In Drought-Stricken Texas, Drillers Use Billions Of Gallons Of Water For Fracking

[boutons_deux]

In Drought-Stricken Texas, Drillers Use Billions Of Gallons Of Water For Fracking

The Texas Water Development Board estimates the total amount of water used for fracking statewide in 2010 was 13.5 billion gallons. That’s likely to more than double by 2020, and decline gradually each decade after that until dropping back down to current levels between 2050 and 2060.

“We’re using scarce resources to get scarce resources,” said John Christmann, Permian Region vice president for Apache Corp., a Houston-based oil and gas company that operates in almost every West Texas county.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/06/30/258676/while-texas-faces-drought-oil-companies-use-millions-of-gallons-of-water-for-fracking/

====

Whatever the corps want, the corps get, and Human-Americans get screwed with the corps' externalized costs, eg, polluted water.

[Wild Cobra]

Frak:

r7KcpgQKo2I

[LnGrrrR]

To be honest, I tend to consume a lot of water after fracking my wife, too.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Is it required that the water be potable?

[MannyIsGod]

Not unless someone is going to climb to the bottom of their wells to drink it. Its really fucked up if they're using potable water and there is access to non potable water. Really fucked up.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Well that's what I'm trying to figure out. I wouldn't want boutons to lose sleep over this if non-potable water is ok and it's not being used.

[Sec24Row7]

Not unless someone is going to climb to the bottom of their wells to drink it. Its really fucked up if they're using potable water and there is access to non potable water. Really fucked up.

Most of the time they can't use it.

The water belongs to the landowners who are being compensated... and whom are getting wells drilled for their use later... for free.

[Blake]

Are any of them using recycled water?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Oh well. It's always gonna be something.

[Sec24Row7]

Are any of them using recycled water?

They 1) aren't allowed to... used water must be hauled off as waste instead of being pumped back into the frak pit...

and 2) usually can't... water comes back with rapidly increasing salinity... (and some formations drink a lot more than others)

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Aren't allowed to? Why is it considered waste if it's being recycled into itself?

[mouse]

No one really gives a shit until they turn on they're own faucet.


PRZ4LQSonXA]

[Sec24Row7]

Aren't allowed to? Why is it considered waste if it's being recycled into itself?

It's saline when it comes back... has to be taken to an approved disposal well to be put into another formation.

[RandomGuy]

It's saline when it comes back... has to be taken to an approved disposal well to be put into another formation.

Unless of course you have a massive boom, and loosely regulated drillers.

Amazing what you can get away with when no one is looking. ( Deepwater horizon, cough cough)

[Sec24Row7]

Unless of course you have a massive boom, and loosely regulated drillers.

Amazing what you can get away with when no one is looking. ( Deepwater horizon, cough cough)

When in doubt make allegations of massive criminality and hope it is happening to justify your world view.

[Borat Sagyidev]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b252/T1000416/album_picm.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"It's saline when it comes back"

only saline? what about all those secret, probably very nasty chemicals that the frackers refuse to divulge?

and why did dickhead get fracking exempted from Clean Water Act? did he and his Halliburton buddies already know fracking was polluting subsurface water resources?

[Sec24Row7]

Uhhh... Most of the fracs going on using "millions of gallons of water" are slick water fracs... which are just that... water...

As to the other rambling... speak like an adult and you will get responded to. Your ignorance isn't cute enough for a pity response.

[ChumpDumper]

Uhhh... Most of the fracs going on using "millions of gallons of water" are slick water fracs... which are just that... water...Is that listed somewhere? I didn't know there was a requirement to say one is using unknown chemicals in a frac.

[boutons_deux]

only saline? what about all those secret, probably very nasty chemicals that the frackers refuse to divulge?

and why did dickhead get fracking exempted from Clean Water Act? did he and his Halliburton buddies already know fracking was polluting subsurface water resources?

http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-gas-drillings-environmental-threat

As always with carbon-extractors, assume they are guilty of lying and environmental destruction until THEY can prove otherwise.

[TeyshaBlue]

As always with carbon-extractors, assume they are guilty of lying and environmental destruction until THEY can prove otherwise.

Ahhh yes. The Enlightened Liberal worldview. Assume guilt because, regardless of any contrasting data, they are always guilty. Fucking flaming hypocrisy on display. :lol

[boutons_deux]

"contrasting data"

what contrasting data is there that fracking is harmless to water supplies?

If it's harmless, why was fracking explicitly exempted from Clean Water rules by dickhead?

