Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 27, 2010 at 15:00

Robert - Although not specific to actual fracking and more relevant to the overall process, this became effective 08.15.10. The language/terminology seems broad in its use of "contamination," "objectionable materials" and "waste." Still, it must have been important enough to become effective I would think.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=690916


Proposed law requires rig supply wells to be plugged and abandoned within 10 days of cessation of drilling activities in order to protect the ground water resources of this state from surface contamination by preventing the entrance of objectionable materials and wastes into aquifers traveling through open or improperly sealed water wells and holes.

Hope this helps some.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 27, 2010 at 15:31

Hi Sesport,
I am thinking this legislation is maybe a spinoff of the BP fiasco in the Gulf? I vaguely remember there was some press on the count of wells in the gulf "orphaned" I think was the term, that were not properly plugged, and leaking petrochemicals into the gulf or maybe elsewhere in S LA. I just remember some discussion about how there are bacteria in the Gulf already adapted to eating seeping oil, and this is why ("bugs" are an interest that I actually do have some training in). My facts may not be exactly straight. What exactly is a "rig supply well", anyway? I am more trying to point to the fact that there clearly is a history of hydrocarbon contamination of water in the NE, so some crossover is possible, even without hydraulic fracturing; then you have to figure out whether hydraulic fracturing could aggravate the situation, and it would seem that would depend on a bunch of geology. I am not aware of anyone having a big problem in the NW of LA, but maybe I am just not aware. Somebody else drug up some info from Colorado Bureau of Mines or some such that looked at contamination issues in Colarado raised in "Gasland"; seems that while there was methane in the water, they could pretty much identify it as sourcing from shallower stuff like coal beds in the area, rather than fracking. I undoubtedly could do a bunch of research, but just had the thought that there is no logical requirement that hydraulic fracturing is a source of problems either nowhere or everywhere, and then once you decide that, what are the consequences?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on November 27, 2010 at 15:57

Robert,

A rig supply well is a water well, typically drilled into local shallow aquifers. Most well sites will have one, unless water is coming from a convient alternate source. Rig supply well wells have a potential to serve as a conduit for contamination from the surface to enter the local aquifer.

In short, yes, different parts of the country have different risks that depend on the type of formation being targeted, depth of the target formation, depth of the underground source of drinking water, geology, and potentially other factors. Most source water protection rules and hydraulic fracturing rules are made at the state level. In the current environment, this makes permitting, drilling and hydraulic fractuing relatively easier in some states than others. However, even in more restrictive states, the overall costs of permitting and compliance are low relative to the total project costs of a well and the potential return. It has relatively little impact on the value of HS gas or leases. Bigger picture, there is a lot of political pressure for more federal regulations on fracing. If new federal rules come and either overly limit frac mixes, or provide an overly burdensome permit process, it could slow development, and/or raise costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 27, 2010 at 16:14

Hi dbob,
Okay, thanks much for "water supply well" clarification; yet another completely separate contamination issue, sounds like, but also sounds like LA made the right legislative call. Overall, it would seem that if state legislatures are well informed, are making good calls on contamination issues, and there is adequate enforcement, then all is good; I think unfortunately what is happening is there is a hew and cry about inadequate regulatory personnel, and the regulation folks basically supporting indusry so they have something to regulate (seemed the drift of some of the news article I originally referred to); then the next thing you know here comes onerous, and depending on locale, perhaps unnecessary federal regulation. It just really seems like a firestorm is brewing about this stuff up in the Marcellus, and I would hate to see it spread and effect places where it is reasonably clear there is not a problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 27, 2010 at 17:10

Robert, now you should explain how wells can leak "petrochemicals" when such substances were not present originally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 27, 2010 at 17:34

