Saturday, March 30, 2013

Major Failure: A Graphic Example of the Risks of Modern Well Completion

by Bob Cavnar, this small planet, March 27, 2013

Last week, on March 18th, 2013, LeNorman Operating, based in Oklahoma City, was engaging in multiple well operations on their lease in Hemphill County, Texas.  Halliburton was on location, fracking their Ruth 87-2H well, a Granite Wash completion; simultaneously, Cased Hole Solutions, as reported by witnesses, was perforating another well with wireline nearby on the same drilling pad.  A note here:  One of the advances in drilling and completion technologies brought to land from offshore operations is the ability to directionally drill multiple wells from one location or “pad.”  The advantage is efficiency and smaller geographic footprint.  The disadvantage, among others, is the danger of multiple operations on a single location (i.e., see Deepwater Horizon blowout causes).

As reported by industry website, Drilling Ahead, Halliburton was pumping the frac job at a reported 8,500 p.s.i. (pounds per square inch) when the 7″ production casing parted about 100′ below ground level.  This sudden upward force also parted the surface pipe just below the casinghead, and the entire assembly, including the frack stack and the attached frac iron, became a giant bottle rocket, landing on the wireline truck.  Miraculously, no one was killed, and the only injury was the operator in the wireline truck, sustaining a concussion.  I was able to confirm the incident through the Texas Railroad Commission Blowouts and Well Control page.  Before I talk about the causes of an accident like this, I’ll note that since January 1, 2011, in Texas alone, there have been 67 reported blowouts and well control problems; remarkably, reported injuries in these incidents were only 4; there was one fatality.  Of these 67 incidents, 5 were related to casing failures during frack jobs.

The post accident photos published by Drilling Ahead and floating around the industry are impressive and can give the reader a sense of the extreme forces that oilfield tubulars and equipment sustain during drilling, completion, and production operations.  Here are a few of the pics:

IMG 1075 Major Failure: A Graphic Example of the Risks of Modern Well Completion Technologies
Side view of the frack stack lying on top of the destroyed wireline truck.

IMG 1117 Major Failure: A Graphic Example of the Risks of Modern Well Completion Technologies
This hole is where the wellhead was. They were extremely fortunate the well didn’t blow out.

IMG 1133 Major Failure: A Graphic Example of the Risks of Modern Well Completion Technologies
Clear view of the bottom of the casinghead, surface pipe and production pipe.

Catastrophic casing failures, while relatively rare, can have profound consequences.  You’ll recall that potential casing failure and loss of well integrity was one of the principal concerns during the blowout of the Macondo well in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico in 2010.  If you lose integrity, you lose control, and the well is open to the world.  Luckily here, this well stayed dead after the frackstack blew off.  In many cases, that doesn’t happen and the well blows out with nothing on top to work with to regain control.

Casing failure has a several causes; manufacturing flaws, damage while handling, or improper setting are most common.  Most frack jobs are pumped directly down the casing, rather than using a small diameter tubing run inside.  Operators do this to get a higher pump rate, and/or lower injection pressures, allowing for larger frack jobs.  In order to do a casing frack, however, the casing has to be set or “hung off” in the casinghead by “stacking” weight below the slips.  Stacking weight below the slips essentially puts “slack” in the casing allowing for thermal contraction that occurs when you pump cold frack fluids into a warm well.  As steel contracts, tremendous forces are exerted on the pipe itself, as well as the pipe threads and couplings.  If enough slack is not put in the pipe, its rated tensile strength can be exceeded during thermal contraction, and it will part, as we saw in this case.  Worse yet, the upward force can also be exceeded on the protection casing around it, in this case, the surface pipe, and it can also fail.  When that happens you have a gigantic bottle rocket.

