ALEC Exposed in Oklahoma-Banner.jpg

CMD sent two reporters to track ALEC in Oklahoma

Click here to help support our future investigations.

Texas and fracking

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the FrackSwarm portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.

This article is part of the FrackSwarm coverage of fracking.
Sub-articles:
Related articles:

As of March 2012 Texas had listed nearly 6,000 oil and gas fracking wells on FracFocus, an industry fracking disclosure site. The Texas list was by far the most of any state in the country.[1] In 2011, Texas had about 93,000 natural-gas wells, up from around 58,000 in 2000.[2] According to the Texas Railroad Commission, more than 15,300 wells have been drilled in the Barnett Shale underlying Texas.[3]

Contents

Introduction

Barnett Shale: An Aerial View

Some have suggested the Barnett Shale underlying Texas may contain the largest producible reserves of any onshore natural gas field in the United States. Industry analysts say the field is proven to have 2.5×1012 cu ft (71 km3) of natural gas, and has been estimated to contain as much as 30×1012 cu ft (850 km3) of natural gas resources. Oil also has been found in lesser quantities. The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight" gas reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted without hydraulic fracturing.[4]

Major portions of the field are in urban areas, including the rapidly growing Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, creating controversy within different communities over whether and how fracking of the Barnett Shale should be allowed.[5]

In July 2010, ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy finalized a merger agreement with Ellora Energy, adding 46,000 acres to XTO's reserves in the Haynesville and Bossier plays of east Texas.[6]

History

Photo courtesy of geology.com

It has been argued that the first "frac job" - creating fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations - was performed in 1947,[7] but that the current fracking technique was first commercially used in the late 1990s in the Barnett Shale in Texas.[8]

Pearsall Shale, Texas

Operators have completed approximately 50 wells in the Pearsall Shale in the Maverick Basin of south Texas. The most active company in the play has been the former TXCO Resources, although EnCana and Anadarko Petroleum have also acquired large land positions in the basin.[citation needed]

Eagle Ford Shale

The Eagle Ford Shale is a sedimentary rock formation from the Late Cretaceous age underlying much of South and East Texas in United States, consisting of organic matter-rich fossiliferous marine shale. It derives its name from the old community of Eagle Ford, now a neighborhood in West Dallas, where outcrops of the Eagle Ford Shale were first observed. Such outcrops can be seen in the geology of the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex, and are labeled on images with the label "Kef". The Eagle Ford Shale is one of the most actively drilled targets for oil and gas in the United States in 2010.[9]

Economic impacts

TX drilling permits.jpg

A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported over 100,000 new leases were recorded in Tarrant County in 2007. Terms of leases have included $15,000 per acre ($37,000/ha) and a 25% royalty for homeowners in Ryan Place, Mistletoe Heights, and Berkley on Fort Worth's south side, and $22,500 per acre and a 25% royalty for a group of homeowners in south Arlington. Later articles in the Fort Worth Weekly report that many signed lease agreements have not been honored, with lessors alleging that they were paid significantly less than promised or were not paid at all.[10][11]

Drilling industry advocacy groups claim that by 2015 the Barnett Shale may be responsible for more than 108,000 jobs.[12] Offsets to tax revenues may include cleanup costs for toxic byproducts of gas drilling, such as benzene and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).[13] Environmental groups and state regulators have come under increasing pressure to begin forcing cleanups, and one group, the San Juan Citizens Alliance, has sued to force the EPA to tighten regulations.[14]

Social impacts

Natural gas emissions at Geosouthern Energy Jordan A&B facility in Eagle Ford Shale

Proximity to schools

In 2012, a spatial database being built and used by the Department of Geography at the University of North Texas found a disparity in the proximity of gas wells to elementary schools in certain Barnett Shale neighborhoods: somewhat surprisingly, researchers found that the middle-class neighborhoods in Denton and Tarrant County - not poor neighborhoods - were more likely to have gas wells near their elementary schools.

Generally, the researchers found inner-city neighborhoods and their elementary schools to be the most "socially vulnerable" to drilling (considering measures such as income and language). However, they also found those neighborhoods were no more likely to have gas wells near their elementary schools than schools in middle-class neighborhoods, such as the outermost areas of Denton and Tarrant County cities. One possible explanation is that inner-city neighborhoods are already densely developed, leaving little room for new gas wells and pipelines.

