Shale Watch

The Houston Chronicle reports that the number of oil and gas rigs fell this year, with Arkansas losing a total of three.  That's not good for a state that increased the severance tax on gas extraction by five percent and was counting on the money.  Also, natural gas prices are falling, making investments in gas companies a little more risky than they used to be.  The AP, who ranked the natural gas boom in Arkansas one of their top ten stories of the year (saying it made the state recession-proof, and that everybody was getting rich), has this on the projected shortfall in revenue.       

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been awhile, so sorry for the brief absence, but I wanted to enjoy the holidays and not think too much about all these natural gas related problems and issues.  Rod Bryan from the Arkansas Conservation Alliance sent me this video.  Max linked to it on the main blog awhile back, but I thought it was really informative, so I wanted to post it here.  Let me know what you think about it, and check out Rod's site too if you get the chance. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

A reader calls me with a noise complaint, we'll call him John.   John says the natural gas-related business beside their house is making their life a living hell.  The noise and bright lights keep them up at night, ruin their days and make their home a place they dread being.  John lives in a town with no noise ordinance and has been told that, basically, nothing can be done.  Anybody else have a similar problem?  

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew DeMillo of AP has this story.  Apparently the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality will receive $3.5 million to hire new inspectors to keep an eye on the Fayetteville Shale gas drilling operations and after-effects.  That number was originally somewhere around $300,000 to hire four new inspectors.  There's no word yet on how many inspectors the agency will now be able to afford. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some of you have been asking about the best way to let somebody know that pollution is happening in your neck of the woods.  I don't think I have addressed those questions directly before, so I'll do my best. 

If you have a complaint regarding pollution you should contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).  This state agency is charged with protecting the environment, especially waters of the state that could be harmed by waste from natural gas drilling operations.  You can go to this website to find out where your complaints need to be addressed as ADEQ has many divisions (hazardous waste, air pollution, etc.).  Also, the public affairs office can be reached at (501) 682 - 0915.    

ADEQ receives a lot of complaints from citizens and a lot of people send them photographs they've taken themselves of things like, say, frac water in a creek bed.  One problem with these complaints is that, unless there is some indication, ADEQ cannot be sure when these pictures were taken, or exactly where they were taken.  So if you come across something particularly egregious and take a photo, be sure to adjust your camera so the date appears in the corner.  If you can't figure that out, take a copy of the newspaper.  If the location isn't easily identifiable (say, by a roadsign, etc.) then take a GPS, if you've got one, and take a photo of the screen.  The point is, be as exact as you can.  Otherwise your complaints might end up in the trash can.   

Here are some photos of Central Arkansas Disposal, the site that ADEQ recently told to stop accepting drilling fluids. 

Here drilling fluids are pooled under a sprinkler irrigation system.  This is an unapproved application of waste.

An open-ended irrigation pipe.  You can see fluids pooled on the ground.

Drilling fluids have been drained from this holding pond (this is the edge of the pond).  The inspection form indicates that the 24 inch freeboard (the wall meant to hold the fluids in) was not being maintained. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (2)

Hinchey pictured on the right

Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is asking New York's Department of Environmental Conservation to get tough with the oil and gas industry.

Hinchey asked the agency to "develop and implement the highest standards possible for protecting human health and the environment" for permitting and regulating new gas drilling operations. In addition, Hinchey called for an analysis of the cumulative impacts from the expected proliferation of drilling, full review and public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals, and requirement of best management practices by gas companies to ensure the protection groundwater, aquifers and surface waters.

Hinchey wrote a long letter to the department outlining his requests including:

• Ensure oversight capacity before issuing new permits
• Consider cumulative impacts from Marcellus Shale drilling
• Provide Notification and Opportunity for Comment to Municipalities
• Develop and Require Best Management Practices
• Assess potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing and chemical additives

Maybe out state legislators could take a page out of the Hinchey playbook.

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (1)

That's Salazar in the cowboy hat.  (Photo by Kathryn Scott Osler - Denver Post)

Such is life.  Some in the environmental community are upset with the pick of Sen. Ken Salazar for Secretary of the Interior.  The Post Independent of Glenwood Springs, CO has more here.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, criticized Salazar’s selection. He said the Department of the Interior “desperately needs a strong, forward looking, reform-minded secretary.”

"Unfortunately, Ken Salazar is not that man,” he said, citing Salazar’s support for offshore drilling along Florida’s coasts and his vote against increased fuel efficiency standards for the U.S. automobile fleet. 

PS - Commentor little red river left a question in his blog comment yesterday on the post about yet another cease and desist order issued by ADEQ.  I've tried to answer that question and posted it within the comment.  

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

Central Arkansas Disposal in Searcy, AR, has been given a cease and desist order by ADEQ.  I got a call about his late yesterday evening and couldn't get a response from ADEQ in time.  Channel 4 has a report here.  Last week we told you about a cease and desist order issued to Fayetteville Shale Land Farm, LLC, near Carlisle.  There was no fine issued in accordance with that order.  The KARK report does not mention a fine with this one either.  With all the polluting these guys are doing, they should probably pony up some cash to remedy the situation, if that can even be done. 