The concerns over hydraulic fracturing mostly focus on its effects on ground water.  Much of that concern comes from worries that frack fluids will reach ground water sands that have been penetrated by oil and gas wells, concerns which are dismissed by the industry who claims that surface casing and cement protects those sands.  I believe surface pipe and cement does protect ground water much of the time, but the procedure is not failsafe and the industry claim is certainly not true 100% of the time.  There are strict rules in most states, including Texas, that specify surface pipe depths, strength, cement quality and cement volume.  However, just like we saw after the Deepwater Horizon incident, those rules only work if they are followed and enforced.  What we are seeing in Texas, as well as other shale boom areas, is lots of activity on many locations, not enough inspectors, and many workers who may not be trained as well as they should.  Going fast with lots of operations and light oversight can result in catastrophic failures.  Here was one.

Hopefully we learn from it.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Oklahoma's largest ever earthquake found to be fracking related [Prague, OK, Nov 6, 2011, 5.7 magnitude, destroyed 14 homes, injured 2 people]

by Joe Wertz, StateImpact, March 26, 2013

A University of Oklahoma seismologist’s research, released today, provides further evidence that Oklahoma’s largest-recorded earthquake was triggered by injection wells used by the oil and gas industry.
Katie Keranen’s findings, published today in the geoscience journal Geology, adds to a growing chorus of scientific evidence suggesting that injection and disposal wells are likely causing an uptick of earthquakes in the continental United States.
The research centered on a sequence of earthquakes that occurred in November 2011 near Prague, Okla. They included a 5.7-magnitude quake on Nov. 6, the largest quake  triggered by injection wells to date, according to the research.
The analysis suggests that injection-induced earthquakes could be larger than previously thought,  and that they could occur on much longer timescales.
“This is basically a different class of induced earthquake,” Keranen tells StateImpact.
KATIE M. KERANEN, HEATHER M. SAVAGE, GEOFFREY A. ABERS AND ELIZABETH S. COCHRAN / GEOLOGY
Click here to read a copy of the research, which was published March 26 by the geosciences journalGeology.
Oklahoma’s November 2011 earthquake was the state’s largest recorded with modern instrumentation. Two people were injured in the quake, which destroyed 14 homes, “buckled” pavement and was felt in 17 states, according to the paper.
Keranen’s analysis — co-written with Columbia University’s Heather Savage and Geoffrey Abers, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Elizabeth Cochran — is based on data collected from more than a dozen seismometers deployed during the November 2011 earthquake sequence and is correlated with data collected by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state’s oil and gas regulator.
Prague is situated near a fault line and an oil field that was heavily used in the 1950s and 1960s. Petroleum production in the area has dwindled since then, but in the early 1990s, operators started installing injection wells in the oil field. Such wells are used to “recover” oil and gas from depleted reservoirs, or to store toxic waste fluid produced during drilling.
Currently, when seismologists evaluate the likelihood that an earthquake was induced by injection wells, they look for earthquakes that occur within months of fluid injection. But Keranen’s research suggests a much longer lag between cause and effect:
“Here we present a potential case of fluid injection into isolated pockets resulting in seismicity delayed by nearly 20 years from the initiation of injection, and by 5 years following the most substantial increase in wellhead pressure.”
Her findings also suggest that induced earthquakes could be larger than previously thought, since this type of deep waste fluid injection has the potential to unlock tectonic stresses built up over decades.
More than 1,400 earthquakes were recorded in Oklahoma in 2011, the most seismically active year on record, data show. Oklahoma isn’t alone. Seismic activity has also increased in other states throughout the middle of the country. Seismologists suspect that oil and gas activity may have triggered earthquakes in Texas, Arkansas, Colorado and Ohio.
Regulators in Arkansas voted to ban injection wells from one particular region after a series of earthquakes was recorded in that state in 2011. Oil and gas regulators in Colorado now require a review by a state seismologist before injection well permits are issued, and Illinois has installed a “traffic light” system that would require injection wells to stop operating if related earthquakes cause a public safety risk.
But earthquake risks aren’t a part of rule overhauls in California, Texas or New York, E&E’s Mike Soraghan reports. And no such changes are being considered in Oklahoma, the Corporation Commission’s Matt Skinner told StateImpact in January. Skinner didn’t immediately respond to questions about the new research.
Oklahoma’s official seismologist — the Geological Survey’s Austin Holland — is skeptical of the link between injection wells an earthquakes, a view shared by the Corporation Commission and the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, a trade group that lobbies for the interests of oil and gas producers. More data is needed, Holland says.
In a policy paper written in response to the new research, the Geological Survey says “the interpretation that best fits current data is that the Prague Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes.” [Unbelievable!]