[TeyshaBlue]

btw...alot of the recovered saline goes to watershed projects ala SACROC for recovery injection. That process has brought hundreds of millions of barrels into recovery in the Caprock and Permian Basin fields alone.

[RandomGuy]

When in doubt make allegations of massive criminality and hope it is happening to justify your world view.

When in doubt, use stawmen attacks to discredit or dismiss oppenents of your world view, and ignore any valid, reasonable points they might bring up.

I am sure that the vast majority of drillers are doing a good, consciencious, and professional job.

How many wells drilled by irresponsible, negligent, amateur, or crooked subcontractors would it take to contaminate any given local water table?

How many new wells have been drilled using fracking in the last 5 years?

How many long term studies of this drilling method have been done that provide solid data on the ultimate effects of this drilling technique on water supplies?

[Sec24Row7]

Is that listed somewhere? I didn't know there was a requirement to say one is using unknown chemicals in a frac.

Unknown chemicals? Like the Chemials in fraccing gel... well... if you don't use fraccing gel (which slickwater fracs do not) then where would you get the chemicals... ?

The chemicals for "gel" are mainly used to make the fluid hold heavier loads of "proppant" (sand) to hold fractures open.

Many slickwater fracs (what is almost exclusively practiced in the Barnett Shale around DFW) dont even use any sand to hold fractures open... they just crack the rock with water and produce from there...

Different reservoirs require different techniques however...

If you believe oil companies are evil... you aren't going to listen to anything someone who has had experience with them is going to say though... so I'm wasting my time.

[TeyshaBlue]

Unknown chemicals? Like the Chemials in fraccing gel... well... if you don't use fraccing gel (which slickwater fracs do not) then where would you get the chemicals... ?

The chemicals for "gel" are mainly used to make the fluid hold heavier loads of "proppant" (sand) to hold fractures open.

Many slickwater fracs (what is almost exclusively practiced in the Barnett Shale around DFW) dont even use any sand to hold fractures open... they just crack the rock with water and produce from there...

Different reservoirs require different techniques however...

If you believe oil companies are evil... you aren't going to listen to anything someone who has had experience with them is going to say though... so I'm wasting my time.

None of this info can be found on thinkprogrs.borg so the bot will never grok what youre talking about.

[Blake]

If you believe oil companies are evil... you aren't going to listen to anything someone who has had experience with them is going to say though... so I'm wasting my time.

what's your opinion on this question:


why was fracking explicitly exempted from Clean Water rules by dickhead? [Cheney]

[TeyshaBlue]

When in doubt, use stawmen attacks to discredit or dismiss oppenents of your world view, and ignore any valid, reasonable points they might bring up.

I am sure that the vast majority of drillers are doing a good, consciencious, and professional job.

How many wells drilled by irresponsible, negligent, amateur, or crooked subcontractors would it take to contaminate any given local water table?

How many new wells have been drilled using fracking in the last 5 years?

How many long term studies of this drilling method have been done that provide solid data on the ultimate effects of this drilling technique on water supplies?

#1...you dont drill wells by fracking. This is usually is done, if necessary at all, during the completion. Also, not all frac jobs are liquid. Ive overseen quite a few nitrogen frac jobs and even a few ballistic ones.
Since, by your own admission, you have no data one way or the other, its just natural to assume that there is malfeasance afoot and leave it at that, eh?

[RandomGuy]

To be clear:

From what I have read in professional journals the method, when used properly, is pretty safe, so far.

There are some fairly alarming anectodes about methane contamination of water tables, that should be studied to get some more data.

We need natural gas, and this is a promising technique to increase supply very markedly for a few years.

Personally, I don't worry too much about it, but the thing that concerns me is the lack of rigorous scientific study about the longer term effects, or even some of the more short to medium term risks.

I would also hope that there is some decent governmental oversight of the process to prevent bad actors of all sorts from fucking things up out of greed/ignorance.

I would hate for us to rush into this headlong for a short-term benefit, then ten or twenty years down the line, find that we missed some of the dangers. Not that this should stop us from drilling, but I just don't think we have a solid handle on what the long term affects are.

[Sec24Row7]

When in doubt, use stawmen attacks to discredit or dismiss oppenents of your world view, and ignore any valid, reasonable points they might bring up.

I am sure that the vast majority of drillers are doing a good, consciencious, and professional job.

How many wells drilled by irresponsible, negligent, amateur, or crooked subcontractors would it take to contaminate any given local water table?

How many new wells have been drilled using fracking in the last 5 years?

