Fort Worth’s Gas Drilling Task Force Is Coming Back. Will We Like the Sequel Better?
by Steve-O
If your kid goes to Lily B. Clayton Elementary, would you want a pipeline with, er, wastewater, within a softball throw of the school playground?
Like white smoke billowing from the chimney of Sistine Chapel signaling a new pope, word finally came from the second floor at City Hall last Tuesday — the city gas ordinance task force will be reconstituted.
Based on the Star-Telegram story, it looks like all of the key issues are on the table: pipelines, restrictions on drilling in central city neighborhoods, moving gas drilling away from the Trinity River, the location of pipeline compressor stations and — the big one — injection wells.
When Mayor Moncrief called saltwater disposal “the elephant in the room,” he might have made the understatement of the year.
If there is any doubt about the magnitude of the threat injection wells pose to our city, allow me to refer you to this week’s excellent FWWeekly story. This is required reading and it will be on the test.
A couple of Sundays ago, a Star-Telegram story about injection wells made it sound like the gas drillers were arguing that injection wells connected by a series of pipelines were the only alternative to keep trucks filled with waste water off of the streets. But — according to the FWWeekly story — Texas laws that give oil and gas companies the right to use eminent domain for transmission pipelines have no similar rights for water pipes, much less pipes carrying flammable or otherwise hazardous liquid.
“Chesapeake is working to acquire the right of way for transmission pipelines, and in the leases they’re also asking homeowners and others for the right to lay water lines at the same time,” Brian Boerner, the director of the city’s Environmental Management Department told the FWWeekly.
Yep, I hadn’t put it together before now, but pipelines and injection wells are all tied together in this story. Imagine, if you will, a pipeline like the one that a subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy has applied for permission to run under the Fort Worth & Western Railroad tracks. The tracks run through Trinity Park, then southward past Lily B. Clayton Elementary School and the Mistletoe Heights and Berkeley Place neighborhoods. Right now this is just a transmission pipeline. But if Boerner is right, this route could potentially contain a wastewater pipeline. And it’s difficult for City Hall or the public to do anything about it because pipelines are governed by state and federal agencies.
“But they’ve got some big holes in their plans,” Boerner told the FWWeekly, “so they’re still going to have to use a lot of trucks to get that water where they want it.”
How many trucks are we talking about here? According to the FWWeekly, Chesapeake’s East First Street site would be allowed to take 25,000 barrels a day, or about 250 trucks worth. So 250 trucks times 15 trucks equals 3,750 trucks of wastewater a day, potentially. Pardon me while I slip into the vernacular for a second, but that is a shitload of trucks!
But where is all this wastewater coming from?
“The city’s understanding is that the only waste that can be injected into that well is waste that comes from the wells on that immediate property,” Boerner told the FWWeekly. “We wrote the ordinance to get [wastewater] trucks off the street, not to take waste from other areas and have it trucked in to the well. But Chesapeake’s point of view is that it can take waste from any of their leases and inject it there. Which could mean more truck traffic, not less, and that’s the opposite of what we set out to accomplish.”
And, of course, exactly what is this “wastewater”?
“You’ve got to understand that the terms ‘wastewater’ and ‘salt water’ are just wrong for what’s really being injected into those wells,” Jim Popp, an investigator who worked with the oil and gas industry for more than 40 years, told the FWWeekly. “What you’ve got is a toxic waste dump. Plain and simple, that’s what they are.”
Now is the time in my rant when I refer you to the laundry list of toxic chemicals that can be found in the fracing process. If you want to just cut to the chase, here is a table from a 2002 EPA report with all of the tasty chemicals listed. Do we really want to be pumping these things into the earth underneath us? Do we want these chemicals coursing through pipelines that go by elementary schools?
Earlier this year, there was a pipeline leak near Breckenridge that the Railroad Commission investigated after a landowner reported a large bare spot after planting a crop and “yellowish liquid” oozing out of the ground. Although the presence of benzene — a known cancer-causing chemical sometimes found in the fracing process — was suspected, the RRC field inspector said he did not detect benzene. But an independent chemist with decades of experience working with analytical chemical instruments tested a soil sample taken from the site in September and found there were 4,000 to 5,000 times the legal limit of benzene in the sample.
If your kid goes to Lily B. Clayton Elementary, would you want a pipeline with that stuff within a softball throw of the school playground?