Monday, March 25, 2013

Earthquakes: States deciding not to look at seismic risks of fracking

EARTHQUAKES:

States deciding not to look at seismic risks of drilling

by Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter, EnergyWire, March 25, 2013
Nine months after a National Academy of Sciences panel said oil and gas regulators should take steps to prevent man-made earthquakes, officials in key states are ignoring quake potential as they rewrite their drilling rules.
Two major drilling states, California and Texas, are overhauling their drilling rules without looking at the seismic risks linked to deep injection of drilling and hydraulic fracturing wastewater. New York regulators dismissed earthquake concerns in their drawn-out process of updating drilling rules.
One possible exception, though, may be Illinois. Comprehensive legislation introduced there mirrors the "traffic light" regulation system suggested in the NAS report. That system would allow small earthquakes but would shut down wells when public safety is at risk.
World map
Locations of earthquakes linked by scientists to human activity. Click the map for a larger version. Map courtesy of the National Research Council.
The NAS panel, chaired by Colorado School of Mines professor Murray Hitzman, said earthquakes associated with drilling can pose a risk to public health and safety.
"The regulatory body affiliated with the permitting of wells should include, as part of each project's operation permit, a mechanism (such as a 'traffic light' mechanism) for the well operator to be able to control, reduce, or eliminate the potential for felt seismic events," the panel wrote in its report (Greenwire, June 15, 2012).
U.S. EPA has also looked at earthquakes related to energy development. But its study has stalled in the draft stage, and EPA officials say they have no timetable for issuing a final report (EnergyWire, March 19, 2013).
Geologists have known for decades that deep injection of industrial waste can lubricate faults and unleash earthquakes. One of the most famous instances of man-made earthquakes, or "induced seismicity," occurred in the late 1960s at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver, where the Army manufactured chemical weapons.
Some earthquake researchers now say the nation's drilling boom, fueled by advances in high-volume hydraulic fracturing, could be spurring a rash of such man-made quakes.
Most seismologists agree that the specific process of hydraulic fracturing presents little or no risk of triggering earthquakes that damage property or injure people. [Except for the 5.6 in Oklahoma in 2011 maybe?]
But injection wells are a different story. Fracking and production of shale gas produce millions of gallons of wastewater far saltier than seawater and laced with toxic and even radioactive chemicals. Some can be reused, but eventually, what comes to the surface must be disposed of. Usually, that's into injection wells.
Very few of the 40,000 brine disposal wells in the country have been linked to seismic ruptures. But in the shale drilling boom of the last few years, earthquakes have been linked to injection wells in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Texas.
The "traffic light" protocol recommended by the NAS panel suggested a gradual approach to injection wells for regulators, which are usually state oil and gas agencies.
At first, they could require operators to scale back how much fluid they're injecting if a well gets linked to seismicity. But if the earthquakes were to continue and threaten serious damage or injury, wells would be shut down under such a protocol.
The panel's report, done for NAS's National Research Council, also said regulators should evaluate the possibility of an earthquake at potential injection sites. That is not done for wells that receive oil and gas waste in most states.