How many long term studies of this drilling method have been done that provide solid data on the ultimate effects of this drilling technique on water supplies?

1.1 million wells since 1949 not a long enough study or big enough sample size?

http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29749/Texas_Legislature_Weighs_Fracking_Disclosure_Bills .html

Activists Targeting Fracking
Energy production advocates emphasize the importance of distinguishing between legislation that promotes responsible energy production and laws that would discourage it. Environmental activist groups opposed to increasing energy production have been particularly hostile to fracking during the past decade as technological advances have made the practice much more economical, which has in turn opened up vast new domestic energy reserves.

“The risks from fracking are extremely low,” says Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs at the Colorado-based Western Energy Alliance. “Over 1.1 million wells have been fracked since 1949, and there has not been one documented case of contaminated groundwater.”

“Environmental groups have worked very hard to raise concerns in the public that are not supported by any facts and have been continually disputed by state departments of environmental quality,” Sgamma explained. “The environmental lobby’s goal is federal control of the entire process that states have successfully regulated for over 60 years.”

[SnakeBoy]

This is a very important issue until we get out of this drought in the fall or sooner if we get some tropical systems over the summer.

[RandomGuy]

#1...you dont drill wells by fracking. This is usually is done, if necessary at all, during the completion. Also, not all frac jobs are liquid. Ive overseen quite a few nitrogen frac jobs and even a few ballistic ones.
Since, by your own admission, you have no data one way or the other, its just natural to assume that there is malfeasance afoot and leave it at that, eh?

Then substitute "extract natural gas" for the word "drill". I am, by far, not an expert.

That doesn't mean my concerns shouldn't be addressed. If they can be reasonably addressed, then fine. I am not dogmatically opposed to this.

[TeyshaBlue]

Fine. we can start by dropping the innuendo. Amateur producers is laughable. Banks dont finance the millions of dollars of drilling gear for amateurs.

[ChumpDumper]

Unknown chemicals? Like the Chemials in fraccing gel... well... if you don't use fraccing gel (which slickwater fracs do not) then where would you get the chemicals... ?

The chemicals for "gel" are mainly used to make the fluid hold heavier loads of "proppant" (sand) to hold fractures open.

Many slickwater fracs (what is almost exclusively practiced in the Barnett Shale around DFW) dont even use any sand to hold fractures open... they just crack the rock with water and produce from there...

Different reservoirs require different techniques however...

If you believe oil companies are evil... you aren't going to listen to anything someone who has had experience with them is going to say though... so I'm wasting my time.lol paranoid much?

I'm just asking questions. I asked if there was any listing of fracking sites that used chemicals and those that didn't.

What's in the gel?

[RandomGuy]

1.1 million wells since 1949 not a long enough study or big enough sample size?

http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29749/Texas_Legislature_Weighs_Fracking_Disclosure_Bills .html

Activists Targeting Fracking
Energy production advocates emphasize the importance of distinguishing between legislation that promotes responsible energy production and laws that would discourage it. Environmental activist groups opposed to increasing energy production have been particularly hostile to fracking during the past decade as technological advances have made the practice much more economical, which has in turn opened up vast new domestic energy reserves.

“The risks from fracking are extremely low,” says Kathleen Sgamma, director of government and public affairs at the Colorado-based Western Energy Alliance. “Over 1.1 million wells have been fracked since 1949, and there has not been one documented case of contaminated groundwater.”

“Environmental groups have worked very hard to raise concerns in the public that are not supported by any facts and have been continually disputed by state departments of environmental quality,” Sgamma explained. “The environmental lobby’s goal is federal control of the entire process that states have successfully regulated for over 60 years.”

And I am sure I can completely trust the PR rep of the Western Energy Alliance to truthfully tell me if there had been a documented case of contaminated groundwater?

Of the 1.1million wells, have all wells been done using the exact same technique? or is the current modern technique creating the boom something different?

Of the 1.1 million wells, how many of those have been drilled in the last ten years? 2-3% growth rates always produce those lovely geometric curves, and it is mathmatically certain that most of those wells have come in the last 10-20 years, making the widespread adoption of this a very recent event.

That kind of statistic is exactly the kind of thing a PR rep, charged with putting the best face on something would say, leaving out the above context.

Not exactly the kind of objective information I would prefer.

[SnakeBoy]

And I am sure I can completely trust the PR rep of the Western Energy Alliance to truthfully tell me if there had been a documented case of contaminated groundwater?

Of the 1.1million wells, have all wells been done using the exact same technique? or is the current modern technique creating the boom something different?

