Diatribune

In order to get the full picture you will have to click on the links for some background.

Hee hee 

Big Oil sent out their big guns after little old me just because I tried to help Wise County residents understand the truth about Groundwater Conservation Districts--a truth Big Oil does not want us to know.

As I explained in my Op-Ed piece that was published in the Wise County Messenger on February 22nd, and in my diary here: Oil and gas exemption should be eliminated Groundwater Conservation Districts are not going to have ANY control over oil and gas companies because Groundwater Conservation Districts are EXEMPT.

Adam Haynes, Executive Vice President, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners (TIPRO) and Ben Sebree, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) tag teamed me in their Op-Ed response, Oil and gas responds on well issue.  Their response, I'm sure, was vetted by a team of corporate lawyers so the language would be just misleading enough to fool the public but no so misleading as to create any liability.

The beauty of karma and irony is that on the front page of the paper that carried big oil's big gun response to little old me was a story about an injection well failure, State shuts down well, in none other than Wise County.  (Also diaried here with picture)

My response to the big guns was published Wednesday as an opinion piece.

Injection well regulation inadequate

How flattering that two big guns from the oil and gas industry teamed up to respond to my Feb. 22 opinion piece. How ironic that their rebuttal appeared in the same issue that announced the injection well failure in Boyd.

I'm sure that since Mr. Haynes and Mr. Sebree are concerned about the safety of Wise County's water they will want to click over to www.wisedems.org and write letters to the Natural Resources Committee supporting SB 714 which will eliminate oil and gas exemptions.

The fact remains that, according to the Texas Water Code, Section 36.117. EXEMPTIONS; EXCEPTION; LIMITATIONS, oil and gas is exempt from local control even by a groundwater conservation district (GDC). Any compliance by oil and gas would be purely voluntary. Just ask yourself why, if this were not so, there would be pending legislation to do the very thing that oil and gas fears most, eliminate the exemptions.

In regards to the disposal wells, the key sentence is this: "Should an oil and gas operator be found responsible for a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, that operator could be subject to both state and federal enforcement efforts."

Mr. Haynes, Mr. Sebree and I know that the system currently in place is pathetically lacking and easily manipulated. However, in case you need convincing, I know a few people in Panola County who would be more than happy to educate you.

Residents in Panola County can no longer drink or bathe in their water because it was contaminated by a class 2 commercial injection well. Although the contamination was proven in two separate tests by the EPA, in a private company test in a Railroad Commission test, and in several tests taken from the monitoring well at the injection site, one as recently as a week ago, the oil and gas company has required further testing.

Testing water for contaminants is prohibitively expensive and requiring repeated testing is one way the offenders can escape responsibility. "Should an oil and gas operator be found responsible … " Few citizens have pockets deep enough to hold on without water and fight the oil and gas industry's manipulation of the system to prove culpability.

In the meantime, Panola citizens must use the few barrels of water they receive each week for all their water needs.

I sure hope that $100 permit to operate an injection well doesn't cut too deeply into all those hundreds of billions in profit made by the oil and gas industry. I sure feel better knowing about that "thick industrial casing" made of cement that protects our freshwater from contamination, except when it breaks or fails because the chemicals liquefy it.

How is that currently working for Boyd citizens with the recent injection well failure?

Admittedly, I know very little about how often wells are fraced, other than observing the wells I drive by every day and the rigs that move in and out when they are refraced. Because of my ignorance, I sought out one of the biggest names in the oil and gas industry, Halliburton.

From page 7, Petroleum Transfer Council: "These completions averaged 17 fracs per well. This technology is also being used in horizontal wells with Halliburton noting Barnett Shale applications."

The day the oil and gas industry has the ethics to voluntarily monitor itself is the day man has evolved past greed. We aren't there yet.

On Thursday, after my response appeared in the paper, I was contacted by the chair of the planning committee because they "...find the articles  you have writing on Wise water issues informed and current."  They want to meet with me and, of course, I will have to take my guru, Tracy along with me.

Look out Big Oil

I'm coming after you!

Fight 'em on the ice!

Here's the code:

http://tlo2.tlc.stat...

§ 36.117. EXEMPTIONS;  EXCEPTION;
  LIMITATIONS.  (a) A district may exempt wells from the requirement of obtaining a drilling permit, an operating permit, or any other permit required

by this chapter or the district's rules.

  (b)  A district may not require any permit issued by the district for:

  (1)  a well used solely for domestic use or for providing water for livestock or poultry on a tract of land larger than 10 acres that is either drilled, completed, or equipped so that it is incapable of producing more than 25,000 gallons of

groundwater a day;

  (2)  the drilling of a water well used solely to supply water for a rig that is actively engaged in drilling or exploration operations for an oil or gas well permitted by the Railroad Commission of Texas provided that the person holding the permit is responsible for drilling and operating the water well and the well is located on the same lease or field associated with the drilling rig;
  or

  (3)  the drilling of a water well authorized under a permit issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas under Chapter 134, Natural Resources Code, or for production from such a well to

the extent the withdrawals are required for mining activities regardless of any subsequent use of the water.

  (c)  A district may not restrict the production of any well that is exempt from permitting under Subsection (b)(1).

(d)  Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a district may require a well to be permitted by the district and to comply with all district rules if:

  (1)  the purpose of a well exempted under Subsection (b)(2) is no longer solely to supply water for a rig that is actively engaged in drilling or exploration operations for an oil or gas well permitted by the Railroad Commission of Texas;
  or

  (2)  the withdrawals from a well exempted under Subsection (b)(3) are no longer necessary for mining activities or are greater than the amount necessary for mining activities specified in the permit issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas

under Chapter 134, Natural Resources Code.

  (e)  An entity holding a permit issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas under Chapter 134, Natural Resources Code, that authorizes the drilling of a water well shall report monthly to the

district:

  (1)  the total amount of water withdrawn during the month;

  (2)  the quantity of water necessary for mining activities; 

and 

    (3)  the quantity of water withdrawn for other purposes.

  (f)  Notwithstanding Subsection (d), a district may not require a well exempted under Subsection (b)(3) to comply with the spacing requirements of the district.

  (g)  A district may not deny an application for a permit to drill and produce water for hydrocarbon production activities if the application meets all applicable rules as promulgated by the

district.

  (h)  A water well exempted under Subsection (a) or (b) shall:

  (1)  be registered in accordance with rules promulgated by the district;
  and

  (2)  be equipped and maintained so as to conform to the district's rules requiring installation of casing, pipe, and fittings to prevent the escape of groundwater from a groundwater reservoir to any reservoir not containing groundwater and to prevent the pollution or harmful alteration of the character of the water in any groundwater reservoir.

  (i)  The driller of a well exempted under Subsection (a) or

(b) shall file the drilling log with the district.

  (j)  A well to supply water for a subdivision of land for which a plat approval is required by Chapter 232, Local Government Code, is not exempted under Subsection (b).

  (k)  Groundwater withdrawn from a well exempt from permitting or regulation under this section and subsequently transported outside the boundaries of the district is subject to any applicable production and export fees under Sections

36.122 and

36.205.

  (l)  This chapter applies to water wells, including water wells used to supply water for activities related to the exploration or production of hydrocarbons or minerals.
  This chapter does not apply to production or injection wells drilled for

oil, gas, sulphur, uranium, or brine, or for core tests, or for injection of gas, saltwater, or other fluids, under permits issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 933, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1010, § 4.32, eff. Sept. 1,

1997;  Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 239, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; 

Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 966, § 2.51, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

__________________________