When I have more information, I will be sure to post it.  I won't be in the office until this afernoon on account of the weather.  Maybe I've got some info from ADEQ on my machine.  This one is pretty egregious.  I'd be interested to see the inspection report. 

UPDATE: Here's a copy of the Emergency Order.  The order says that drilling fluids were being dumped directly from one of the reserve pits on-site into Raft Creek, presenting "an imminent danger to public health and welfare."  Also included in the report is the account from an Arkansas Game and Fish biologist who observed "fish kills" in water connected to Raft Creek by wetlands. 

Teresa Marks passed along this comment regarding fines: "There is not generally going to be a fine assessed with an Emergency Order as it is designed to address an imminent situation, however, an enforcement action likely will follow an Emergency Order and that is when penalties can be assessed."

I have requested a copy of the inspection form.  Hopefully I will have some pictures up soon.  This is the second site in two weeks to be found in violation of state regulations that impact our water.    
  

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (6)

Here's a good article with a little bit of perspective on the whole "Drill baby drill" argument.  It's from a website that I visit regularly called The Oil Drum that usually has lengthy blog posts with some pretty detailed analysis of what's going on in the oil and gas industries.  It's not too long, and even has some graphs to help you along.  The authors boil it down to three main points:

The macro relationship of drilling and energy production is quite clear, and can be summarized in three main points:

1. There is very little chance that even a great increase in drilling will significantly increase US domestic oil production. Given the extraordinary strategic and economic importance of oil, this a critically important point.

2. There is more hope for natural gas, with production likely to continue increasing for some time. However, unless you are a true believer that we are in a completely "new era", the statistical relationship of diminishing returns on increased drilling activity is likely to also sharply constrain the gains possible in the domestic production of gas... 

3. The reason for the diminishing returns on drilling effort is that the geologists know their business. Historically, the overall energy we gain from domestic drilling has shown essentially no response to increased drilling effort. This is because periods of high drilling activity generally open only marginal resources that do surprisingly little to increase overall national production.

After the GOP convention, Thomas Friedman said in an interview with NPR's Terry Gross, "When I heard Rudi Guiliani lead that crowd (at the Repub convention) in chanting 'Drill Baby Drill,' I thought, what planet are these people inhabiting? It’s as if on the eve of the advent of computer technology, the Republicans were out there saying 'Let’s stick with the IBM Selectric Typewriter.' Type baby type. Type. Type. Type." 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (1)

While we're still struggling with how to deal with all the problems that are starting to pop up due to the Fayetteville Shale natural gas exploration, other state and even county governments aren't waiting around.  Santa Fe County in New Mexico recently passed an ordinance calling for the gas companies to pony-up for some of the unexpected costs that come with gas exploration, like roads and emergency medical services. 

The draft approved Tuesday is a massive document that takes a multipronged approach to balancing the rights of oil and gas developers with environmental concerns and capital infrastructure needs. It requires potential oil and gas operators to submit numerous studies on animal habitats and proximity to water sources and to be financially responsible for such needs as new roads and increased emergency medical services.

The Santa Fe New Mexican has more.  Also, Colorado has passed some new regulations as well. 

State regulators approved new rules for oil and gas development in an 8-0 vote Wednesday, in response to new laws that required them to consider effects development would have on water, wildlife and communities...

The new regulations would establish protection zones around streams that serve drinking water supplies, require companies to tell state and emergency responders what chemicals they use in drilling operations, and allow state health and wildlife officials to consult on development. 

Why can't we do this?  Can anybody tell me?

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

Drilling fluids pooled at a land-application disposal facility near Carlisle. 

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has issued an emergency order to Fayetteville Shale Land Farms, LLC, a drilling waste land-application site located about three miles west of Carlisle, citing numerous violations and ordering the company to stop accepting fluids for disposal. 

ADEQ inspectors found oil in the "staging pond," or reserve pit, where drilling fluids are stored before being land-applied.  These fluids are supposed to be water-based and contain no oil.  The ADEQ permit prohibits the disposal of frac-water and other oil-based drilling fluids at these sites.  The walls around the pit were also insufficient, failing to meet the 24 inch requirement set forth by the permit.  Fluids were also over-applied to the land which resulted in pooling (as pictured above). 

Probably most disturbing, inspectors found that drilling fluids had been applied within 100 feet of White Oak Branch, a stream that runs nearby.  Water samples taken from the creek show a significantly higher level of conductivity downstream than upstream.   

These types of violations are not new.  Other land-application sites around the state have consistently violated state regulations.  This is the first one, that I know of, that has resulted in an emergency order calling on the owners to stop what they're doing.  How novel?  You break the rules, you don't get to play anymore. 

You can read the order here. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (4)

This is sort of an update from this morning.  I had heard of this a while back.  Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council tipped me off and I never got around to blogging it.  It looks like a bill being proposed in Congress would make the disclosure of frac water components a matter of federal law under the Clean Water Act.  A reporter from The Fort-Worth Star-Telegram, a paper that has done a pretty excellent job reporting on the goings-on in the Barnett Shale, has this story.  Here's a clip. 