Of the 1.1 million wells, how many of those have been drilled in the last ten years? 2-3% growth rates always produce those lovely geometric curves, and it is mathmatically certain that most of those wells have come in the last 10-20 years, making the widespread adoption of this a very recent event.

That kind of statistic is exactly the kind of thing a PR rep, charged with putting the best face on something would say, leaving out the above context.

Not exactly the kind of objective information I would prefer.

In other words, you have no evidence of groundwater contamination but you are going to stick to your guns and keep making it an issue.

[Sec24Row7]

And I am sure I can completely trust the PR rep of the Western Energy Alliance to truthfully tell me if there had been a documented case of contaminated groundwater?

Of the 1.1million wells, have all wells been done using the exact same technique? or is the current modern technique creating the boom something different?

Of the 1.1 million wells, how many of those have been drilled in the last ten years? 2-3% growth rates always produce those lovely geometric curves, and it is mathmatically certain that most of those wells have come in the last 10-20 years, making the widespread adoption of this a very recent event.

That kind of statistic is exactly the kind of thing a PR rep, charged with putting the best face on something would say, leaving out the above context.

Not exactly the kind of objective information I would prefer.

Well drilling actually was much heavier in the 50's and 60's than it is now... 2-3% growth rates don't work on things that get exponentially harder to find with time...

Shales are a little different and have caused a spike... but because of their huge expense... and rig restraints only 200 or so rigs has been the peak on a play at any given time...

hence 16000 in the barnett or heck maybe even 20000 so far...

less than 1000 in the eagle ford...

[RandomGuy]

Fine. we can start by dropping the innuendo. Amateur producers is laughable. Banks dont finance the millions of dollars of drilling gear for amateurs.

If one assumes that banks are responsible for 100% of all drilling financing, then that would rule out "amatuers" for the owners, leaving just the negligent and greedy.

If banks are not responsible for 100% of drilling financing, then one cannot logicaly exclude amatuers.

Given that you have to hire a lot of people quickly, it doesn't rule out opportunists that competant owners might be forced to hire.

Booms tend to produce a lot of people looking for jobs with little experience.

Not trying to be unreasonable, or unduly insinuating.

If it makes you feel better, then fine, exclude the potential for well-meaning amateurs. Pun intended.

[RandomGuy]

In other words, you have no evidence of groundwater contamination but you are going to stick to your guns and keep making it an issue.

I don't study it scientifically.

It seems to be a reasonably plausible risk, until some scientifically rigorous study can rule it out.

I'm not asking for the moon here, just some good data.

So yes, I am sticking to my guns.

Unless you happen to have the scientific proof that it is safe? Feel free to present it.

[Sec24Row7]

Blake,

I wasn't involved in lobbying for it to be exempted... nor have I read up on it enough to know.

All I can find online right now is a bunch of propaganda angry about it happening...

What I do know is that state regulatory agencies have been doing a fine job regulating for quite a long time, and federal oversight on state lands and mineral exploration seems unnecessary and overreaching.

You see what is happening with the permit process NOW on BLM and Federal land/offshore minerals... That's a disaster played purely for political reasons... I'm glad that the feds don't have a tool to do the same thing on private land/minerals.

[Sec24Row7]

I don't study it scientifically.

It seems to be a reasonably plausible risk, until some scientifically rigorous study can rule it out.

I'm not asking for the moon here, just some good data.

So yes, I am sticking to my guns.

Unless you happen to have the scientific proof that it is safe? Feel free to present it.

Prove God doesn't exit eh? We going that route?

[MannyIsGod]

This is a very important issue until we get out of this drought in the fall or sooner if we get some tropical systems over the summer.


Actually its a very important issue beyond then too. Drought or not, areas west of the Mississippi have water on the top of the concerns list for the next century. The misuse of water supplies is worse, IMO, than not having a bit more natural gas.

[RandomGuy]

Well drilling actually was much heavier in the 50's and 60's than it is now... 2-3% growth rates don't work on things that get exponentially harder to find with time...

Shales are a little different and have caused a spike... but because of their huge expense... and rig restraints only 200 or so rigs has been the peak on a play at any given time...

hence 16000 in the barnett or heck maybe even 20000 so far...

less than 1000 in the eagle ford...

Thank you. I really do appreciate the extra information and context.

So there is some long term wide-spread drilling that can provide some good data.

[Sec24Row7]

Actually its a very important issue beyond then too. Drought or not, areas west of the Mississippi have water on the top of the concerns list for the next century. The misuse of water supplies is worse, IMO, than not having a bit more natural gas.


