New Gas Well on my property by XTO in Texas

[dave1949]

There are a lot of people that own mineral rights and a whole lot more that work in the oil industry. Most of the land owers in this county own their minerals or part of them and have seen no ill effects of fracking - YET. In this area a hundred years ago people use to come in their horse drawn buggies to the springs and bogs to see the natural gas and blue flames dance around. It was their source of entertainment. And that was long before any wells were drilled.

Judging from the 41% of Denton voters who voted against the ban, it must be about that many who work in the oil industry or wish to use their mineral rights.

The articles I've read said the town has tried accommodating the well activities in the past but that didn't seem to be a viable solution. Never having seen Denton, I can't judge them. All I know is they tried to use a democratic process to make a self-determination of what fits in their municipality and what doesn't. That is nothing out of the ordinary way of things.

The Texas House gave hindering state development as a reason for denying local control. How is Texas going to have, and has had, development without the hundreds of "Dentons" that make up metropolitan areas like Dallas? So really, they are talking about hindering the oil and gas industry and not development per se. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

If you own mineral rights that end up beneath a heavily populated area such that you cannot exercise those rights, that becomes an interesting question that I think is at the heart of the issue. I don't think it should be solved by stripping people of their right to sort it out at the ballot box as long as the result is not unconstitutional.

 

[houstonscott]

You would have valid point if the impact of fracking on their own land was contained just to their land only.

Not ONE piece of evidence to believe otherwise. HS

 

[dave1949]

Not ONE piece of evidence to believe otherwise. HS

Nonsense. If you want to have an intelligent conversation you need to stop the asinine denying. There are plenty of examples of harm related to fracking. Are you willing to post the performance bond that covers any fracking-related damages in Denton?

As a distant observer I have the sense that those who voted in Denton are mostly interested in limiting the industrial operations, traffic and noise related to fracking in close proximity to homes, schools, etc. Note that Denton did not ban the continued use of simple drilled oil wells but they did establish a 1200' set back for new drilled wells.

In any case, it isn't my place, the Texas House', or yours to tell the folks in Denton what they should like or not like in their city, or what risks they should accept or not accept. There needs to be very compelling reason to override a voting result. The only reason I see is that there is block of representatives in the Texas house that votes however the Texas Oil & Gas Club tells them to.

 

[Country Geek]

Earlier in this thread some fracking supporters cited Penn State research that seems to indicate that fracing problems are minor or nonexistent. Those studies were paid for by the Marcellus Shale Coalition and were so badly tainted that PSU faculty refused to participate in additional studies, so they came to an end.

Penn State Faculty Snub of Fracking Study Ends Research - Bloomberg Business

some excerpts:

The first study, in 2009, initially failed to disclose its industry funding and was used by lawmakers to kill a state tax on gas drillers

Drilling companies, amid criticism that producing gas by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, damages the environment, are funding university research that at times reaches conclusions that counter the concerns of critics, Bloomberg News reported in July. At least two schools are examining their external relationships after complaints.

The University of Texas at Austin is reviewing a February study on fracking after reports said the professor who led the project is on the board of a gas driller.

plenty more here.

 

[Country Geek]

For the pro-fracking posters who are using the property rights argument, care to share your opinion on forced pooling?

Forced Pooling: When Landowners Can

 

[jix]

Boys, be careful... or OP Creamer will call you left wing neo_luddites. as he did me. Texas is strongly supportive of fracking. But not all Texans are as blantantly Pro OG as creamer is...not even those who think that their ownership of mineral rights will make them rich. I greatly fear that the subsurface water will be forever contaminated..and that will be a catastrophe of biblical proportions.

And fortunately, not all Texans are so heedlessly thoughtless of their neighbors and stupidly self-interested as to support fracking.

 

[Creamer]

Boys, be careful... or OP Creamer will call you left wing neo_luddites. as he did me. Texas is strongly supportive of fracking. But not all Texans are as blantantly Pro OG as creamer is...not even those who think that their ownership of mineral rights will make them rich.

JIX - I did no such thing and am not the OP but that just shows how your mind works.

 

[jix]

JIX - I did no such thing and am not the OP but that just shows how your mind works.

I apologize, Creamer.. It was not you... it was TC Jatco, My error. My mind works fine..but maybe my memory is foggy from all the recent poison in my well water. There is a frack site with in 1.5 km of my well The substance found is type 1 Arsenic. heretofore not present by ICP anayisis.

 

[Creamer]

I apologize, Creamer.. It was not you... it was TC Jatco, My error. My mind works fine..but maybe my memory is foggy from all the recent poison in my well water. There is a frack site with in 1.5 km of my well The substance found is type 1 Arsenic. heretofore not present by ICP anayisis.

if the frack site is 1.5 km from your well does that mean the horizontal portion runs under your property or closer than the 1.5 km? Even if not what is the theoretical mechanism for how fracking could have caused arsenic to enter your water. Although the chemical analysis of fracking fluid is somewhat proprietary to whichever company is doing the fracking they do have to report the contents to the appropriate regulatory body. I cannot imagine any reason to put Arsenic in fracking fluid but I do not know that it hasn't been used. Maybe it somehow caused arsenic already in the ground to get released? How deep is your well versus the horizontal run on the fracked well? Typically the shock is absorbed far below most wells but of course that also varies with substrate structure. I am jsut curious as to what might have caused the problem you have.

 

[jix]

Creamer: Thank you for your post. The substrate every where in this area is either Grey or Red shale. Type 5 arsenic is a naturally occurring chemical in these rocks. Type 1 is not ( they are different isotopes) Niether type is normally water soluable, except in acidic water. My well is 120 feet below grade and it has a high flow rate because it is now an artesian well (water under underground pressure) This well, when drilled 8 years ago flowed at 10 gal per minute and was tested by ICP by the government at ZEro PPM arsenic of either type. Now it flows at 50 gpm and test 457 ppm Arsenic (undrinkable) except if reverse osmotically filtered. The fracking was horizontally drilled right under my property at a depth of 2500 feet from a point on Crown land to yield natural gas, but did not do so. The fracking fluid contained high amounts of sulphuric acid, which dissolves shale and thus liberates arsenic in the shale, and also liberates radon gas. MY well is cased down to 50 feet with 6" dia steel pipe, set into the bedrock by great force by the drilling rig.
The government here could not prove the case.. but they did supply me ex gratia with an RO filter device and a water treatment apparatus. They also pay the cost of operating this gear, which is quite pricey. Now I must buy bottled water for drinking, ten gallons a week at about 4 bucks a 5 gallon jug My next door neighbors well is also contaminated..and it is 500 feet further away. Theoretically, the fracking opened up a deep aquifer that carries water from the nearby (50km) river which has a head about 100 feet higher than my well due to a hydro dam at that height. This water is now in the cracks and has been contaminated with sulphic acid forced into the rocks by the fracking pumps at very high pressures, so the government hydrologist have theorized.
Now fracking is totally banned anywhere in NB, but there are thousands of spoiled wells here now. It is not to be remedied. It is too late. I may weep and wail to no avail...except to pass a warning to others. The O&G lobby will tell lies, cheat and poison us without conscience. That is proven fact. They just want the money.
Before this happened, my property had been Bank appraised at 540,00 dollars. Now it is worth maybe a third of that. Just because of poison water

I appreciate your interest, sir

Jix