And many of those chemicals [in frac water] — like sodium bicarbonate, or ordinary baking soda — are benign.

But others are potentially deadly, and disclosure requirements are lax, environmentalists say. What’s more, even the small percentage used in wells amounts to thousands of gallons of potential contaminants, environmentalists say. Once the chemicals are used, they must be disposed of.

A bill by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., would require companies to disclose the drilling chemicals they use and would subject them to the federal Clean Water Act.

The stakes are high because gas drilling is beginning to push into neighborhoods, near parks and next to water reservoirs in Tarrant County.

"The challenge all communities face is trying to figure out what’s going into their air and water, what’s going into their soil," said Jennifer Goldman, a researcher with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.

Wouldn't it be nice if federal laws and regulations like the "Clean Water Act" actually helped protect our water?  Man, I'm not going to miss the Bush administration...

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (1)

I know.  I know.  There's been a lot of stuff here on this blog about the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing.  It's where a stream of water, sand and chemicals are shot into a well in order to crack shale formations and release natural gas.  One reason I write so much about it is that the word is a really good substitute for another word begginning in F, that I'm probably not supposed to write. 

We're learning more and more about this process as time goes by.  Some states, like Pennsylvania have required drilling companies to release the components of their frack fluid.  The companies usually withhold this information, claiming that it is proprietary, sort of like the recipe for Coke, or something like that.  Anyway, the information floweth like frack water and I can hardly keep up, so here's a rag-tag bunch of links for you to check out.   

Here's an article from the River Reporter in New York about the disclosure of frack fluids in PA.  Here's the graph to go along with it.   

Here's an interesting link that I got from one of our loyal readers.  It's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, from a hearing on the applicability of federal requirements to protect public health and the Environment from oil and gas development.  I haven't had time to digest it, but it's interesting information on frack fluid, health risks, and all kinds of scary frackin' stuff. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

You run it.  This was a lesson that we learned yet again last Thursday.  When you're working for a weekly paper it's always tough to decide when to go with something immediately or when to hold on to it for the next week's issue.  I learned about the moratorium on ADEQ permits for land-application sites the day before Thanksgiving.  We decided to hold it for the paper the following week, and on that same day, the DG ran the same story.  Oh well.  The only problem, for us yocals, is that the cut-off for permit applications was November 15.  That means the Prairie County Landfarm permit is still being considered.  ADEQ director Teresa Marks says she's not sure when a decision will be reached on that permit.  Officials are still reviewing and responding to public comments.

In other news, Marks says that ADEQ will try to come up with legislation in the next session to require financial assurance for these sites.  As it stands, these sites do not require any type of bond or financial assurance, like other types of permits issued by ADEQ.  Click here for the initial story.    

Click here for our tid-bit on the dump-site moratorium.  (You'll have to scroll down a bit).
 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've got numerous links from our readers over the past couple of days.  It looks like some major outlets are starting to catch on, or in the case of some, continue their fine work on hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) and the processes's potentially damaging effects on water. 

Read more at Business Week, Pro Publica and the Scientific American.  And thanks to all of you for the heads up. 

UPDATE: Add these to yesterday's list.  We've got ourselves a frackin' bandwagon. Denver Post.  International Herald Tribune.

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (1)

Rod Bryan over at the Arkansas Conservation Alliance has been a busy man lately.  He sends one video, a guerrilla-inspection if you will, called "A Day in the Fayetteville Shale." 

Also, here's a brief discussion on water issues raised by shale exploration, complete with Hulk hands. 

Rod also passes along some info on a friendly gathering: This Wednesday night (November 12) there will be a potluck from 6:PM to 9:PM at: 101 North Woodrow (big green house at corner of Markham and Woodrow). After dinner we will be conducting an eco--musical-educational experiment and would love to have you join in. Please don't hesitate to call me with questions... info@arkansasconservation.org.

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

(Reserve Pit Near Greenwood, AR)

Teresa Marks, Executive Director of ADEQ, said reserve pits containing natural gas drilling waste will now be randomly inspected.  It looks like all the pressure from the Times and from other concerned citizens might be paying off.  As it stands, there aren't enough inspectors to randomly inspect every site.  Maybe with some help from the legislature, that will change.  Be sure to call your representatives and tell them you want more stringent guidelines for drilling waste, and more protections for our water.   

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

Max has had a couple of good posts today about the Game and Fish Commission.  It turns out not everyone is as happy as they are that they got $35 million for the leases from Chesapeake Energy, but don't have to share it with anyone. 

Check out the Arkansas Blog here and here for more info. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (1)

Chesapeake Energy released their financial and operational results for the third quarter of 2008.  Net income was 3.3 billion.  Production was up 15% from third quarter results last year.  Go here for the tiringly long report. 
 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)

In honor of Halloween, why don't you send in your horror stories or other goulish experiences related to natural gas issues in AR, whether it's drilling, water issues, noise-complaints, or whatever else ails you.  Feel free to include any other questions or concerns.  Send to gerard@arktimes.com. 

Posted by Gerard Matthews | Permalink | Comments (0)