Fort Worth, the reformation of the gas drilling task force means that you might have an opportunity to weigh in on these issues. I say might because if you don’t have a pile of money or an army of lawyers at your side, it may not matter. I’m sorry to be that cynical, but I haven’t seen much to offer encouragement.
If the gas drillers are revving up their lawyers as the FWWeekly article suggests, I’m not sure if the city can withstand the onslaught. It’s unfortunate that the gas drillers feel this way, because an alternative exists — recycling the water. It may cost them more money, but I believe that responsible business practices are just the price of doing business in Fort Worth.
No, I’m not encouraged, but at least there is an opportunity. We must make our voices heard. Write your city council representative and the mayor. Go to council meetings. Talk to your neighbors. Over the next six months to a year, there will be a very narrow window open to help influence decisions that we will have to live with in Fort Worth for decades. I encourage you to be a part of this process.
Tags: Barnett Shale, Chesapeake Energy, urban gas drilling
17 Comments, Comments or Pings
John Peter Smith
Steve:
It sounds like you favor recycling the wastewater. Are you suggesting a recycling plant be built at every well in the city? If so, you’re suggesting the construction of what, a thousand recycling plants? If you favor a few, centralized recycling plants, how is the wastewater supposed to get there? Truck or pipeline?
Dec 3rd, 2007
Suzette
Good questions? I would definitely rather recycle than put that nasty hazardous mess into the environment and our drinking water. A recycling plant at every well? Maybe… how large would the structure have to be? etc. Money is really not object since the Energy companies have plenty to spend, I mean every time you turn around there are record profits being made by energy companies. Furthermore, they say that this shale is one of the largest in the country…so there isn’t a problem with “demand” of their product. So yhea…what would a recycle plant at every well look like, how what that affect the surroundings? (Sorry Steve if I jumped in, in front of you, didn’t mean to be rude.)
Dec 4th, 2007
Don Young
Good work, Steve. After hearing from lots of folks in adjacent counties, I believe it’s only right that wastewater produced in Fort Worth stay in Fort Worth. They already have enough of their own Barnett Shale toxic soup. Call me Pollyanna or a dreamer, but the best solution is to stop producing the wastewater. That is, stop urban gas drilling. Since the BS Mafia and their unlimited ad budget have convinced folks that urban drilling is OK, then let them take responsibility for their own mess. Clean it up, reduce, reuse, and recycle it. Whatever it takes. Whatever the cost. Charge it back to the mineral owners since they wanted their Mailbox Money so bad. Heck, maybe we should force every mineral owner who sold out to take their personal share of the wastewater. Put it in barrels and deliver it via UPS along with that royalty check. That would be a potent symbol to help them see how their selfish actions affect others who have to deal with their garbage. Let those who sold out suffer the consequences of their greed. Let them see how much Mailbox $ it takes to deal with those barrels. Throw in a little box of NORM for good measure. After all, they own it, not me.
There is a reason I titled my film documentary, Dirty Ol’ Town. I said it then and I’ll repeat it now: Urban gas drilling is a net loss, all things considered. We don’t have to wait for the death of a child or the slow erosion of our quality of life. The best solution is to cut our losses now, before that inevitable day comes.
DY
Dec 4th, 2007
TXsharon
DY has it right! Stop producing the waste water! In Texas alone 400 million gallons of drilling waste water is produced every day (Burnett) and this is taking place all over the US and Canada. Unlike your bathwater and toilet water, water produced from drilling operations is not recycled! That water is permanently removed from our hydrologic cycle and is no longer available for evaporation and respiration. PLEASE! STOP! Think that one through! There will be devastating consequences for this insanity.
Dec 5th, 2007
Suzette
WOW! So, does that mean I can’t turn on my bathroom heaters powered by natural gas? I mean where to we stop with this thing? Are you saying that ALL drilling should be stopped? I mean if they are using our water in Urban areas, they are using it in rural areas and we care about those areas as well, so do we only us electric heat powered by nuclear energy? And stop buying those natural gas burning bar-b-que pits, right? Really, seriously, where do we stop or start, or turn, or……shall we just spin for a while?
Dec 5th, 2007
John Peter Smith
Suzette: One of the objections to gas drilling was the noise it creates. Is the recycling process silent?