State breakdowns

Texas has had some of the best-documented seismic activity around brine wells. Researchers have linked injection to earthquakes in the Haynesville Shale in east Texas and the Barnett Shale in the Dallas area (EnergyWire, Aug. 7, 2012). Chesapeake Energy Corp. shut down two wells linked to quakes near the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.
The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas production, is doing a large-scale revision of its rules without looking at man-made earthquakes.
DFW airport map
A map from a study by University of Texas research scientist Cliff Frohlich shows the proximity of injection wells, or salt water disposal wells, to earthquakes near the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in 2009. Click the map for a larger version. Map courtesy of the National Research Council.
"The geology of states vary greatly, and Texas has a long history of safe injection," said Gaye McElwain, spokeswoman for the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil and gas, not trains. "Our staff also are closely following various studies that are being conducted to determine possible man-made causes of recent seismic events."
California is not known to have had earthquakes linked to fracturing or deep injection. But it has more experience with damaging and lethal earthquakes than other states.
And oil and gas companies are just beginning to develop the Monterey Shale in Southern California, which could spit up millions of gallons of water to be injected underground.
California's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is revising its underground injection rules in the wake of criticism from U.S. EPA that they are insufficient to protect groundwater and examine the effect of wells in too narrow of an area (EnergyWire, Nov. 21, 2012).
California officials say they don't see the need to look at injection wells and earthquakes, saying existing rules are sufficient.
"While seismicity is not specifically mentioned in the California Code of Regulations, DOGGR believes it is adequately addressed," said agency spokesman Don Drysdale. "Operators must evaluate oil and gas reservoirs prior to injection, and that evaluation includes faulting."
Donald Clarke, the geologist who served as vice chairman of the NAS panel, said the state has been giving close scrutiny to injection wells in recent years.
"It's tightened up a lot," Clarke said. "The sad part is, they're understaffed to be doing all this."
Stanford University geophysics professor Mark Zoback, who authored a widely cited article on the traffic light protocol last year, also said California's existing safeguards seem adequate.
"If they're requiring operators to evaluate for faulting, then they are addressing the issue," Zoback said.
New York's regulators have been mixed on the dangers of drilling-related quakes. In drafting regulations that would open upstate New York to drilling and hydraulic fracturing, officials at the Department of Environmental Conservation dismissed the possibility of earthquakes, saying there is "essentially no increased risk to the public."
But the agency also hired a geologist to look at the earthquake issue (EnergyWire, Feb. 7).
Ohio shut down an injection well in 2012 and rushed to implement emergency seismic rules for injection after a well was linked to repeated earthquakes in Youngstown. The beefed-up rules allow state officials to order seismicity tests before a well is drilled and specify the volume and pressure of fluids injected. Once the well is operating, the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management can monitor it and force it to shut off.
Ohio's concerns didn't spread, though some states have taken smaller steps. An example is Colorado, where oil and gas officials are requiring a review by the state geological survey before granting new injection permits.
Other states are still waiting. Oklahoma oil and gas official have allowed drilling companies to inject their wastewater next to an active fault that ruptured in 2011, causing a magnitude-5.6 earthquake (EnergyWire, July 25, 2012).

N.E. Iowa struggles with state's new 'sand rush.' Mining interests are pitted against tourism, environmental concerns

A large pile of frack sand sits near the Pattison Sand Co. processing center, which includes a large dryer. The material is sent mostly by train to oil and gas companies working in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Colorado and Canada. A large pile of frack sand sits near the Pattison Sand Co. processing center, which includes a large dryer. The material is sent mostly by train to oil and gas companies working in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Colorado and Canada. / Perry Beeman/The Register

by Perry Beeman, Des Moines Register, March 24, 2013

DECORAH, IA. — Residents of this picturesque montage of rolling hills, trout fishing and canoeing are fighting to keep America’s headlong rush into oil-and-gas “fracking” from spoiling the scenery responsible for a healthy chunk of Iowa’s $3.1 billion outdoor recreation industry. 