People complaining about this... many are farmers... who... use 10's of TRILLIONS of gallons of water to irrigate... so...

[RandomGuy]

Prove God doesn't exit eh? We going that route?

The assertion being made by the industry is:

Fracking is safe.

I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. A decent scientific look at the claim is all I really need to feel my concerns have been addressed.

[RandomGuy]

People complaining about this... are farmers... who... use 10's of TRILLIONS of gallons of water to irrigate... so...

Very valid point.

We can have all the water we want, if we are willing to pay more at the grocery store. But that is a whole other conversation.

(edit)

Actually that is exactly part of this conversation, duh.

What to do with water?

[MannyIsGod]

Prove God doesn't exit eh? We going that route?

You think its wrong that you fracking needs to be proven safe in order to have its use allowed? Wow. I myself don't have much knowledge on fracking but I don't think that hurdle is anywhere near unreasonable much less impossible.

[MannyIsGod]

People complaining about this... many are farmers... who... use 10's of TRILLIONS of gallons of water to irrigate... so...

I'm no friend of many agricultural irrigation processes. Pretty much a classic red herring here. Pointing out another waste of water doesn't make other misuse any better.

[Sec24Row7]

The assertion being made by the industry is:

Fracking is safe.

I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. A decent scientific look at the claim is all I really need to feel my concerns have been addressed.

Ok then... God DOES exist... is that what we are proving? ;)

[ElNono]

Is it scientifically unfeasible to test contamination from fracking?

[TeyshaBlue]

If one assumes that banks are responsible for 100% of all drilling financing, then that would rule out "amatuers" for the owners, leaving just the negligent and greedy.

If banks are not responsible for 100% of drilling financing, then one cannot logicaly exclude amatuers.

Given that you have to hire a lot of people quickly, it doesn't rule out opportunists that competant owners might be forced to hire.

Booms tend to produce a lot of people looking for jobs with little experience.

Not trying to be unreasonable, or unduly insinuating.

If it makes you feel better, then fine, exclude the potential for well-meaning amateurs. Pun intended.

You and GGA have given me cancer and the aids with your puns this week.:lol

[Sec24Row7]

You think its wrong that you fracking needs to be proven safe in order to have its use allowed? Wow. I myself don't have much knowledge on fracking but I don't think that hurdle is anywhere near unreasonable much less impossible.

No... I found it funny that a 1.1 million procedure sample size without incident in texas wasn't enough "proof".

If that isn't, what is?

Which is why I compared it to the Deistic question... where no "proof" is ever enough for either side.

[MannyIsGod]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I just found this and its pretty new so its been written in the current climate. I'm going to give it a read and figured maybe some here might like to.

http://136.142.82.187/eng12/history/spring2011/pdf/1267.pdf

[TeyshaBlue]

Is it scientifically unfeasible to test whether or not there is contamination from fracking?

fify.

[ElNono]

fify.

Thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

No... I found it funny that a 1.1 million procedure sample size without incident in texas wasn't enough "proof".

If that isn't, what is?

Which is why I compared it to the Deistic question... where no "proof" is ever enough for either side.

I see. Well I'm going to educate myself on the method since its very relevant to many things I'm currently studying regarding water. Once I do that I'll have more to contribute to this thread. I just personally view water as a more precious resource than any fossil fuel at this time by a quite wide margin.

[Sec24Row7]

I'm no friend of many agricultural irrigation processes. Pretty much a classic red herring here. Pointing out another waste of water doesn't make other misuse any better.

Except theirs is a perennial use and fraccing is a finite use...

Shrug... they are just using over 10 times the water to irrigate corn to make ethanol that is 75% as efficient by volume and an energy negative to produce... but hey... yeah it's a red herring ;)

[ChumpDumper]

Which of us are for corn-based ethanol?

Show of hands.

[ChumpDumper]

That's why it's a red herring.

[SnakeBoy]

Actually its a very important issue beyond then too. Drought or not, areas west of the Mississippi have water on the top of the concerns list for the next century. The misuse of water supplies is worse, IMO, than not having a bit more natural gas.

This is true but the long term water issue exists with or without fracking. The op was not an effort to address our long term water issues.

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I just found this and its pretty new so its been written in the current climate. I'm going to give it a read and figured maybe some here might like to.

http://136.142.82.187/eng12/history/spring2011/pdf/1267.pdf

That's a pretty cool link, Manny.:toast

[ChumpDumper]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

That would make more sense if droughts adhered to some kind of schedule.:lol

[Blake]

Blake,

I wasn't involved in lobbying for it to be exempted... nor have I read up on it enough to know.