Your questions about natural gas are excellent, which is why you will probably not get any answers from the environmentalists. The thing I find most ironic about the whole gas drilling issue is that not too long ago nautural gas was actively promoted by environmentalists as a clean alternative to petroleum fuel. Now it seems they don’t want natural gas produced.
So here’s some questions for Mr. Young, TXSharon and any others lurking. Please provide an alternative solution to using natural gas, that is available today. Don’t give us any “well someday with better technology we’ll be able to…” If you don’t want to use the gas in the Barnett Shale, what source of energy do you want to use that is available now? What will it cost?
Dec 5th, 2007
Don Young
JPS: You use the word, “environmentalists” as if it refers to aliens. Hey bro, we are part of the same planet you walk on. We breathe the same air, unfortunately. I do what I can, without pay, to draw attention to the abuse of the environment, so my family, friends, even my enemies and their families can keep enjoying a relatively healthy planet. Isn’t it enough to raise your awareness? Do I have to find your instant solutions, too? I’m merely applying the first rule of holes. When you find yourself in one, stop digging. Years ago, when “some” environmentalists promoted natural gas, they were not yet aware of the cradle to grave consequences of gas extraction. Nothing ironic about that. That was also before the new fracing method of gas extraction was put into widespread use. It uses enormous amounts of water and requires decades of re-fracing. Producers are also wiping out natural habitat in places that have previously been off limits. We now know the truth about natural gas: It’s just another dirty fossil fuel. “Clean burning” is nothing more than a misleading sales pitch like, “Please don’t squeeze the Charmin.”
Long term, affordable solutions ARE coming and some are here now, if you look closely. In the meantime, I am OK with drilling at the airports and a few other places. There are also many things you can do to reduce your “footprint” that are widely described elsewhere. I’m not saying to not use natural gas, but to use less and be aware of the consequences.
The bigger goal for me and a few others is to preserve as much of the natural world as we can, until alternatives are widely available. To keep reminding people of the trade-offs, to embarrass the drilling companies and expose the attendant corruption. The primary reason urban drilling is taking place is not to help the country but to make a profit for a few shareholders. We can get by just fine without the Barnett Shale gas under Fort Worth. We can manage just fine without the dirty money it yields. But we can’t get by without green space, safety, clean air and water and uncontaminated land.
Steve has every right to be concerned about a gas well near his child’s school and we all have good reason to keep drilling out of our neighborhoods. It’s bad enough that drillers will drill our pristine wilderness areas. When they start aiming at our backyards, it’s time to wake up. The alarm bell has sounded.
DY
Dec 5th, 2007
petew
Damn, I knew I shouldn’t have gone to lunch. Nice comment, Don. Here’s what I wrote as well: (I think I take a more free market approach, but I think Don makes some great points.)
JPS, you’re presenting what’s called in logic a “false choice.” In the framework of this discussion, we don’t have to choose between “no natural gas” and “no drilling in urban Fort Worth.” In fact, in any framework that is not a choice, because there are plenty of alternative areas to drill.
As for environmentalists, I don’t think you’ll find one anywhere that would say that they wouldn’t rather us burn natural gas than coal or some other refined petroleum product, if that’s the only choice we’re given. Yes, we environmentalists understand that burning natural gas requires the “production” of natural gas (which I find an inadequate word, since it’s really more of a “recovery” process), and so long as that production doesn’t cause more problems than it solves, and the production companies don’t get to externalize ALL of the risks of the process, I think we’re cool with it. What we want, and what I think any posts on this blog have been focused on, is for the drilling companies who stand to profit the most from this to be held accountable for ALL of the costs, including environmental costs (present and future).
Here’s an alternative: Instead of subsidizing technology that is not only harmful to the environment (and our national security) to recover, refine, and use, why not use those subsidies to fund transitional technologies? Once the subsidies to fossil fuels go away, the price of those energy sources will get closer to their ACTUAL cost instead of those costs being externalized by the energy companies (and shouldered by taxpayers), and the market takes over from there. It’s an insanely simple solution that no one in government seems to have the balls to get behind. No sane (or at least realistic) person is suggesting that we totally abandon fossil fuels overnight, but using that argument to forward a policy of continuing on the path we’re on is disingenuous and/or totally missing the point.