They are fighting with slogan-emblazoned buttons pinned to their lapels and with meetings and facts. They are crusading online and in the grocery lines. They’re urging political leaders to at least temporarily block companies from opening new holes in the geologically fragile landscape of extreme northeast Iowa. 

There is no fracking for oil or gas in Iowa, but drilling companies covet the huge and easily accessible supplies of the hard, round grains of silica sand found in the northeast corner of the state, including Allamakee, Winneshiek and Clayton counties. The stuff is shipped from eastern Iowa to rig sites from North Dakota to Texas. 

“This is coming at us like a runaway bulldozer doing 100 miles per hour,” said Ric Zarwell of Lansing, leader of Allamakee County Protectors, a group that successfully lobbied for a moratorium on frack sand mines in Allamakee, after Minnesota mining companies came calling. “I see this as neighbors opposing invaders.” 

Zarwell and others here are calling it the “sand rush.” 

Not everyone believes the mining operations would be bad for the area. 

Some point to the hundreds of mine-related jobs that could potentially be created, and how those would also benefit other local businesses. Others say whatever eyesores the mines might create are only temporary, and point to state and federal regulations requiring that such sites be restored. 

Mark Ellis, president of the National Industrial Sand Association, said mine operators are dedicated to protecting public health. The Washington, D.C.-based trade group has produced a manual to help companies comply with various environmental regulations, he said. 

Iowa is home to one of the nation’s largest deposits of the fine-grained, round silica sand prized by drilling companies engaged in fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a controversial — and, some say, environmentally unsound — method of harvesting oil and natural gas from buried shale. 

Fracking has exploded across much of the United States as companies maneuver to tap previously unreachable natural gas and oil reserves to ease the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. 

The process involves pumping a mixture of water, silica sand and some chemicals into the rocky layers that hold the oil and natural gas. That breaks apart the rock and holds the fissures open while fuel-producing minerals are pumped from the hidden layers of shale. 

The sand is found throughout the state, but the deposits closest to the surface are located in the rolling terrain surrounding Decorah, Lansing and Clayton, making that region easier and more profitable to mine. That’s grabbed the attention of several companies already mining extensively in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where a steady parade of trucks have stirred up dust, along with noise complaints from folks living near some excavation sites. 

The special sand — with its hard, round grains — is a favorite of drilling rig operators because it does an especially good job of holding open the cracked rock, like pingpong balls in a big jar. 

There’s plenty of demand for the stuff. U.S. production of frack sand has jumped from 8.8 million metric tons in 2009 to 13.7 million in 2010 and 24.3 million in 2011, the most recent figures available. 

“The main thing that they are interested in is that it is round and almost entirely quartz and a uniform size,” said Raymond Anderson, a geologist with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 

Sand miners won’t say what they pay for leases, and they also require landowners to keep that information secret. But with Iowa’s generous supplies, most believe landowners could make thousands of dollars even in a short period. 

The three geological layers that hold the sand — the St. Peter sandstone, Jordan and Wonewoc — provide thousands of spots where mines could easily be established in northeast Iowa, said Zarwell.

Mining companies tout jobs and pledge to meet environmental regulations, but Zarwell isn’t satisfied. 

If the mines came in, the promised jobs likely would go to outsiders, home values could drop, dust would threaten residents’ health, groundwater could be contaminated, and trucks would bog down traffic and damage roads and highways, he said. 

And the outdoor recreation and tourism that have defined the area could suffer most. 

“It would be gone,” Zarwell said. 

That’s a concern in Winne­shiek, Allamakee and Clayton counties, which draw a combined $53 million a year in recreational spending related to rivers alone, according to figures compiled by Catherine Kling, an Iowa State University economist focusing on natural resource and environment issues. 

Others worry about what adverse health effects might be associated with frack sand, although lung ailments caused by breathing tiny sand particles typically pose the biggest threat to mine workers and others with prolonged exposure. 