Hi Les,
Yes, here by "petrochemicals" I would include the full range of alkanes and aromatics starting with methane, and working up to coal - basically reduced carbon, in it's various naturally occurring forms - I should have probably said "hydrocarbons" instead of "petrochemicals". I am not an expert on any of this or the petrochem industy in PA, but I do believe there are actual problems of methane in water supplies, but as you say, it is more apt to be from coal and shallow hydrocarbon deposits already comingling with the water supply. But I agree that there is no proof that this stuff is being produced or increased by fracking, as far as I know. I guess the point I would want to make - where there clearly is no possibility of a problem, then there should not be onerous regulations, and that should be advantageous to O&G working in those areas. Where there IS hydrocarbon contamination, from whatever source, it should be clearly identified as to source, and then you start figuring out how to effectively regulate and document so you have very firm ground to stand on (so I think in CO they showed the methane was biogenic - shallow, not from fracking, as opposed to thermogenic (might not have the terms exactly right)) in at least one GasLand claim; I think there was another instance where O&G operations may have had problems). I probably selfishly don't have a problem with the locals slowing down development in the Marcellus in the short term; it can only help the gas price I would think, and once they realize what they are doing to themselves in terms of lost opportunities, the situation will resolve (so I was not trying to tromp on a hot button here; I was trying to think of how one takes a logical stance to deal with potential differences, and eventually develop the resource in a provably responsible manner - the problem being that there will always be illogical opposition and folks trying to sue deep pockets to see if they can get away with it). I get your point, firmly, that the Marcellus should be developable without problems...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 27, 2010 at 17:44

Oh, and the invariable problem of exactly what did the comment mean... (I communicate a heck of a lot by email, and it is always easier to be clear face-to-face, unfortunately). I think you may have been saying here that a "water supply well" can't leak hydrocarbons because there are none - and I agree; it is just a conduit for a potential leak from the O&G well, though it would seem oil would be more of a problem... As far as the plugged wells leaking in the Gulf -completely different problem than what was mentioned by sesport and the "water supply well" contamination - my bad on being confused by that...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 27, 2010 at 17:00

Robert,

1) Even the Marcellus Shale is substantially deeper than drinking water aquifers in the area.
2) There is no evidence of fracture stimulation causing contamination of drinking water.
3) I am not aware of a "history" of contamination of groundwater in the northeast by the natural gas industry - now the coal industry is a different story.
4) There are not substantial levels of toxic materials in fracture stimulation fluids, plus those fluids are not present in the groundwater.
5) There is no reason "other" plays should be given any more caution than the Haynesville Shale. Whatever is good enough for Louisiana and Texas is certainly good enough for the rest of the country.

My bottom line is I am tired of the "whining" by New York, Pennsylvania, etc about the natural gas industry when those states have been perfectly happy to burn natural gas produced in the Gulf Coast or use gasoline and chemicals produced in plants located in the Gulf Coast. It is time for the rest of the country to ante up. If the northeast is really concerned about the environment then maybe they need to take on the coal industry including all those coal fired power plants.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Duke on November 27, 2010 at 17:39

I completely agree about coal here, by the way. I have lived in various parts of the East Coast, and I always found coal-associated pollution to be very very unpleasant. Folks may or may not remember all the acid rain problems from a few decades ago; they were real.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 28, 2010 at 4:11

GD, my main concern is that any anti-natural gas movement based on fiction like "Gasland" will eventually have a negative impact on all natural gas developments. You have already seen this in the push to shift control from the states to the Federal Government.

Also, from a broader prospective, I think we need what is best for the country as a whole. If the US is going to develop the best energy policy for the future, "regionalism" cannot be allowed impede access to resources. The best control of the pace of natural gas development is supply and demand. Yes - we get short term anomalies but in the long run a free market economy is the best answer. If we could reduce the impact of the coal lobby there will be more than demand growth for natural gas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 28, 2010 at 4:41

Free market?
Like in regulating the coal industry out of electric production so ng would be the only choice?????
I'm sure GM would benefit if they could get the government to sit on Ford!
I fear if that were to happen, you'd have consumers, who's light bills increased because of it, screaming for the government to do something drastic.
NG should be competing against petroleum, not coal... That's where the money is..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on November 28, 2010 at 5:19

PG, natural gas should be allowed to compete against all other forms of energy (coal, petroleum, hydro, wind, solar, ethanol, etc).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page