Locally, school districts in Aubrey, Lake Dallas, Pilot Point and Sanger have not signed leases. Four other districts - Denton, Argyle, Krum and Ponder - have, according to documents obtained in open records requests. According to Denton documents, leases and mineral pooling agreements for gas wells drilled near Denton schools include Guyer High School, which has a well site within 500 feet, and McNair Elementary School, which is about 1,000 feet from a gas well. The state's required setback is 200 feet.[15]

Environmental and health impacts

Air pollution

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has reported that storage tanks used in the exploration and production of natural gas and oil are the largest source of VOCs in the Barnett Shale.[16]

By 2009, residents of DISH, Texas living near 11 natural gas compression stations became concerned about the odor, noise and health problems they were experiencing, including headaches and blackouts, as well as neurological defects and blindness in their horses. Their mayor reported the accounts to Texas regulators and eventually hired a private environmental consultant, who in 2009 found that air samples contained high levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens.[17]

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found airborne benzene near Barnett Shale wells at levels of up to 500 to 1,000 parts per billion — more than five times higher than allowable limits. The commission's results came shortly after tests conducted by Deborah Rogers, who runs an organic goat farm in west Fort Worth and by the town of DISH in Denton County. Those privately funded tests showed, along with benzene and other chemicals, high levels of carbon disulfide, which can lead to neurological problems. Honeycutt said the commission began finding plumes of volatile organic compounds at Barnett oil and gas sites as far back as 2007.[18]

According to a 2009 Environmental Defense Fund report, the natural gas and oil industry in the Barnett Shale area produced more smog-forming emissions during the summer of 2009 than were produced by all motor vehicles in the Dallas Fort Worth metropolitan area.[19]

Using computer models, the Houston Advanced Research Center estimated that emissions from natural gas compressor stations and flares may be contributing significant amounts of ground-level ozone and formaldehyde in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.[20]

Silica

In July 2012, two federal agencies released research highlighting dangerous levels of exposure to silica sand at oil and gas well sites in five states: Colorado, Texas, North Dakota, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Silica is a key component used in fracking. High exposure to silica can lead to silicosis, a potentially fatal lung disease linked to cancer. Nearly 80 percent of all air samples taken by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health showed exposure rates above federal recommendations. Nearly a third of all samples surpassed the recommended limits by 10 times or more. The results triggered a worker safety hazard alert by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.[21]

Benzene

The non-profit group Shaletest.org monitored gas drilling sites in Texas's Barnett Shale in 2012 and found elevated levels of several chemicals, including toulene and the carcinogen benzene.

Tremors

A 2012 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed 67 earthquakes recorded between November 2009 and September 2011 in a 43.5-mile (70 kilometers) grid covering northern Texas' Barnett Shale formation. The study found that all 24 of the earthquakes with the most reliably located epicenters originated within 2 miles (3.2 km) of one or more injection wells for wastewater disposal. The study was headed by associate director and senior research scientist Cliff Frohlich at the University of Texas at Austin's Institute for Geophysics.

Before a series of small quakes on Halloween 2008, the Dallas area had never recorded a magnitude-3 earthquake, according to Frohlich. USGS data shows that, since then, there has been at least one quake at or above a magnitude 3 every year except 2010. Frohlich said the intensification in seismic activity in the Dallas area came the year after ground just south of (and thousands of feet below) the Dallas airport began to be inundated with wastewater from hydraulic fracturing. The injection well has been out of use since September 2011, but though water is no longer being added, lingering pressure differences from wastewater injection could still be contributing to the lubrication of long-stuck faults, according to Frohlich.

Three unusual earthquakes shook a suburb west of Dallas on September 29 and 30, 2012. The first quake was a magnitude 3.4, hitting a few miles southeast of the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport. It was followed 4 minutes later by a 3.1-magnitude aftershock that originated nearby. A third, magnitude-2.1 quake struck 24 hours later, with an epicenter a couple miles east of the first. No injuries were reported. Frohlich believes they are connected to wastewater disposal.[22]

Canadian Company Tests Waterless Fracking in Texas

In March 2013 the Texas Tribune reported that a new technology, dubbed "waterless fracking," could perhaps address the problem of water use in fracking operations. It was reported that "A Canadian company called GasFrac is using a combination of gelled propane and butane to conduct fracking, without the use of water. The technology is new and may cost more than conventional hydraulic fracking. But waterless fracking will have its attractions if the water shortage in Texas persists. While the process requires a lot of propane and is said to be less effective than water in deep formations, propane is readily available in south Texas and also has the advantage that it is less likely to damage shale formations than water. In addition to propane, some companies are experimenting with carbon dioxide and nitrogen."[23]