Larry Schellhammer, chairman of the Allamakee County Board of Supervisors, said the county approved the moratorium in February so it could consider restrictions on the industry to protect the scenery that drives tourism and to limit the noise and dust such operations produce. 

“Allamakee is pretty well known as one of the prettiest areas of the country,” Schellhammer said. “We like to talk about it being God’s country. We have to respect that. We have pretty heavy tourism.” 

But the county, which is already home to a dozen or more conventional sand and gravel operations, can’t ban frack sand mining forever, he said. So he and other county officials are asking the Legislature to help the county address problems when they do arise. 

They are lobbying lawmakers to allow counties to charge mining operations a fee that would help fix damaged roads and address other problems related to the business. Some mines send 200 trucks out, and back, daily, Schellhammer says. 

In the Decorah area, another top tourist stop and home to Luther College, the potential arrival of sand mines quickly set off citizen protests. Winneshiek County officials are mulling a moratorium, too. 

Karl Knudson, a Decorah lawyer who helped push through the Allamakee moratorium, said the timeout gives critics a chance to at least push for dust and noise limits. “There could be a big impact on tourism, with the likelihood that the area won’t be properly reclaimed.” 

“These hillsides are important for tourism and have Indian burial sites,” Knudson said. 

Lyle Otte has lived in Decorah for 31 years. “We hope to keep enjoying it,” he told an audience of 160 at a meeting at the local high school in February. 

“This certainly will affect tourism,” Otte said. “The fishing, hiking and biking will all be endangered” if frack sand mining expands in the county, he added. 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130324/NEWS/303240054/N-E-Iowa-struggles-with-state-s-new-sand-rush-?