The simple fact is that we are living in the past. I don’t think oil will run out in my lifetime like some environmentalists, but it WILL RUN OUT, and the sun and wind and molten core of our planet will not for a LOOOOOONG time. Let’s continue to use the resources we have MORE EFFICIENTLY (which will require legislation, unfortunately), while we transition to the unlimited and clean energy sources that are already available to us.
Dec 5th, 2007
John Peter Smith
Mr. Young:
I use the term environmentalists to identify a certain set of political/religious beliefs. I mean it as a descriptive, not pejorative term.
You asked “Isn’t it enough to raise your awareness?” Well, frankly no, it’s not enough. For over 30 years I’ve had my awareness raised, listening to environmentalists claim that we were running out of “fossil fuels” and predicting another dark age.
First nuclear was the answer. Then it was decided we couldn’t have nuclear. Then natural gas was the preferred “clean” solution. Now, we’re told no natural gas. Then wind power was the answer. Only Robert Kennedy, Jr. didn’t want the view from his beach front mansion spoiled by the generating machines and they tend to chew up birds. So what is the answer? It seems most environmentalists prefer to revel in the problem.
You don’t want gas produced using fracing. You don’t want gas produced where it can harm natural habitat. You don’t don’t want natural gas produce in urban areas, though I’m guessing people in Grapevine and Irving would be suprised to learn that they don’t live in an urban area. So you don’t want gas drilling. That’s fine. All I’m asking for some alternatives.
Instead what you offer is that, “Long term, affordable solutions ARE coming.” I’m sorry, but I’ve been listening to those Pollyanna claims far too long to believe them.
I’m all for preserving wilderness areas. But lets do it in the context of informed, reasoned debate over the true cost.
Pete:
Here’s a free market approach. There is a finite supply of natural gas in the world. This must be true. I remember when Jimmy Carter came on TV and told me we were just about out of energy. Okay, if you reduce the supply of something, by, oh, let’s say prohibiting it’s production in Cowtown, then what happens to the price?
If you reduce the supply of gas, the price will go up. Now perhaps you consider having single moms and senior citizens pay higher energy prices a small price to protect our quality of life here in Cowtown. Perhaps you consider being more dependent on foreign energy supplies a risk worth taking for the same reason. That’s fine, be honest about it and say so. But make no mistake, if you reduce the supply, the cost will increase.
As far as your statement that “we don’t have to choose…because there are plenty of alternative areas to drill.” I really don’t get that. I thought Fort Worth was centered over the Barnett Shale. We’ll save your statements about alternative energy sources for another day.
This morning I asked opponents to gas drilling “Please provide an alternative solution to using natural gas, that is available today… If you don’t want to use the gas in the Barnett Shale, what source of energy do you want to use that is available now? What will it cost?”
Anybody got any specific answers?
Dec 5th, 2007
Bernie
-”I use the term environmentalists to identify a certain set of political/religious beliefs.”
Certain religious beliefs? Really? I would hope people of all religious stripes could support working toward a cleaner, healthier environment.
-”So what is the answer? It seems most environmentalists prefer to revel in the problem.”
The answer is going to be complicated. I think it will probably have to be a combination of sources we get our energy from in the future. The one thing I know for certain, is that to find a solution to a problem we’re going to have to acknowledge (nobody “revels” in it) the problem. Most non-environmentalists are in denial that said problem exists.
-”You don’t don’t want natural gas produce in urban areas, though I’m guessing people in Grapevine and Irving would be suprised to learn that they don’t live in an urban area.”
Grapevine and Irving (I’m assuming you’re talking about the airport area) are decidedly Suburban areas. In suburbs, there are open spaces where a well can be drilled thousands of feet away from buildings. Not so in the urban core of a large city like Fort Worth, which is what we’re objecting to.
-”Instead what you offer is that, “Long term, affordable solutions ARE coming.” I’m sorry, but I’ve been listening to those Pollyanna claims far too long to believe them.
Some solutions are here. Solar energy is a viable alternative for homes now. Wind energy isn’t perfect, but it works and it’s one of the cleanest options available.
-”Now perhaps you consider having single moms and senior citizens pay higher energy prices a small price to protect our quality of life here in Cowtown. Perhaps you consider being more dependent on foreign energy supplies a risk worth taking for the same reason. That’s fine, be honest about it and say so. But make no mistake, if you reduce the supply, the cost will increase.”