Legislative issues and regulations

Fracking and schools

In 2011, State Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, filed a bill to prevent drilling within 1,200 feet of public schools statewide. The measure was one of many proposals that died after facing industry opposition. Burnam said he would continue pushing the measure but said publicly that he believes industry-friendly lawmakers will continue thwarting all but "watered-down" laws.[24]

Disclosure rules

Due to rules that went into effect on February 1, 2012, Texas state law requires the names of products, chemicals, and their CAS numbers (the unique codes that the Chemical Abstracts Service assigns to individual chemical compounds) within 30 days after well completion, although deadlines may vary slightly. Only hazardous chemicals are matched with the products they go into and their concentration amounts. Companies are not required to disclose trade secret information unless the attorney general or court determines the information is not entitled to trade secret protection. A landowner or state agency can challenge trade secret classification. The information cannot be withheld from health care professionals in an emergency.[25]

In December 2011, ALEC adopted model legislation based on the Texas law addressing the public disclosure of chemicals in fracking fluids. The disclosure bill provides large loopholes for companies wanting to protect fracking chemical “trade secrets.” The ALEC model legislation has since provided the basis for similar bills submitted in five states: Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, New York, and Ohio. According to the New York Times, the legislation was sponsored by ExxonMobil.[26]

Texas Railroad Commission

The Texas Railroad Commission's regulations related to oil and gas well construction and water protection, while not specifically directed at hydraulic fracturing, is meant to protect surface and ground water.[27]

Texas agency seeks to decrease industrial flaring

In May 2012 the Texas Railroad Commission announced they wanted to ensure that current rules regarding flaring were being followed. The agency also stated that regulations ought to ensure flaring of fracking gas was a last resort. Industries use “flaring” to burn off excess gases which helps prevent a buildup that could cause an explosion, but also pollutes the air. Newer technologies allow industry to reduce or eliminate the use of flaring.[28]

Regulatory violations

Range Resources

In December 2010, the EPA determined that natural gas drilling by Range Resources near homes in Parker County, Texas caused or contributed to the contamination of at least two residential drinking water wells with "extremely high levels of methane," as well as benzene. The EPA ordered the company to step in immediately to stop the contamination, provide drinking water to the affected residents, and provide methane gas monitors to the homeowners. EPA also issued an imminent and substantial endangerment order under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA said it has data showing the presence of natural gas at the two wells, and ordered Range to investigate other nearby properties to determine if their drinking water is at risk.[29]

In a hearing called shortly thereafter, the Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas drilling in Texas, exonerated Range. One member of the commission called EPA's action "a frontal assault on domestic natural gas production." EPA pressed ahead in federal court, but before the trial court ruled, an element of the case went to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans.[30]

In March 2012, the EPA withdrew its order requiring Range Resources to provide water for the two North Texas families. The agency joined with Range seeking dismissal of the case in the Court of Appeals, stating that its decision allowed the agency to shift the focus “away from litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction.”[31] In a letter sent as part of the dismissal agreement, Range committed to testing 20 wells in Parker County four times in the next year.[32]

In January 2013, the AP reported that it obtained confidential documents showing the EPA asked independent scientist Geoffrey Thyne to analyze samples taken from 32 water wells near Range's Parker County wells in 2010, and Thyne concluded from chemical testing that gas in the water could have originated from Range's wells. After the tests, in December 2010, the EPA issued its emergency order, but rescinded the order in March 2011. The AP concludes that its confidential report "and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination."[33]

Citizen activism

Groups Urge Investigation of EPA Actions in Texas Water Contamination Case

On February 11, 2013 more than 80 organizations from 12 states and a New York State Senator called on the inspector general of the EPA to investigate a decision to drop legal action against a drilling company despite evidence that it had polluted residents’ well water near Fort Worth, Texas.

In the joint press release, the groups stated, "The organizations sent a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., asking him to broaden an ongoing investigation of a case that made national news last year when the EPA dropped an enforcement action against Range Resources Ltd. after earlier invoking rare emergency authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. New York State Senator Tony Avella is sending a similar letter later today. Elkins began investigating the case after six U.S. senators asked him last June to determine whether EPA had followed proper procedures."[34]

Citizen groups

Industry groups

Companies

Reports

Environment Texas report on external costs

The 2012 Environment Texas report, "The Costs of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling’s Environmental Damage," looked at the external costs of fracking - damage to natural resources, drinking water contamination, economic impacts like home values, health problems, and public infrastructure - and concluded that the overall costs associated with fracking would outweigh the economic benefits for states. The study calls for comprehensively restricting and regulating fracking to reduce its environmental, health, and community impacts, and ensuring up-front financial accountability by requiring oil and gas companies to post much higher bonds that "reflect the true costs of fracking."