In Texas, Water Use for Fracking Stirs Concerns


A water truck parked near a West Texas drilling rig. Oil and gas companies' use of water for hydraulic fracturing has sparked growing concerns.
A water truck parked near a West Texas drilling rig. Oil and gas companies' use of water for hydraulic fracturing has sparked growing concerns.
CARRIZO SPRINGS — In this South Texas stretch of mesquite trees and cactus, where the land is sometimes too dry to grow crops, the local aquifer is being strained in the search for oil. The reason is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a drilling process that requires massive amounts of water.
“We just can’t sustain it,” Hugh Fitzsimons, a Dimmit County bison rancher who serves on the board of his local groundwater district, said last month as he drove his pickup down a dusty road.
From 2009 to 2012, water production from one well on his ranch fell by two-thirds, a problem Fitzsimons linked to nearby wells pumping water for fracking operations. A study commissioned by his groundwater district found that in a five-county area that includes Dimmit, fracking reduces the amount of water in the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer by the equivalent of one-third of the aquifer’s recharge. Recharge means the average amount of water an aquifer regains each year from precipitation and other factors.
The amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing — roughly 4 million to 6 million gallons per oil or gas well — has stirred concerns around Texas as the drought wears on and the drilling boom continues.
Studies say that fracking consumes less than 1 percent of the total water used statewide, far less than agriculture or even watering lawns. But in some drilling hotbeds like Dimmit County, the proportion of water used for fracking has reached the double digits and is growing along with the oil boom. Companies are springing up to offer recycling, and some drillers are able to use brackish water, but those technologies are often not cost-effective.
Oil and gas companies are “in the spotlight right now,” said state Rep. James Keffer, R-Eastland, the chairman of the Texas House Energy Resources Committee. Because drillers have increased their water use only recently, he said, “they have to prove themselves a little harder than others at this point in time.”
Two state legislative committees, including Keffer’s, convened a hearing last month on fracking and water use. Industry representatives testified about emerging water-saving technologies like recycling.
In 2011, only about one-fifth of the water used in fracking came from recycled or brackish water, according to a recent study prepared by the University of Texas at Austin’s Bureau of Economic Geology and financed by the Texas Oil and Gas Association.
The industry is “absolutely not doing enough” to reduce water use, said Luke Metzger, the director of the group Environment Texas.
In a typical fracking job, water blended with lesser volumes of sand and chemicals is pumped down a well to release oil or gas trapped in the pores of hard rock. The use of chemicals has stirred fears of spills and contamination, especially because companies keep some of the chemicals secret.
Increasingly, the spotlight is also on water supply problems. Some of the most oil-rich parts of Texas, including the Eagle Ford Shale and the Permian Basin, are also some of the state’s driest areas. Carrizo Springs, in the heart of the fast-developing Eagle Ford, averages 21 inches of rainfall a year.
In 2011, Texas used a greater number of barrels of water for oil and natural gas fracking (about 632 million) than the number of barrels of oil it produced (about 441 million), according to figures from the Texas Water Development Board and the Railroad Commission of Texas, the state’s oil and gas regulator.
The UT study, published in January, found that the amount of water used statewide for fracking more than doubled between 2008 and 2011. The amount is expected to increase before leveling off in the 2020s. The study’s lead author, Jean-Philippe Nicot of the University of Texas, has calculated that in 2011, nearly a quarter of the water used in Dimmit County went toward fracking. He projects that the figure will rise to about a third in a few years.
Often landowners sell groundwater to frackers. Water for fracking may sell for 35 to 50 cents a barrel, according to the Texas Water Recycling Association, a new nonprofit advocating for the water recycling industry.
Because of ambiguities in state law, local groundwater authorities differ in whether they require companies to get permits for water wells drilled to supply frackers. Legislation filed this session, Senate Bill 873, would fix the ambiguities and most likely result in increased requirements for permits.
The water demands of hydraulic fracturing contribute to another problem in oil country: wear and tear on roads. Each fracking job may need hundreds of trips by trucks bringing water to the site. The trucks also carry water away from the site. That is because roughly a quarter of the water used in fracking comes back up along with the oil or gas. Additional water, found underground near the oil, also comes up. That “produced water” must also be hauled away.
The chemical and mineral-laced water left over after a fracking job normally goes to a disposal well, where it is injected thousands of feet into the earth. But disposal wells are controversial because people living near them often object to the truck traffic and fear that the wells could contaminate the water supply. The Railroad Commission appears likely to tighten its rules on disposal well construction.
More companies are experimenting with the use of brackish water, an abundant underground resource in Texas. The water contains more salts than freshwater does. It may also contain other elements like boron, which can harm the drilling process, and the reservoirs may be deeper and more expensive to tap.
In testimony last month, Stephen Jester, an engineer with ConocoPhillips, told lawmakers that drilling a deep well in the Eagle Ford Shale region could cost $1 million, versus perhaps $70,000 or $80,000 for a shallower well.
A few companies have branched into water-free fracking. Gasfrac, a Canadian company that uses propane rather than water in fracking, drilled a well last month on a Dimmit County property adjacent to Fitzsimons’ land.
Another alternative that has drawn increasing interest is recycling. One initiative involves recycling city sewage water for use in oil fields. Alpha Reclaim Technology, a year-old company based in Bryan, is buying treated effluent from Karnes City and other municipalities in the Eagle Ford Shale. Last week it made its first effluent sale to an oil fracker, said Jeremy Osborne, its general counsel.
Other companies are creating mobile recycling units to clean water that comes from oil and gas wells and reuse it for fracking. The Railroad Commission is working on rules aimed at making it easier to do this type of recycling. It is expected to take a final vote on the changes this month.
Some have big dreams for technology. “Sometime in the future, the oil and gas industry could even be a net producer of water rather than a net user,” David Porter, a commissioner, said in an interview in January.
This is the first in an occasional series on water and fracking. More articles in this series, which is a collaboration with StateImpact Texas, will run in the coming weeks at texastribune.org and stateimpacttexas.org.