Single dads, young struggling adults, and rich people will all have to pay more for energy too. The rich people will spend lots more, because most of them USE much more. Energy prices are going up, regardless of whether we drill under Fort Worth. Plus, the foreign energy dependence argument amounts to little in the long term. ALL the gas in the Barnett Shale would last this country less than 2 years. So in 2010 we’d go right back to foreign energy dependence.
“Anybody got any specific answers?”
I’m saving my money for solar panels. It may cost more up front, but I won’t have to make energy companies rich (at the expense of the environment) by paying them to pipe sunshine into my home…
Dec 5th, 2007
petew
Which politics and which religions? It seems to me that all religions have a “respect and honor nature” policy somewhere, and the last time I checked, the root word of “Conservative” is CONSERVE. So, to whom are you referring when you say things like this?
Umm… We’re still running out. That’s never changed. We’re just drilling increasingly deeper wells to get at less and less oil. You make it sound like since the people who gave the early warning (yes, in the 70’s) were off by a couple of decades, then they were completely wrong and we’re just swimming in fossil fuels. That just ain’t the case, and I’ll challenge you to find a reputable scientific study that doesn’t say that fossil fuel production is on the decline.
Nuclear is still an option. There have been great strides in things like pebble bed reactors and improved waste management options. You seem to think that the extreme wing of the environmentalist movement is all there is. That’s not the case. There are pragmatists on both sides of this debate, people who realize that there is no ONE ANSWER to everything. Wind power is still a viable option, and if you do a little research, you’ll see that windmills are no more of a threat to birds than skyscrapers. Most of the studies that claim windmills are a threat to birds are funded by coal-industry PACs. I’ll agree with you that SOME environmentalists prefer to revel in the problem, but I don’t think you’ll find any of those here. We have opened a dialog (or at least attempted to), we’ve run for city council, we’re trying to work with energy companies (while still being critical of the choices they make, as is our prerogative) to get what’s best for EVERYONE in this situation.
We don’t want gas produced using fracing if the end result is that dangerously contaminated water is going to be injected back into the ground where we might need it in a few decades for drinking water. There’s precious little natural habitat left in Fort Worth, don’t you agree that it’d be nice to save some of it? You like to run along the Trinity Trail, how much do you think you’ll enjoy it once the surface holding pits are in place at that drilling site off Rogers? I used to run my Physical Fitness Tests in the Marines around a sewage treatment plant and a tomato field (during manure season), I assure you, nothing takes the wind out of you like something that vile. As for alternatives, we’ve presented them, but you’ve rejected them out of hand. It’s true that right now there aren’t a lot of options besides fossil fuels. In May of 1961, nobody thought there was a chance in hell that we’d land two men on the moon within 8 years, but with the political will and the country behind it, we did. Why can’t we gain some TRUE independence from foreign oil by making the same kind of effort?
I’m surprised that someone who’s lived as long as you would give up hope so easily. Look at all the things that we’ve accomplished in your lifetime. When you were born, most people didn’t travel more than 25 miles from their birthplace. Less than 200 years later, I can hop on a plane after breakfast and be on the opposite side of the planet in time for a nightcap. You’re thinking too short term. The time to start changing things is NOW, and the way to do it is to tighten our belts and start laying the groundwork.
Over the true cost of what? The wilderness areas cost us nothing to keep, since we already have them. What about the costs of losing those wilderness areas? How about the costs of potentially contaminating our ground water with fracing water? How much has it cost the taxpayers of the United States to fund a conflict in Iraq which is, and always has been, about oil? What percentage of the price I pay at the pump goes toward death benefits for the soldiers we’ve lost? How much do the oil companies who are DESTROYING Nigeria pay the brutal dictators there so that those same companies can continue to suck oil out of the ground? Where is the cost of the ransoms that have to be paid for oilfield workers reflected in the price at the pump? The answer to reducing our dependence on foreign oil IS NOT destroying our own environment and other’s lives (and environments) to secure sources of oil, IT IS to move away from the problem. If you put your hand in a fire and it gets burned, do you stick your other hand in when the first is burned to a crisp? No; that’s retarded. You remove your hand from the fire and don’t touch it again.
I like how you say “This must be true” as if there isn’t a finite amount of natural gas. Jimmy Carter was absolutely right, and Reagan was stupid to remove those solar panels and encourage the country to go back to its wasteful ways. Not a very conservative move for a pretty conservative president.