All I can find online right now is a bunch of propaganda angry about it happening...


This is the exemption in a nutshell:


Congress provided for exclusions to UIC authority (SDWA § 1421(d)), however, with the most recent language added via the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

“The term ‘underground injection’ –

(A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and
(B) excludes –
(i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and
(ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.”

While the SDWA specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from UIC regulation under SDWA § 1421 (d)(1)........

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

I'd like to know why it's excluded from regulation.

[Sec24Row7]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

Ask landowners and mineral owners who are being paid for their water and produced hydrocarbons if they want it to stop...

[TeyshaBlue]

"contrasting data"

what contrasting data is there that fracking is harmless to water supplies?

If it's harmless, why was fracking explicitly exempted from Clean Water rules by dickhead?

btw...you can't exempt something that was never a part of the rules to begin with, bot.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

This is the exemption in a nutshell:



I'd like to know why it's excluded from regulation.

It was never a part of the regulation to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

Except theirs is a perennial use and fraccing is a finite use...

Shrug... they are just using over 10 times the water to irrigate corn to make ethanol that is 75% as efficient by volume and an energy negative to produce... but hey... yeah it's a red herring ;)

Well if you want to go that route crops are also a renewable resource and this resource is finite.

I don't support the use of corn for ethanol in any way shape or form so it is a total red herring.

[MannyIsGod]

Sec, let me start to make your argument for you without using a red herring...


Compared to other energy sources, the use of water for natural gas production is minimal- only 10% of what it would require to produce a comparable amount of energy from coal.

[Blake]

It was never a part of the regulation to begin with.

great, then why did Congress take the time in 2005 to specifically exclude hydarulic fracturing from regulation?

[ChumpDumper]

That would make more sense if droughts adhered to some kind of schedule.:lolDo droughts not end?


Ask landowners and mineral owners who are being paid for their water and produced hydrocarbons if they want it to stop...Why would I ask them?

I'll ask a guy who isn't allowed to water his lawn if he wants to water it. How do you think that will go?

[MannyIsGod]

That paper seems to definitely side that while fracking has risks it is a definitely safe technology. I want to read much more before making up my mind but that paper does present your side of the situation, Sec.

[TeyshaBlue]

great, then why did Congress take the time in 2005 to specifically exclude hydarulic fracturing from regulation?

As was disclosed in Manny's link, the 05 act was reworded for clarification. The act intended to regulate injection wells specific to disposal and waste management, which fracturing is not. This is an exclusion for clarfication as much as anything else. Nerfariousness is usually implied.

[TeyshaBlue]

Do droughts not end?



As far as I know, they generally do. But to blithely suggest we just put off a well development schedule without the ability to know for how long, is not entirely practical from the company's forcasting standpoint.

[ChumpDumper]

As far as I know, they generally do. But to blithely suggest we just put off the sale of fireworks without the ability to forcast how long, is not entirely practical from the fireworks company's forcasting standpoint.Tough shit.

It's not like the gas is going anywhere.

If other economic activity is affected by drought regulations, why not this?

[ChumpDumper]

And don't tell me you don't like fireworks.

[SnakeBoy]

Well, since it's a one-time use of water, why not just put it off until the drought is over?

Well what do you think would have been the benefit if they had stopped a few months ago?

[InRareForm]

fify.

documentary on HBO shows peoples water lighting on fire in some areas. Is taht scientific enough?

[ChumpDumper]

Well what do you think would have been the benefit if they had stopped a few months ago?What's the benefit of forbidding lawn watering or filling swimming pools?

[Sec24Row7]

Different set of circumstances CD. The lawn guy (SA) is in a federally regulated water district and doesn't have his own well.

[TeyshaBlue]

And don't tell me you don't like fireworks.

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

documentary on HBO shows peoples water lighting on fire in some areas. Is taht scientific enough?

TV show. Yup. That's in the bag.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm assuming you are refering to Gasland.

[TeyshaBlue]

Tough shit.

It's not like the gas is going anywhere.

If other economic activity is affected by drought regulations, why not this?
Fine. Let's start shutting down farming as well.
And don't tell me you don't like cotton.:lol

[SnakeBoy]

What's the benefit of forbidding lawn watering or filling swimming pools?

Those activities haven't been forbidden.

[Sec24Row7]

Manny,

Pitt is going to give it a fair to skewed towards energy shake... Pennzoil, Quaker State etc... It was the birthplace of american oil production... And still has plenty of heritage oil money I would assume...