Environmental Integrity Project on pollution

The 2012 report by the Environmental Integrity Project, "Nearly 93,000 Tons of Pollution Released From Upsets and 'Emission Events' at Natural Gas and Petrochemical Plants in Texas," found that flares, leaking pipelines, and tanks emitted 92,000 tons of toxic chemicals into the air during accidents, break-downs, and maintenance at Texas oil and gas facilities, refineries, and petrochemical plants from 2009 to 2011. The data was collected from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and shows that, in addition to the emissions from normal operations, more than 42,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and just over 50,000 tons of smog-forming volatile organic compounds were released from 2009 through 2011. Natural gas operations, including well heads, pipelines, compressors, boosters, and storage systems, accounted for more than 85 percent of total sulfur dioxide and nearly 80 percent of the VOCs released during these emission events. The report shows a "pattern of neglect" as the pollution from these events drags on for weeks or months.

Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods

A report by the Fort Worth League of Neighborhoods in February 2011 called for buffers of 1 mile, or 5,280 feet, between gas wells and schools to protect students from air pollution. Industry supporters disputed the factual basis for that recommendation.[35]

Earthworks

The 2011 Earthworks report, "Natural Gas Flowback: the Dark Side of the Boom: How the Texas gas boom affects community health and safety," examined the data on the health effects of gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing on Texans throughout the Barnett Shale, including issues of water contamination, water depletion, and air pollution. The report recommended that:

  • The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must enforce emission limits from oil and gas exploration and production equipment;
  • The Texas Railroad Commission should adopt rules that provide the public with full public disclosure of oil and gas drilling and fracking fluids, as well as implement rules requiring closed-loop drilling systems and water-based drilling fluids;
  • The Texas Water Development Board should exercise its authority to evaluate groundwater resources and the impact that hydraulic fracturing withdrawal is having on groundwater resources, and implement rules requiring recycling of flowback water; and
  • Authority to regulate air emissions from drilling and oversee permitting should be overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through a federal advisory commission that includes citizen representation. The agency should also identify the sources of methane contaminants in groundwater.

University of Texas study

In February 2012 a University of Texas study, "Separating Fact from Fiction In Shale Gas Development," found no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth. Critics say that proponents of hydraulic fracturing have incorrectly reported that the study found no environmental contamination,[36][37] when the study found that all steps in the process except the actual injection of the fluid (which proponents designated "hydraulic fracturing") have resulted in environmental contamination.[38] It was later reported that the lead researcher Charles Groat was a member of the board of gas producer PXP: company filings indicated that in 2011, he received more than $400,000 in compensation from the gas company, which has fracking operations in Texas.[39] On August 13, 2012, the University of Texas at Austin appointed Norman Augustine to chair a three-member panel charged by the university with independently reviewing the study led by Groat. Yet Augustine also has gas industry ties, serving on the board of Houston-based ConocoPhillips (or its predecessor company) from 1989 to 2008.[40]

