilling there are producing growing quantities of salt water and drilling fluids needing disposal. One of the companies named in the Baucum lawsuit, Comstock Oil and Gas L.P. (Comstock Resources) is leasing 51,000 acres in Southwest Mississippi and Louisiana in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale drilling area. Will it and other companies operating there be held to any better standards of operation than at the Wansley Road injection well in Laurel?

http://www.healthygulf.org/blog/injection-well-lawsuit-laurel-ms-re...

Also currently Ohio/PA have 42/58 rigs drilling while LA has 44 land rigs, the times are changing.  Also you could say that our universities aren't tainted with oil money.  Do you really expect OK State with the millions it has received from Boone Pickens to produce an honest study of the energy industry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 16, 2014 at 18:03

Tc:

The case that you raise here is not new ground by any means. Surface and subsurface contamination from old wellsites and legacy contamination has been litigated for decades now in many oil and gas producing states.

Contamination suits usually fall into own or two categories, or perhaps a combination of the two. The first type usually fall more into line with what would be considered legacy contamination - older wells, operated more or less in compliance with standard industry practice and regulations in force at the time that the well was drilled and/or operated. Decades ago, wells were commonly drilled either open hole or with base level casing programs, and drilling fluids commonly formulated, stored, recirculated and reinjected from unlined pits into disposal wells, or even dried and then land farmed and spread back onto adjacent lands. Point spills on the surface were cleaned up as much as practical at the surface level and rarely rehabilitated below the surface except for the most significant of spills. Wellsite containment was minimal if non-existent, particularly if no surface water was present or within sight of the well. As time progressed and more was learned about modes and mechanisms of contamination plumes and migration of heavy metal salts into groundwater and eventual leaching into the aquifers, additional measures were implemented at the regulatory level. Surface and subsurface containment, groundwater and freshwater aquifer protections, well inspection procedures were improved, although such implementation at the state level was done on a state-by-state basis until applicable federal regulations were brought to the fore in the 1970s. Lawsuits brought on legacy contamination commonly involve plaintiffs which exploit the legal principles of joint and several liability and preponderance of causality of prior events resulting in the present state of contamination to bring action against any and all parties ever having ownership in the leasehold title (whether operating the wellsite(s)in question or not) regardless of culpability of action. Parties identified as a potentially responsible party must generally present information or data as to their potential level of responsibility or lack thereof, based upon actions or lack of action, responsible reporting of potential contamination, whether the party acted as an operator or not, etc. In these types of cases, lack of response or mounting a reasonable defense leaves the party open to liability joint and in solido with all other culpable parties.

The second type of environmental contamination suit is usually as a result of an identified source of contamination found actionable by the direct cause of operator conduct or misconduct, noncompliance with accepted best practices or regulatory procedures, and can be aggravated by lack of reporting, lack of action to limit or rehabilitate the contamination in a timely manner, or misstatement or obfuscation of the facts surrounding an incident of contamination or release. In this type of action, although liability can be spread amongst various and several interest holders, temporality usually dictates culpability of specific actors as increased regulation and monitoring severely limits the amount of undiscovered long-term contamination compared to legacy contamination.

Obviously, well design from 1920 is significantly less sophisticated than well design from 1970, which is correspondingly less sophisticated than a well drilled within the last five years. In Louisiana, we have been fortunate in being an active oil and gas producing state which has fostered continual oversight and fairly regular revision of regulation of oil and gas permitting, development, and plugging and abandonment of wells. Skip points out that the collection mechanism that funds the rehabilitation and cleanup of orphan wells and formerly plugged wells where no responsible party presently exists appears to be lacking in sustainability, and perhaps needs to be reviewed and revised to provide for long-term sustainability of the program. This action, combined with collection of appropriate permit and operator fees and requisite bonds for completion and P&A operations by current operators and permit applicants will result in long-term viability of regulatory efforts re: well compliance, inspection and monitoring.

Given the depths that we currently probe in LA, I'm not sure why a cement bond long should not be run on nearly every well. IMO, it should at least be required on all "deep" wells and vertical bores of all shale wells. Also, a casing pressure test sufficient to pass absolute design limit on a hydraulic fracture procedure should be instituted prior to a frac job to the extent that this is not already required. I would think that this would take care of most folk's fears as to contamination for faulty well design or design execution. In particularly sensitive areas, e.g., large numbers of individual artesian wells, pre-well testing of freshwater zones should be encouraged prior to well spud, regardless of who pays (regulatory budget, oil and gas operators, some combination). Control data should provide impartial and definitive baselines for all parties to reference, and minimize baseless accusation and supposition.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on September 17, 2014 at 1:35

Ditto to what Dion said.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on September 17, 2014 at 2:00

Sorry, got tied up on something - Baseline testing is in the interest of all parties, IMHO, provided that the baseline testing is broad enough to cover non-oil and gas issues, such as fecal coliform and other health/safety issues.   If properly done, USGS and other studies show a fairly large percentage of wells will have pre-existing issues. 

Some of the resistance to CBL is the delay - I've been told 36-48 hours of rig time to allow for the CBL before proceeding with additional drilling.  

That said, while drilling and surface management practices can certainly improve, if lax construction and handling of materials was going to cause widespread problems, there would be vast areas of the East Texas Field where one could not use the groundwater or surface water.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by tc on September 16, 2014 at 5:56

I have always thought that the anti-frac crowd would have more success if they focus less on underground contamination from fracs and more on drill/well safety and the proper disposal of frac water.  The industry is much more vulnerable on these issues and the average joe doesn't care why he can't drink his water, be it from underground frac, leaky pipes/seals or improper dumping/disposal of frac water.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 16, 2014 at 6:56

Point source surface spills happen fairly often but rarely are a problem on modern well sites.  Modern casing strings with proper cementing are highly unlikely to allow the escape of hydrocarbons.  When I think of casing integrity issues I don't think of any of the modern wells we discuss regularly here on GHS.  I think about older wells with out dated casing designs and deteriorating casing pipe and/or cement or improperly plugged and abandoned or orphan wells.  It doesn't take a producing well to be a source of contamination.  I have posted previously on the serious problems that LA has with it's orphan well program but it's not a hot, controversial issue so few care to write about it.  You stir up a lot more people with fracing myths.  The media is now almost all tabloid news.  Very little substantive, investigation based reporting of the real issues just an addiction to controversy, titillation and gore.

Yes, tc. disposal wells are a concern and should be part of the public debate.  I've got thousands within an hour or two drive of my house and few have experienced anything like the folks in your example.  If I had one on my property or adjacent I'd keep an eye on it and not hesitate to request testing if I had evidence of leakage.  The fascination with anything associated with  fracing doesn't leave much, if any, room for the real issues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on September 16, 2014 at 7:40

LOL, this is a good one. Now all wells are suspect as sources of contamination, not just fractured wells. This will unscrew their heads at EPA.

• ▶ Reply

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