[MannyIsGod]

Damn I didn't even think about that. I did feel that maybe it was presenting a rosier picture than normal but I somehow didn't associate it with the oil industry. In any event, its only one article but it still had good info from what I could tell. It was trying its best to look at pros and cons in an honest way.

[Blake]

As was disclosed in Manny's link, the 05 act was reworded for clarification. The act intended to regulate injection wells specific to disposal and waste management, which fracturing is not. This is an exclusion for clarfication as much as anything else. Nerfariousness is usually implied.

ok.

I'm still curious though, unless I'm missing something, hydraulic fracking does involve chemicals, correct?

If that's true, why is it not regulated unless diesel fuel is involved?

[Blake]

interesting letter here:

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-markey-and-degette-investigation-finds-continued-use-of-diesel-in-hydraulic-fracturing-f

[TeyshaBlue]

ok.

I'm still curious though, unless I'm missing something, hydraulic fracking does involve chemicals, correct?

If that's true, why is it not regulated unless diesel fuel is involved?

Yeah, it includeds a wide variety of chemicals. As to why it's not regulated, I believe the RCC handles that in Texas. Also, a bill was just passed in the last Tx legislative session requiring disclosure of chemicals used. I can't believe it, but Perry actually signed it. Go figure.

http://www.energyboom.com/policy/texas-passes-landmark-hydraulic-fracturing-legislation

[RandomGuy]

No... I found it funny that a 1.1 million procedure sample size without incident in texas wasn't enough "proof".

If that isn't, what is?

Which is why I compared it to the Deistic question... where no "proof" is ever enough for either side.

That would be quite enough data for me, if it were not coming from the PR rep of the group that stands to make the most money off the continuing practice.

If there is some more objective data backing to it up, then fine, but in that context does it not make sense to be somewhat hesitant to accept it on its face?

I am not asking for proof of God here.

"Fracking is safe, and doesn't pollute scarce groundwater." is a very limited, measurable thing to study.

To charactorize it as akin to asking for proof of God is not honest, nor helpful.

If it can be objectively shown that decades of the practice have yielded no measurable damage to groundwater, then I would fine to let the status quo be.

[RandomGuy]

documentary on HBO shows peoples water lighting on fire in some areas. Is taht scientific enough?

That is one of the concerns.

Fracking also seems to produce a lot of methane as a by product.

I would not find it implausible that fracking caused some shift in an underground formation and released methane that sifted up through cracks into an underground aquafer.

That would explain the sudden burning tapwater.

A couple isolated cases in a very widespread practice does not indicate a massive problem, just one that merits some more study.

[boutons_deux]

propublica has a series of articles, including loopholes in state rules (we can assume all state regulators are owned/corrupted by corporations, is how the loopholes are there).

http://www.propublica.org/series/buried-secrets-gas-drillings-environmental-threat

Also, it appears that the gasco's are, with the help of the SEC rulings, inflating their gas reserves, which, surprise!, inflates their stock prices.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, we can all assume all the regulators are guilty too! It's easier than thinking! Yay progressives!

[RandomGuy]

Yes, we can all assume all the regulators are guilty too! It's easier than thinking! Yay progressives!

Yes, boutons is representative of "progressives".

I guess we can assume that, because it is easier than thinking. :p:

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, boutons is representative of "progressives".

I guess we can assume that, because it is easier than thinking. :p:

Every third word I've posted today should be blued. :lol:lol:toast

[ChumpDumper]

Different set of circumstances CD. The lawn guy (SA) is in a federally regulated water district and doesn't have his own well.Gee, nobody else can be federally regulated?


Those activities haven't been forbidden.They are provisions in water use restrictions. Why have them?

[ChumpDumper]

Fine. Let's start shutting down farming as well.
And don't tell me you don't like cotton.:lolFarmers are already paid not to farm.

[boutons_deux]

Some farmer's, at least those that can still reach the water, on the Ogalalla aquifer make more money selling water than growing crops.

How Bad Is the Ogallala Aquifer's Decline in Texas?

Texans are probably pumping the Ogallala at about six times the rate of recharge.

Rapid depletion of the aquifer has been going on since the 1950s, as new pumping technologies became available and memories of the Dust Bowl lingered. But growing awareness of water constraints has prompted new policy approaches. By Sept. 1, owing to a 2005 law, regional groundwater management groups across the state must declare their how they want their groundwater resources to look 50 years from now and plan accordingly.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/how-bad-is-the-ogallala-aquifers-decline-in-texas/

[TeyshaBlue]

Farmers are already paid not to farm.