Resources

References

  1. "Fracking chemicals disclosures set off few alarms" Matthew Tresaugue and John MacCormack Chron.com, April 1, 2012.
  2. Ian Urbina, "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers," NY Times, February 26, 2011.
  3. Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe and Lowell Brown, "Stuck in the middle," Denton Record Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2012.
  4. Barnett Shale Economic Impact Study, May 2007, p.16.
  5. Marc Airhart Won't You Be My Neighbor?. Jackson School of Geosciences. January 2007
  6. Jack Williams, "Shale Gas: The Keys to Unlocking its Full Potential: Speech by XTO President Jack Williams," ExxonMobil Website, June 14, 2011.
  7. Charlez (1997). Rock Mechanics, 239. 
  8. Bill McKibben (8 March 2012). "Why Not Frack?". The New York Review of Books 59 (4). Retrieved on 21 February 2012. 
  9. "Eagle Ford Shale - South Texas - Natural Gas & Oil Field" OilShaleGas.com
  10. Lobdill, Jerry (2009-10-21). Leasing Our Lives Away. Fort Worth Weekly. Fort Worth Weekly. Retrieved on 2009-10-21.
  11. McGraw, Dan (2009-04-27). Courthouse Gusher. Fort Worth Weekly. Fort Worth Weekly. Retrieved on 2010-03-31.
  12. Louise S. Durham, Hot Barnett play creating wealth, AAPG Explorer, Sept. 2007, p.46–47.
  13. Heinkel-Wolfe, Peggy (2008-01-15). "Gas drilling’s dirty side effect", Denton Record Chronicle, Denton Publishing. Retrieved on 2009-12-27. 
  14. Lee, Mike; San Juan Citizens Alliance (2009-01-27). "EPA sued over lack of oil and gas regulations", Fort Worth Star Telegram, McClatchy. Retrieved on 2009-12-27. 
  15. Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe and Lowell Brown, "Stuck in the middle," Denton Record Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2012.
  16. Elena Craft, "Do Shale Gas Activities Play A Role In Rising Ozone Levels?" Mom’s Clean Air Force, July 13, 2012.
  17. Burnett, John, “Health issues follow natural gas drilling in Texas,” National Public Radio, November 3, 2009.
  18. Lee, Mike, “State worried about air pollution near Barnett Shale wells,” Star-Telegram (Texas), November 22, 2009.
  19. Al Armendariz, “Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost- Effective Improvements,” January 26, 2009 at 1, 7, 8 and 18.
  20. Eduardo P. Olaguer, "The potential near-source ozone impacts of upstream oil and gas industry emissions," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 62, Issue 8, 2012.
  21. Adam Voge, "Fracking dust alert not shocking in Wyoming," Wyoming Star Tribune, July 30, 2012.
  22. Eli MacKinnon, "Unusual Dallas Earthquakes Linked to Fracking, Expert Says," LiveScience.com, Oct. 2, 2012.
  23. "Canadian Company Tests Waterless Fracking in Texas" Matt Whittington, Yahoo, March 27, 2013.
  24. Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe and Lowell Brown, "Stuck in the middle," Denton Record Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2012.
  25. "Fracking Chemical Disclosure Rules," ProPublica, Feb. 16, 2012.
  26. Mike McIntire, "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist," New York Times, April 21, 2012.
  27. "Regulations" GroundWork, accessed April 24, 2012.
  28. "Texas agency seeks to decrease industrial flaring" Fuel Flex, May 23, 2012
  29. "EPA Issues an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order to Protect Drinking Water in Southern Parker County," EPA, December 2010.
  30. Mike Soraghan, "EPA's retreat in Range case is latest score for industry, states," E&E, April 2, 2012.
  31. "EPA Backs Down From Fracking Contamination Order" Associated Press, March 30, 2012.
  32. Mike Soraghan, "EPA's retreat in Range case is latest score for industry, states," E&E, April 2, 2012.
  33. Ramit Plushnick-Masti, "REPORT: The EPA Backtracked On A Tainted Water Finding After A Driller Protested," Associated Press, Jan. 16, 2013.
  34. "Call to investigate the EPA for its withdrawal of legal action against Range Resources" Earthworks, February 11, 2013.
  35. Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe and Lowell Brown, "Stuck in the middle," Denton Record Chronicle, Feb. 11, 2012.
  36. Vaughan, Vicki (16 February 2012). Fracturing ‘has no direct’ link to water pollution, UT study finds. Retrieved on 3 March 2012.
  37. Munro, Margaret (17 February 2012). Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver. Retrieved on 3 March 2012.
  38. Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development. Retrieved on 29 February 2012.
  39. Jim Efstathiou Jr., "Frackers Fund University Research That Proves Their Case," Bloomberg, July 22, 2012.
  40. Vicki Vaughan, "Panelist reviewing fracturing study has his own industry ties," Chron.com, August 16, 2012.

Related SourceWatch articles

Click on the map below for state-by-state information on fracking:

Alabama and fracking Alaska and fracking Arizona and fracking Arkansas and fracking California and fracking Colorado and fracking Connecticut and fracking Delaware and fracking Florida and fracking Georgia and fracking Hawaii and fracking Idaho and fracking Illinois and fracking Indiana and fracking Iowa and fracking Kansas and fracking Kentucky and fracking Louisiana and fracking Maine and fracking Maryland and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Michigan and fracking Minnesota and fracking Mississippi and fracking Missouri and fracking Montana and fracking Nebraska and fracking Nevada and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking New Mexico and fracking New York and fracking North Carolina and fracking North Dakota and fracking Ohio and fracking Oklahoma and fracking Oregon and fracking Pennsylvania and fracking Rhode Island and fracking South Carolina and fracking South Dakota and fracking Tennessee and fracking Texas and fracking Utah and fracking Vermont and fracking Virginia and fracking Washington State and fracking West Virginia and fracking Wisconsin and fracking Wyoming and fracking Delaware and fracking Maryland and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Connecticut and fracking West Virginia and fracking Vermont and fracking Rhode Island and frackingMap of USA with state names.png
About this image

External links

External Articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
How To
Other Info
Other Policies
Google AdSense
Toolbox