I’ve taken economics, I know exactly what it means, and Bernie is perfectly right: EVERYONE pays more for energy. I think I was pretty clear about that. I didn’t sugar coat it. Having people pay more for energy has nothing to do with Cowtown. Bringing the price that the consumer pays more in line with the actual cost to produce fossil fuels is what’s right for the planet and the country as a whole. Besides, if we stop subsidies to oil companies, we could cut taxes, so maybe it’d come out in the wash. I doubt it, though.
Why haven’t you addressed the fact that there IS NO FREE MARKET for energy? Fossil fuels are so heavily subsidized that the price we pay is no where near the actual cost of production when you account for all of the things that the government picks up the tab for on behalf of the energy companies, in addition to the subsidies and tax breaks they get.
Bernie gave some great examples of alternatives; less densely populated areas like those around the Airport, south-east and south-west Fort Worth, Weatherford, on the outskirts of 820 to the west, Keller, Wautauga, So on and so forth. We object to drilling in the CORE of our city, and all of the attendant risks and trade offs it presents. I don’t have an answer on the water recycling thing, because I don’t know what’s involved. To challenge us to provide that answer on the spot without having a chance to talk to the gas companies or drilling experts about what’s involved is unfair. As for alternative energy sources, you can’t have this discussion without discussing alternatives. In fact, that’s what you challenged us to do: offer alternatives.
This morning you presented a false choice. You speak as if there is NO OTHER ANSWER than natural gas. No, I don’t have a “no more natural gas” switch I can throw and then we all magically have unicorn powered perpetual motion machines that teleport us to work and their byproduct is t-bone steaks and skittles.
To posit that it’s even possible to immediately switch the entire country from fossil fuels to sustainable fuels and then demand essentially a yes or no answer is absurd. But what the hell, I’ll take a shot.
How about electricity? That’s available now. It can be generated sustainably. It can be used to heat our homes, cook our food, and power our cars. It’s already pretty cheap; converting to all sustainable production might be a tad expensive in the short term, but once we’ve done that, ongoing maintenance of those facilities is pretty negligible, and we’re not going to have to go drilling for another sun or river or whatever.
As a conservationist, (a term I like better than environmentalist, which as you’ve demonstrated has some pretty negative connotations) I’d much rather better use what we have now while we move toward non-polluting energy sources. It seems like that angle is completely lost in these discussions. The only thing you ever hear is “we have to find more sources of fuel!”, and whenever anyone says “Why can’t encourage, through regulation and market incentives, better use of the fuel sources we have?” they’re not taken seriously and laughed out of the room. The energy situation is the defining crisis of our generation. We can either get out in front of it and be on the leading edge, or we can fall behind and trash our environment and economy by clinging to a dying energy infrastructure. It’s time to start thinking about the future and not about how we’re going to keep living in the past.
Dec 6th, 2007
Steve-O
This is a comment that Jim Popp — who is quoted in the FWWeekly article I referenced — left on the S-T’s Barnett Shale blog. If found it to be very informed and reasonable. Jim writes:
We are all Americans and as such, we realize the importance of the United States being independant when it comes to the various types of energy, be it natural gas or oil, that we need and use. I know that no one in my citizens’ group is against the oil and gas industry per se, but we certainly do want them to operate in a very responsible manner in Texas. We do not feel at the present time that many of the oil and gas companies are operating responsibly, but rather are looking for the quickest and cheapest way to accomplish their goals of making money with little to no regard for the health, safety, and well being of the citizens of Texas now and in the future.
Of course, there are exceptions to this and I would use Devon Energy as my example of that exception. Devon, for example, is experimenting with Desalinization of their drilling and fracing water, rather than just pressure injecting it into injection wells. Desalinization is a process whereby they take the toxic liquid waste they recover after drilling or fracing a well and put it through a process that seperates out the toxic waste from the water, so that the water can be safely used again in their drilling and fracing operations. According to reports, they have recovered about 85-90% of the water through this process, so that they can then reuse that water, instead of pressure injecting it into injection wells. They then also do not have to use/waste more millions of gallons of fresh water when another well is drilled or fraced. This process is more expensive than just pressure injecting the liquid toxic waste into an injection well, but well worth the added expense when you consider the fresh water being saved immediately by this process with the water being reused and the underground water being saved now and in the future from polution. Add to that the health and safety improvement issues for the citizens of Texas, and the added cost of Desalinization then becomes VERY nominal.The future generations of Texans will be extremely grateful too.