Thursday, March 21, 2013

The Story of Dryden: The Town That Fought Fracking (And Is Winning)

by Earth Justice

An upstate New York town is fighting to preserve its way of life in a lawsuit pitting a small town's rights against an out-of-state oil and gas company’s wishes.
More than a hundred towns in New York have enacted local bans or moratoriums on gas drilling, including the controversial process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which drillers blast millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the ground to extract gas from hard-to-reach deposits deep in the earth.
Among those municipalities is the Town of Dryden—which is now being sued.
In September of 2011, the privately-held Anschutz Exploration Corporation, owned by Forbes-ranked Phillip Anshutz (net worth: $7.5 billion), sued the Town of Dryden (population: 14,500) in a bid to force the town to accept industrial gas drilling—including fracking—within town limits.
The company brought its lawsuit after the Dryden Town Board approved a change in its zoning ordinance, clarifying that oil and gas development activities, including fracking, were "prohibited uses" of land within the town. The Dryden Town Board's unanimous, bipartisan vote followed a petition drive and a series of public hearings, in which residents spoke out 3-to-1 in favor of the change.
This is how it all started. The Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition (DRAC) was created in the spring of 2009 by Dryden residents concerned about the possible upcoming consequences that the hydraulic fracturing of gas wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale may bring not only to their own neighborhoods, but also to the state and region.
In 2010, DRAC members began collecting petition signatures from their fellow residents to ask the Town Board to develop an industrial noise ordinance and to make a firm statement against gas drilling. The journey to the successful passage of the ordinance involved the entire community, through information sessions, a listening project, collaborations with neighboring communities, and much more. DRAC members took their concerns and requests for protective action to the Dryden Town Board, using their citizens' privilege time at the beginning of each meeting. They attended each monthly meeting, reiterating their concerns and reporting on progress to the Dryden Town Board and Town Supervisor.
DRAC member Hilary Lambert recounts the story of how town residents worked together to ensure their concerns would be heard, and to, ultimately, bring about the historic vote:

Photograph icon.Start slideshow.


Fracking requires a heavy industrial buildup, complete with giant well pads containing multiple wells, miles of trucks rumbling down gravel roads, and noisy equipment that runs all night. Fracking sites, which are significant sources of volatile organic compounds, also taint local air quality by increasing ozone levels.
And then there's the issue of water. Each fracking job requires millions of gallons of water laced with sand and toxic chemicals like formaldehyde and hydrochloric acid. Some of the chemicals in fracking fluids are known carcinogens and the health effects of many additives are not fully understood, in large part because industry officials have refused to disclose precisely what they are using.
"The people of Dryden want to preserve the special character of our town and make sure it continues to be a healthy community for generations to come," said Dryden Town Supervisor Mary Ann Sumner.
"The oil and gas industry may wish it were otherwise, but municipalities have the right to determine what types of development are appropriate within their borders. We are firmly committed to defending that right."
 New York State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dryden in February of 2012. The case is now being heard by an appellate court—though with a change in plaintiff. Norse Energy, the U.S. subsidiary of a Norwegian oil and gas company, has replaced Anschutz Exploration in the litigation—Norse then filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings the following month.
Earthjustice is representing the Town of Dryden in the appeal, a case that will determine whether localities can keep heavy industry like oil and gas development off the land within their borders.
The case is being watched closely as towns in other states like Colorado and Ohio pass fracking bans of their own and are threatened with lawsuits by the oil and gas industry. A victory in New York could provide encouragement and hope to communities around the country.
"The people of Dryden stood up to defend their way of life against the oil and gas industry. And, against stiff odds, they won," said Deborah Goldberg, managing attorney of Earthjustice's Northeast regional office and an expert on the environmental impacts of industrial gas development.
"The [lower court] ruling makes clear that local officials have the right to decide what industrial activities are appropriate within their communities."
"The Town of Dryden has a very strong case," said Deborah. "Two courts have ruled that localities retain their longstanding power to regulate land use, including by prohibiting industrial activities such as gas development in their communities. We'll do everything we can to ensure this victory stands."