Excellent. lets pay other producers not to produce then. A solid extension of logic, no?

[ChumpDumper]

Excellent. lets pay other producers not to produce then. A solid extension of logic, no?No, it's just a mitigating aspect for farmers.

It's not like petroleum and natural gas companies have nothing else to do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Farmers are already paid not to farm.

Not only that but if Lake Travis continues to drop then the rice farmers are going to have their irrigation canals shut off by the Lower Colorado River Authority.

[SnakeBoy]

They are provisions in water use restrictions. Why have them?

To prevent some springs from going dry in an effort to protect the Texas Blind Salamander, Fountain Darter, and Comal Springs Riffle beetle and other obscure endangered species that rely on the springs.

So what benefit would there have been if water use for fracking had not been allowed for much of this drought?

[LnGrrrR]

I would love to see ChumpDumper take up a job as a spokesperson for the White House. I think it'd be funny to see him answer every reporter's question with another question. :lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

you forgot the part where they pay shit all on water bills for their projects, hence they have no problems askin for subsidies and shit

[CosmicCowboy]

you forgot the part where they pay shit all on water bills for their projects, hence they have no problems askin for subsidies and shit

And you know this how? I know people that have made small fortunes selling water to drillers. Why post on a subject you don't know shit about?

[boutons_deux]

Not only that but if Lake Travis continues to drop then the rice farmers are going to have their irrigation canals shut off by the Lower Colorado River Authority.

Rice growing on the central TX coast? I know it goes back decades, those farmers get the water almost free, but further up the coast in s/e TX where there's plenty of water for irrigation is a more natural location.

There's a real battle between nuclear/coal plant operators and TX farmers for water consumption.

http://www.lcra.org/water/supply/irrigation.html

http://texasvox.org/2009/11/02/texas-farming-industry-struggles-to-exist/

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/energy/proposed-coal-plants-water-plan-stirs-debate/print/

[Sec24Row7]

"used the water almost free".

The farmers OWN it most of the time. It is their property.

[boutons_deux]

A river that arises 100s of miles upstream and flows across a TX farmer's land is owned by the farmer?

[Winehole23]

Rule of capture, related to "groundwaters":

http://www.texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/water_planning_committee4_new.pdf

[Winehole23]

The Texas Supreme Court first adopted the rule of capture for groundwater in the landmark 1904 decision Houston & Texas Central Railroad Co. v. East. The railroad company completed a water well on its property near Dennison, Texas to supply water for its locomotives. The well, which produced 25,000 gallons of water daily, lowered groundwater levels in the aquifer and dried up the household well of a neighboring landowner. The landowner sued the railroad for damages.



The court asserted that the rule of capture applied to groundwater in Texas and decided the railroad was not liable for damages: “Because the existence, origin, movement and course of such waters, and the causes which govern and direct their movements, are so secret, occult and concealed that an attempt to administer any set of legal rules in respect to them would be involved in hopeless uncertainty, and would therefore be practically impossible."


The court held that the “this inconvenience to his neighbour falls within the description of damnum absque injuria [an injury without a remedy], which cannot become the ground of an action.” By denying relief, the court essentially granted unlimited rights to take as much groundwater as can be pumped. Thus, the rule of capture is often known as “the law of the biggest pump."
http://www.hgs.org/en/art/1891/

[LnGrrrR]

The court held that the “this inconvenience to his neighbour falls within the description of damnum absque injuria [an injury without a remedy], which cannot become the ground of an action.” By denying relief, the court essentially granted unlimited rights to take as much groundwater as can be pumped. Thus, the rule of capture is often known as “the law of the biggest pump."



Interesting decision. A supervillain could really take advantage of said law.

[Winehole23]

One (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/playing-by-the-rule) already did.

[Winehole23]

http://www.texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/news_555.pdf

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/comp/MM7/877/1320455.jpg
(http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/ngsimages/explore/explorecomp.jsf?xsys=SE&id=1320455)

[RandomGuy]

Rule of capture, related to "groundwaters":

http://www.texaswatermatters.org/pdfs/water_planning_committee4_new.pdf

Yup. Water laws in Texas are funky.

We need to have the stakeholders, i.e. pretty much everybody, sit down and work something out that is a bit more workable and common sense.

[LnGrrrR]

One (http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/playing-by-the-rule) already did.

To be honest, it doesn't count if they're not wearing masks and laughing maniacally. :)