The “stuff” killed the cows.
The “stuff” killed the cows.
That’s Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator’s assessment of what contributed to the deaths of 17 cows in late April near a natural gas drilling location south of Spring Ridge.
Until now, none of the state agencies involved in the ongoing inquiry into the incident has stated what caused the cattle to drop dead in Skipper Williams Jr.’s pasture on state Highway 169.
The deaths were reported at some point after a liquid leaked from the well, which was in the completion process, and pooled into a low area accessible to the cows. The substance later was determined to contain elevated chlorides, oil, grease and some organic compounds.
No state agency took responsibility for testing the animals.
Today, Prator gathered representatives of his and the Caddo district attorney’s offices, state police and the state Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry departments in one room to review all the reports connected to the incident.
“We went over for an hour exactly what everybody’s response was, and everybody’s response and cooperation was really good,” the sheriff said. “We responded to the scene well. When everyone found out about it we all worked together very well.
“We have determined — although no one agency except me will say this — by piecing everything together, there was a spill from the site that ran off of the site and that was ingested by the cows and that’s what caused the cows to die.”
The site has been cleaned, and the soil and water have been tested. They do not pose a health risk to the public, Prator said.
“So I’m staying the stuff killed the cows.”
Still undetermined is whether the spill was reported and, if so, whether it was reported in a timely manner. “We contend it should have been reported. And (the) timeliness of it we’re investigating,” Prator said.
Chesapeake Energy Corp., which owns the well, and its services contractor, Schlumberger, have “strict policies” concerning site spills.
“But there are employees (who) did not follow the policy, it appears,” Prator said. Chesapeake Energy is being contacted by The Times for comment.
State police, the sheriff’s office and Environmental Quality still looking into that. Findings of the sheriff’s office and state police will be turned over to Caddo District Attorney Charles Scott for review. Environmental Quality will move its report through its channels.
“I am extremely serious when I say this better not happen again,” Prator said. “As fast as that phone can dial, we better get a call. This is unacceptable to us.
“If at (the) time it happened if proper notification had been made, there are chances cows would still be alive right now,” the sheriff said. “In this case, this was cows, how unfortunate. But what if it was children? The companies are working with us and understand the dangers.”
That’s Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator’s assessment of what contributed to the deaths of 17 cows in late April near a natural gas drilling location south of Spring Ridge.
Until now, none of the state agencies involved in the ongoing inquiry into the incident has stated what caused the cattle to drop dead in Skipper Williams Jr.’s pasture on state Highway 169.
The deaths were reported at some point after a liquid leaked from the well, which was in the completion process, and pooled into a low area accessible to the cows. The substance later was determined to contain elevated chlorides, oil, grease and some organic compounds.
No state agency took responsibility for testing the animals.
Today, Prator gathered representatives of his and the Caddo district attorney’s offices, state police and the state Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry departments in one room to review all the reports connected to the incident.
“We went over for an hour exactly what everybody’s response was, and everybody’s response and cooperation was really good,” the sheriff said. “We responded to the scene well. When everyone found out about it we all worked together very well.
“We have determined — although no one agency except me will say this — by piecing everything together, there was a spill from the site that ran off of the site and that was ingested by the cows and that’s what caused the cows to die.”
The site has been cleaned, and the soil and water have been tested. They do not pose a health risk to the public, Prator said.
“So I’m staying the stuff killed the cows.”
Still undetermined is whether the spill was reported and, if so, whether it was reported in a timely manner. “We contend it should have been reported. And (the) timeliness of it we’re investigating,” Prator said.
Chesapeake Energy Corp., which owns the well, and its services contractor, Schlumberger, have “strict policies” concerning site spills.
“But there are employees (who) did not follow the policy, it appears,” Prator said. Chesapeake Energy is being contacted by The Times for comment.
State police, the sheriff’s office and Environmental Quality still looking into that. Findings of the sheriff’s office and state police will be turned over to Caddo District Attorney Charles Scott for review. Environmental Quality will move its report through its channels.
“I am extremely serious when I say this better not happen again,” Prator said. “As fast as that phone can dial, we better get a call. This is unacceptable to us.
“If at (the) time it happened if proper notification had been made, there are chances cows would still be alive right now,” the sheriff said. “In this case, this was cows, how unfortunate. But what if it was children? The companies are working with us and understand the dangers.”
Views: 248
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Connell on
-
Usually a flooding rain will change the whole matter MC. There really is not enough information to be able to tell what caused this. I know that if a tank was spilled on the pad it would have been dealt with immediately as far as my experiences on these sites.
there usually is a haz mat trailer on site with pads, socks and other instruments to mediate a small spill. In the case of a large one who ever is in charge would have make the call to a haz mat company and try and get the release stopped (shut valve, plug or reposition tank, etc). The dikes constructed are supposed to be able to hold the contents of the tanks that are within them.
I just doubt if a heavy rain caused it, more than likely it would have made things less likely to be the problem it ended up being.
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on -
DEQ should probally be the lead on this as the cows were not on the well location. This was allegedly a spill that left the location and either pooled in lower spots or contaimanted the cows water. DNR should be involved, but it is DEQ that typically responds to spills.
-
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on
-
Connell,
I agree, this was not a "heavy rain situation". I am not anti-oil company. But they need to take the customary precautions. I believe the "stuff" came out of a frac tank.
-
Permalink Reply by Connell on
-
if it did it should be a gross violation. the way they are set up it would have to be obvious. i am curious to hear what the material was.
I am not anti oil either, but i do know that it is critical for them to follow procedures. I used to train people on the plant site i worked on about what would happen if we violated the procedures of reporting. we emphasized that reporting even if it was your fault would not lead to termination (unless there was gross neglect). and i had to have management to back me on that or there would be lots of unreported spills.
I don't know about the management of the entities involved...
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
I'm somewhat amused by the "what if it was children?" comment.
If the kids are drinking from puddles of runoff from drilling sites, it's time to thin the herd.
Of course, if it gets into the drinking water or into the local swimming hole in enough concentration to hurt people that's a problem.
It does seem bad that nobody determined if they were killed by the NaCl salt in the salt water runoff, or if there was something else there toxic enough to kill cows.
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
Ah, yes. Sorry. I did skim over it a bit and got the gist. I need to go back and give it a little more thought.
It sounds like something that should be pondered while my thinking is enhanced by ethanol.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
I'm wondering whether the "potential' for wrongdoing, harm, whatever can be considered a cause of action. Yes, the spill had the potential to harm people, it could potentially harm people in the futrue. Is this a valid reason for a cause of action? Can a "potential wrong-doing" be brought before the courts?
best & thanks for any ideas - sesport :0)
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
You mean sue for somthing they might do??? What are the damages???
I think I saw somthing like this in a Tom Cruise movie...go to jail for somthing you havn't done yet. If you feel a company is not taking the appropriate safeguards as required by law, then report them to the proper agency.
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Exactly, Baron. I've had just this discussion re. what a plaintiff was afraid might happen. It just occured to me that, as much as nobody wants to see anything happen to humans (and animals, but that's different as they are property), would/could there be a cause of action for fear of what might happen to people? My experience & discussion lead me to believe not, which is why I asked because it's not my professional area of expertise.
Just hope something doesn't happen to people first re. chemicals before cause for action can be met.
PS - Thanks, KB, forbelowabove.
best - sesport :0)
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