Devon also works with Surface Owners, as I understand, to try and reach a mutually agreeable situation in many ways for both parties when drilling is to begin. This then brings me to the other major problem going on in Texas right now, out dated Surface Owners Rights. No where is this more prevelant in Texas right now than in some of The Barnett Shale area counties.
As I see it, there are two main problems right now in Texas. For the modern state our politicians like to tout us as being, we are so far behind the times when it comes to updating our laws regarding oil and gas, that we are actually still living with most of our laws that came about in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. We are the only major oil and gas producing state that has not updated it’s laws to coinside with the modern, changing times. This is for good reason too. Too many of our politicians get too much of their election campaign money from oil and gas contributions, and there lies the big conflict.
All other major oil and gas producing states have updated their laws with regard to surface owner rights, and all that situation entails, with the exception of Texas. Even our neighbor to the north, Oklahoma, has updated its laws in recent years giving surface owners many more rights, economic relief, and equality when drilling is to take place on their properties.
In March 2003, David Swinford, a Texas State Representative from the Panhandle, introduced House Bill 1803, that would have brought Texas into the modern age and up to par with other states with regard to Surface Owners rights, greatly increasing their rights when dealing with oil and gas drilling matters. That Bill never got out of the Energy Committee and was tabled and lost under a pile of paperwork, never to be heard of again.
It’s time that the legislators of Texas start listening to the citizens, the people they are really working for, rather than the oil and gas money contributed to them. It is time for Texas to join the other oil and gas producing states and update their laws to meet the needs of the surface owner citizens of today. It is also time for the major players of the oil and gas industry in Texas, such as Devon Energy, who have already shown great savey and responsibilty on their own, to put pressure on the rest of the industry to do the same thing. Working together, we the citizens of Texas and the oil and gas industry, can make this whole thing work in a safe, responsible and economically feasible way for all parties involved. I sincerely hope our legislators and the oil and gas industry leaders get that message before this present bad situation goes much further.
This is a bi-partisan issue, with both parties being a fault over the years for allowing the situation to get this far, so it will take bi-partisan cooperation to correct this present mess.
Dec 7th, 2007
John Peter Smith
Steve:
In your original post you stated, “…an alternative exists — recycling the water. It may cost them more money, but I believe that responsible business practices are just the price of doing business in Fort Worth.” To which I asked “Are you suggesting a recycling plant be built at every well in the city?” I’ve read you latest post twice but didn’t see a specific answer. Are you suggesting the city require the construction of a desalinization plant at every single well in the city?
Dec 16th, 2007
petew
JPS, what do YOU suggest we do with the toxic wastewater that’s generated as a result of the fracing process?
Dec 16th, 2007
Steve-O
I don’t have to suggest anything. I believe it is my right as a citizen of Fort Worth to say that it’s not OK to poison the earth underneath us. If Chesapeake can’t do business in Fort Worth without injection wells, the problem is theirs, not mine. I know Devon Energy is working on more cost effective ways to recycle and reuse water in the fracking process. Reasonable alternatives exist. Injection wells aren’t the only way, just the cheapest.
Dec 16th, 2007
John Peter Smith
Pete:
I will not pretend to have studied the issue in depth. However, based on what I do know, I think piping it to some central facilities, located in industrial areas would be the best solution. With proper planning, the wastewater pipeline could be located in the same right-of-way as the natural gas gathering pipeline, limiting the amount of streets and yards that are torn up. Of course, the pipeline companies would be required to replace and repair the streets and yards, just as the public utilities do now. Once at the central facility the wastewater could be injected into the ground. Scientist have proposed doing the same with nuclear waste, I can’t imagine this wastewater is worse than that.
Steve:
You are correct, you don’t have to suggest a plan. I was just asking for some specifics of your “reasonable alternative.” Sounds like you haven’t really thought it through.
Dec 17th, 2007
Steve-O
Dude, it’s all in the original post. If you want a white paper, I can’t help you. But it sounds like you have already made up your mind — which is why I don’t usually respond to your comments. If you want a respectful conversation, I’m happy to oblige. However, I have no interest in a circular argument.
Dec 17th, 2007
Reply to “Fort Worth’s Gas Drilling Task Force Is Coming Back. Will We Like the Sequel Better?”